User talk:Saff V./Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Template:Did you know nominations/Electro Man

Saff V., were you planning to return to your review for this DYK nomination? If not, please let me know, so I can call for a new reviewer. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I answered your request in the DYK page.Saff V. (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Vote for Muhammad

Talk:Muhammad#RFC for opening sentence in the lede Please vote. 92slim (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC) 92slim (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Narration by court

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Narration by court, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a foreign language article that was copied and pasted from another Wikimedia project, or was transwikied out to another project. Please see Wikipedia:Translation to learn about requests for, and coordination of, translations from foreign-language Wikipedias into English.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

2016 Saudi Arabia mass execution

Thank you so, so much for finding the names. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Songs of Iranian Revolution

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Songs of Iranian Revolution requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Homafaran allegiance

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Homafaran allegiance requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

Your recent editing history at Dawning of the new age shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Songs of Iranian Revolution for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Songs of Iranian Revolution 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Songs of Iranian Revolution 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Island of Stability for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Island of Stability 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Island of Stability 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Ruhollah Khomeini's letter to Mikhail Gorbachev

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Fajr decade

An article that you have been involved in editing—Fajr decade —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Iran and Red and black colonization for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Iran and Red and black colonization 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran and Red and black colonization 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Guadeloupe conference

Hello! Your submission of Guadeloupe conference at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Saff V, since the problems involve the need for a major copyedit, I'd like to suggest you make a request immediately at WP:GOCE/REQ. They're doing a one-week blitz, working on outstanding requests, and you may be able to get this reviewed this week if you hurry. If you wait, it will probably take much longer to get it done. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for America can't do a damn thing against us

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Guadeloupe Conference

Hello SaffV: The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Guadeloupe conference has been completed. I have noted that one of the article's statements requires a citation. I scanned the citation provided and I don't feel that it supports the sentence as it stands - especially since you use the word "historians" implying more than one has made the claim. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind regards, Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Guadeloupe Conference

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eghtedar-e Velayat (war game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maneuver. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Your contributed article, United States eavesdropping

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, United States eavesdropping. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present) – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Iran and Red and black colonization

Hello! Your submission of Iran and Red and black colonization at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK

Hello! Your submission of Kashf al-Asrar at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK

Hello! Your submission of Going to Tehran at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Going to Tehran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kissinger. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Too many copy-editing requests

You have placed four copy-editing requests on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests page. The limit is three. Can you please remove one? Once one of your requests has been completed, you may add another. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Iran and Red and Black Colonization

Hello Saff V.: The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Iran and Red and Black Colonization has been completed. I did my best to try to decipher some sections of the article so please read it carefully to make sure I have not made mistakes. Since some of the references were in Arabic, which I do not understand, I could not check them to be sure what I thought the article intended was correct.

One thing I noticed was that the Wikipedia article on Ettela'at says the article was published on January 6th. So the correct date needs to be verified and one or other article corrected.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards, Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK issues with the article

Saff V.: now that the GOCE copyedit has been completed, the review of your DYK nomination has resumed, and there are still issues remaining with the article as written. These need to be addressed soon if you wish to continue with the nomination. Please stop by. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Family tree of Ali

An article that you have been involved in editing—Family tree of Ali —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 84.13.126.205 (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Kashf al-Asrar

Hello! Your submission of Kashf al-Asrar at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Agha Zia Addin Araghi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arak. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for your determination and dedication to help the encyclopedia grow. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

Editor Happy Squirrel submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Editor Saff V. to be Editor of the Week for his tireless work on topics related to Islam. Saff V. is a prolific content creator with 13 DYKs since he started in June 2015. More than 3/4 of their roughly 5000 edits are to article space, but they have nonetheless also contributed to a wide variety of namespaces. However, what has always struck me the most about Saff V. is their civility and willingness to learn. I had the privilege of reviewing one of their first creations at AfC and our interractions remain some of the best I have had on Wikipedia. They have also edited civilly and within policy in an area that is often very controversial. We are all lucky to have someone with the talent and enthusiasm of Saff V. in our midst.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Saff V.

The Koran

Editor of the Week for the week beginning April 17, 2016

works on Islam related articles. 13 DYKs since June 2015. Has civility and a willingness to learn.

