User talk:Tasen55

Welcome!

Hello, Tasen55, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Tahseen Jabbary, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kamkek (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Proposed deletion of Tahseen Jabbary


The article Tahseen Jabbary has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article. &#32; The nominator also raised the following concern:
 * We need sources/refrences/stuff about this person!

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Kamkek (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tahseen Jabbary


The article Tahseen Jabbary has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. DanielRigal (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tahseen Jabbary


The article Tahseen Jabbary has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * It is just a list with no context or encyclopaedic content. Reads like a dump of a cv/resume.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DanielRigal (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Tahseen Jabbary for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tahseen Jabbary is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Tahseen Jabbary until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. DanielRigal (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Tahseen Jabbary, you may be blocked from editing. DanielRigal (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Tahseen Jabbary, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DanielRigal (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC) You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You are owed an explanation and then you have to decide
Hi there.

You clearly have a very different idea of what belongs in a Wikipedia article to the rest of us but you are entitled to have the issues clearly explained to you before we start taking further action. This is that explanation. I am a real person typing this, not an automated warning. I want you to understand why your edits keep on getting reverted and give you a chance to decide to be more constructive in future.


 * It is important to understand what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a directory, billboard or a social networking site where you can post whatever you like. It is an encyclopaedia which tries to stick to encyclopaedic standards. I don't mean to be rude, but I have to say that your editing does not currently fit with the ethos of the project. You have only written about one subject, Jabbary, and you seem to have more interest in promoting him than in helping us write an encyclopaedia. If this becomes any more disruptive then you could get blocked permanently. Obviously it would be much better if you changed your behaviour so that this never needs to happen.
 * Neutrality is a core value. Articles must not be written either to promote or disparage the subject. This is particularly true for biographies of living persons, which is what Tahseen Jabbary is.
 * We use reliable sources when we require verifiability, i.e. all the time. We can't use social networking sites like Linkedin as references. Anybody could write anything about themselves on Linkedin. We need independent coverage of a subject. The news coverage of Jabbary is good because it is independent journalism. His agency's biography is poor because it is designed to make him look as good as possible (which is fair enough for an agency but not for an encyclopaedia).

Now I appreciate that you have a specific problem that must be quite annoying. You claim that Jabbary is Dutch but the only reference we can find says that he is Iraqi. That is a problem because we have to stick with what the sources say, even if it is possible that they are mistaken. What you can do is find a reliable, independent reference saying he is Dutch (not his Linkedin or his agency). If you can find that then we can change the article in line with the sources. The reference does not have to be in English.

If you can find something that might help then please use the talk page of the article to discuss it. Remember, there was a consensus not to delete the article when it was proposed for deletion. There are people who want to help improve it. Please help us to do this, rather than just making the article worse by adding claims that we can't verify and removing the details that are verifiable.

I hope you decide to make the right decision.

--DanielRigal (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Tahseen Jabbary, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''I am very disappointed. I made a real effort to try to explain things and to make you see sense but all you do is carry on as before. I fear your time on Wikipedia is coming to an end very soon.'' DanielRigal (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Tahseen Jabbary, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DanielRigal (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Tasen55. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Tahseen Jabbary, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. DanielRigal (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent disruptive editing of various kinds, including repeatedly adding statements with no reliable sources, despite having had it explained that this is unacceptable. When the block expires please try to edit cooperatively, and discuss any controversial edits you may wish to make, otherwise you may be blocked indefinitely. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)