Recognized for

Maintaining professional demeanor in a controversial arena

Nomination page

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk 14:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations! Very well deserved. Happy Squirrel (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mohammad Bagheri (Iranian commander)

The article Mohammad Bagheri (Iranian commander) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

the article is not important

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Reza Amper (talk) 07:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Mohammad Bagheri (Iranian commander) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mohammad Bagheri (Iranian commander) 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Bagheri (Iranian commander) 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Reza Amper (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Narjis

Hello! Your submission of Narjis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mhhossein (talk) 04:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Kashf al-Asrar

On 28 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kashf al-Asrar, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Kashf al-Asrar (The Unveiling of Secrets) was written by Ruhollah Khomeini to answer the criticisms of Shia Islam published in a pamphlet titled The Thousand-Year Secrets? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kashf al-Asrar. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Kashf al-Asrar), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Narjis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page African. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Narjis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kohlberg. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Narjis

On 11 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Narjis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Narjis converted to Islam on the request of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Fatimah, the daughter of Muhammad, whom she saw in her dreams? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Narjis. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Narjis), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mulla Muhammad Mahdi Naraqi, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Central district and Mulla. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of 2016 state of emergency in Venezuela

Hello! Your submission of 2016 state of emergency in Venezuela at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! CeeGee 05:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for 2016 state of emergency in Venezuela

On 4 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2016 state of emergency in Venezuela, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the U.S. was accused by President Maduro of provoking a covert coup against his government in Venezuela's state of emergency? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2016 state of emergency in Venezuela. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 2016 state of emergency in Venezuela), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Fadl ibn Rabi'ah

Saff V., the nominator has responded to your review, but you may not have been pinged because the response neglected to include a sig (pings don't work if the post wasn't signed). Please return as soon as possible to continue the review. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Famous verses in the Quran for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Famous verses in the Quran 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous verses in the Quran 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Saff V.. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Please revert your revert on the People's Mujahedin of Iran page

Saff V., on account of People's Mujahedin of Iran's page restriction, you cannot revert a revert, as you've done here. Kindly self-revert. Notifying El_C. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

That's right...I would do a self revert. You can keep on discussing the case on the article talk page. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

O.K I did it!Saff V. (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Haweye7, Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on recent books covering the world wars

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of massacre against Hazara people

Hello, Saff V.. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of massacre against Hazara people".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (📧) 07:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Saff V.. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance. so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to New Page Patrol!

Welcome, Saff V. to the New Page Patrol team. Congratulations on receiving the New Page Patrol user permission and on becoming a part of the patroller community. Our mission is to accurately, rather than quickly, handle the new articles which are created. As you begin to patrol it's natural to have lots of questions. Feel free to ask on my talk page or ask for thoughts in the New Page Patroller IRC channel #wikimedia-npp connect or on our Discord server (invite link). We also regularly discuss issues and topics surrounding New Page Patrolling at the NPP discussion page and I would invite you to join us there. If you have any questions please feel free to ask me. I hope you find NPP as rewarding as I do and, again, welcome to the community. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Research Stash, Saff V..

ToThAc has gone over this page again and marked it as unpatrolled. Their note is:

There are a few more issues that need identifying.

Please contact ToThAc for any further query. Thanks.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

ToThAc (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@ToThAc: I really tried to follow WikiLove, but the article has consisted of two sentences without any sources. That was like an advertisement. So I decided to delete it immediately but after a while, the creator picked up the tag by adding some sources and made me leave a comment to explain to him that picking up the tag specifically deletion tag by a creator of an article is a violation. Because of this, reviewing the article did not do completely. Regards!Saff V. (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Somayeh Mohammadi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Somayeh Mohammadi 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somayeh Mohammadi (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

New message from Winged Blades of Godric (AWB)

Hello, Saff V.. You have new messages at WP:RX#Iran at War: 1500-1988.
Message added 13:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please insert {{resolved}} at the end of the section, if you have can access the requested resource(s) or else provide the sought clarifications. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

It is done!Saff V. (talk) 06:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Mario Ćuže

Hello Saff V.. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mario Ćuže, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: playing for a club in a fully professional league is a claim that meets WP:NFOOTY. Thank you. SoWhy 07:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Marcella May

Hello Saff V.. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Marcella May, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: winning two iterations of a notable championship indicates signficance . Thank you. SoWhy 07:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Peacemaker67 look at Italian, German and Australian forces in World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Peacemaker67 look at Italian, German and Australian forces in World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Iranian politics general sanctions notice

Please read this notification carefully: it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions to curtail disruption in articles related to post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. Before continuing to make edits that involve this topic, please read the full description of these sanctions here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Chetsford (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Only warning and sanction

If you edit war again on People's Mujahedin of Iran, no matter what the reason is, you will be blocked from editing, immediately and without further notice. Also, you are not to revert that article, at all, for at least one week. Next time, please heed the warnings or the sanctions are going to be much more heavy-handed. El_C 18:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@El C:It is true that I said proposed text by Stefka was suitable but I stressed that other users' opinion was needed. Without waiting for other opinions, Stefka edited the article. My opinion was never changed and my revert was not the Edit war. Of course, I try to be more clear. When I see that the user did not correctly pay attention to my comment and edited the article based on what he guessed, was not it allowed to revert?Saff V. (talk) 04:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Not when I ask for the edit war to cease, no. El_C 07:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@El C:Yes you are right, you wared us to prevent Edit war, but It didn't seem to me reverting to longstanding Version when users did not get my mean, can be Edit war. I reverted it to that version up to consequence would be gained. As I am trying to improve that article without disruptive contact, I have to say that edit was not done by the aim of Edit war, Anyway I apologize.Saff V. (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Saff V.,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion

• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
• Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the legacy of World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Anan Lestaluhu

I already add the lead to Anan Lestaluhu. Can I remove the tag now? I forgot to remove =Anan Lestaluhu= tag. Wira rhea (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

definitely Yes !Saff V. (talk) 05:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Wira rhea (talk) 05:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Aftab (sunshine)

Please explain to me how this edit isn't a violation of WP:NOR and WP:V. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: before press publish change button, I forgot to check to be sure that this source is there. I thought the source to be there because it might be the Chelcheragh operation had been referred to it. Of course, (before I added it to lead), Aftab operation had been also used on the body of the article, which had the source. Excuse me anyway, I have to be more careful.Saff V. (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

You do realise the first of those sources is an opinion piece, and the second is a testimonial? Meaning that neither of them are reliable for anything other than the author's opinion? Vanamonde (Talk) 14:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: if I were aware about their reliability, I never took them to RSN.I really didn’t know they are not reliable.Saff V. (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, keep it in mind. A critical part of what makes a source reliable is whether there is some sort of editorial oversight independent of the author. Most news sources have editors; most academic papers have peer review; books from good publishers have the publisher's editorial staff. Opinion pieces don't have that. They are reliable for the authors views, but only occasionally reliable for factual information, and that only when the authors themselves are notable/reliable commentators. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Timeline of computing 2020–29

Hello Saff V.. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Timeline of computing 2020–29, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I can't imagine how the context could be any clearer, and similar timelines are linked at the bottom of the page Thank you. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Saff V., I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Chetsford (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Reply

I am blocked indefinitely from Arabic Wikipedia because my username indicates that I am from a place (Shara'b As Salam District) which is not acceptable in their policies.. Thanks for your work in Persian Wikipedia!. I am really grateful of your work.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Warning

Saff V., In this and this edit, you removed a reliable source and well-sourced statements from the Ruhollah Khomeini article. Please stop or you'll be reported. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: - Pray explain to me about how Amir Taheri's or Marvin Yakos' self-published work is a RS. I am inches away from dragging you to AE for a TBan. ∯WBG^converse 12:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: When Saff V. pointed out that the Xulon publication was self-published (which I didn't know when I included the source in the article), then I removed the source. As for the Adler & Adler publication, as far as I know, that's not a self-published source. Both sources were used to support the following statement:

"One of Khomeini's first acts when he took power was to lower the age of marriage from eighteen to nine years old for girls, and down to fifteen years old for boys. Khomeini told the Muslim faithful that marrying a girl before she begins menstruation was a “divine blessing.” “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” These new laws also encourage polygamy and prevented women from leaving abusive husbands."

In addition to those two sources, I also included the following sources to support that statement (and, as far as I can see, they are not self-published):

• "Under Khomeini, child marriage was allowed once more, with the age of marriage being reduced from 18 to nine for girls (revised, after protests, to 13) and 15 for boys. New laws encourage polygamy and prevented women from leaving abusive husbands. The husband’s right of unilateral divorce was reinstated. New policies encouraged temporary marriage as ‘morally sanctioned substitute for Western dating’, with trial ‘sigheh’ marriages recommended for high-school students, and sex workers being invited to enter short-term marriage contracts with returning war veterans."I.B. Tauris

• "Khomeini called marriage to a girl before her first menstrual period “a diving blessing,” and he advised the faithful: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” This practice continues to this day, despite the severe injuries girls often incur from early intercourse and childbirth. Encounter Books

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Saff V.,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 803 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

• It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
• It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

• Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
• Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Baha Abu al-Ata.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Baha Abu al-Ata.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Barkeep49. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Bridge21, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Saff - I didn't intentionally unreview this page you had done. I had been looking at reviews of someone who was doing UPE and grew alarmed when I saw a crypto related topic. So sorry about that. But I am skeptical, after having now looked into it, that this is a notable topic. What did you find that led you to mark it reviewed? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Saff V.. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is WP:RX.
Message added 17:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

——SN54129 17:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Women in the Quran

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Women in the Quran has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Puah Rakovsky

Hi @Saff V.: I am contributing to Wikipedia Asia Month and also combining it with the Women in Red campaign. I have been writing a biographical article on Puah Rakovsky and she was a 19th century feminist. The references I have tagged are from journals and libraries and the person is notable. Can you review the references once again and help me understand why you think the article lacks notability? Thanks!--Parul Thakur (talk) 10:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@ParulThakur:, Thanks for the description and creating the article. Yes, the used sources seem to be independent and credible, but they are all sources belongs to Jewish. I wonder if you try adding some neutral sources to the article?Saff V. (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Why

Why did you add a notable tag ?? Bivash Maji (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bivashmaji: which article?Saff V. (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Women's rights in Iran

Hi Saff V., I should tell you there was a sizeable copyright violation in the article and much of its history has been revision deleted. Some of the text was directly copied from copyrighted sources and because of earlier rev-deletions, I couldn't pinpoint the editor responsible. Since you're a prolific editor there, please report any further copyvios you might detect to an administrator and ask for revdel of the relevant material. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: I really appreciate for efforts, the article definitely looks much better. I thought the article could suffer from copyvio, Do you investigate this issue during doing copy edit? As well as did you removed the unrelated content of the article? Saff V. (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Iran Action Group

The article Iran Action Group has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't seem notable enough for stand-alone page. Simply warrants mention on United States withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran–United States relations, etc. Loksmythe (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Loksmythe (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Iran Action Group for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Iran Action Group 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran Action Group until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. Loksmythe (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Stop

Please stop deleting sourced material. You are violating Wikipedia rules this.I'll have to report you if this is continued. Alex-h (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Arthistorian1977. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Puja Sharma, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed

Hello, Saff V.

Thank you for creating Funeral of Qasem Soleimani.

User:Prof tpms, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good work

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Prof tpms}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Prof TPMS (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Saff V.

Thank you for creating Funeral of Qasem Soleimani.

User:Prof tpms, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good work

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Prof tpms}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Prof TPMS (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Saff V.,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Iran, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. MS 会話 15:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Really, a uw-disruptive1 template? You couldn't just take a few minutes to write out what the actual problem is? El_C 15:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

And you did it twice, I see above. These are not what these warning templates are for, Ms96. That is not how content disputes are resolved. El_C 15:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear User:El_C, I understand your concerns but please also check other edits by this user, on 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak for instance. Also, have you forgotten this user's lies whose mother tongue is Persian? MS 会話 15:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Ms96 blocked for personal attacks. El_C 15:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know which edits of me would be disruptive. @El C: I have to report that the blocked user accused me to be connected with Iran's government that is the subject of casting aspersions.Saff V. (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing from certain pages (People's Mujahedin of Iran and Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Vanamonde (Talk) 17:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I've warned you several times about the need to edit collaboratively at the page about the MEK. While none of the editors there have demonstrated particularly good behavior, your edit warring over content that did not have consensus, and your inability or unwillingness to understand the page restrictions, suggest you need a break from that page. When you reported another editor to ANEW, you were reminded that the article had a consensus required restriction; then you chose to violate it anyway, with some extremely wiki-lawyerish arguments on the talk page. Please demonstrate an ability to work constructively and collaboratively on other related articles, otherwise I will likely expand this block to a topic-ban. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Saff V. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Yes, I should have observed the consensus required and I really did in previous cases. Also, please review ALL of MY edits on 19 February in MEK. Ypatch was roll backing all my changes. Some of them were removal of duplicated things. I promise to be more careful about observing this restriction and give me another chance. Please take a look at my constructive contributions. Indef block for the first time during my editing history was very sever here Saff V. (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is generally inappropriate. See WP:GAB; you are expected to talk about your inappropriate actions, not those of other editors. You can demonstrate constructive contributions and the ability to resolve disputes by editing other articles appropriately for a period of time, then requesting this block be re-reviewed. Yamla (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I will let another admin judge this unblock request, but in opinion Saff V. will benefit from a break from People's Mujahedin of Iran. The violation of the restriction was the straw that broke the camel's back, as far as I am concerned. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Note that the indef block is only from editing the named articles, you can still edit other articles freely. 331dot (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: What is the difference between me and they? I ask for change the indef block to temporary period such as others.Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 06:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

What's different is that you are now partially blocked after being under a brief restriction previously. I am evaluating the block in front of me. You need to do as you have been asked, "Please demonstrate an ability to work constructively and collaboratively on other related articles". 331dot (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Ms96. I noticed that you recently removed content from 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Iran without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You wrongfully deleted correct, cited info in this edit. Further disruptive edits will not be tolerated. MS 会話 16:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ms96 , You just with 220 edits in English Wikipedia need to study wiki policies more carefully. I explained my reason for removing the material in edit summary "is n't supported by the source". But you reverted it with no reason. You have to know that only mentioning "disruptive edit" is n't enough. The WP:REVEXP asked editors to provide a valid and informative explanation for reverting. I started a discussion and gave more explanations in the article's TP.Saff V. (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde, I'm recommending that this ongoing block be temporarily extended to protect references to the People's Mujahedin of Iran in other articles (such as, currently, at 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Iran (where Saff V is again edit-warring [1] to remove sourced material after being advised not to last month by MS, see above), and perhaps even more broadly, per your discretion, against the removal of any sourced section in any Iran-related article.--2601:444:380:8C00:359D:C736:4319:AD76 (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC) <just.another.IP.user>

Something goes wrong here.A know how IP failed to add materials from the website of NCR (MEK). I am blocked from editing the MEK page.Saff V. (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Saff V., the comment by the IP is disingenuous and I'm going to ignore it, but edits like this one concern me somewhat; the source you removed was not an opinion piece (ie, it was reliable) and therefore it probably deserved a talk page discussion. The edit before that [2] is also concerning; the material you removed was similar to that of a different paragraph, but it was presented very differently, and you also removed a source. I'm going to let another admin deal with your unblock request, but you really need to tread more carefully, because as far as I am concerned you're getting closer to a TBAN from Iranian topics. For the avoidance of doubt, "tread more carefully" means discussing contentious material, not edit-warring when discussion is ongoing, and explaining every edit clearly and completely. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: For this edit I just followed WP:BRD, which doesn't ask to start a discussion for the first step, it just says to be BOLD! In addition, this case seems to me like this one which we decided to remove it. As I wrote in the edit summary, the material was problematic not the source. For this edit, You are an admin and are more familiar with policies. I am sure you don't want this minor view occupies spaces of the article which make undue weight issue. You warn me to be Tban because I removed this detail "inside a hospital showing footage of multiple body bags piling up" while the important aspect of that news ( the death number in Iran is much higher or arresting him) is repeated in other sections of article related to Ahwaze. I just followed WP:BRD.Saff V. (talk) 09:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Saff V. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was asked to practice collaboration with other editors.I tried to work with editors. For instance, see my contributions to this page. I opened some talk page discussions and tried to resolve the disputes.Saff V. (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Look, your partial block is not going to be lifted until you are able to demonstrate (with deeds not words) that you are able to edit in the IPOL topic area, for a sustained amount of time, without similar problems occuring otherwise. So please stop asking. It's an exercise in futility at this point to do so. Thanks and good luck. El_C 17:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Reviewing admin, please see my comment above. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Wish you safety and health

Dear fellow editor. The world is struggling to stay safe from the harms of a some tens of nano-meters sized virus. I wish you and your dear ones full safety from the dangers of this unilateral love! Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Thanks, Take care of your health!Saff V. (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

GOCE review of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Iran

Please note that I left a few comments about issues beyond the scope of my copy edits on the article's talk page. Regards, Tdslk (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban from Iranian politics

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic-banned from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed, for 1 year.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the community-authorized discretionary sanction in this area. Please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means.

You may appeal this sanction at any time either to me personally or to the administrator noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Saff V., I'm sorry to do this, because I think you've made a genuine effort to treat Wikipedia less like a battleground, but given the string of previous warnings and the one previous sanction, your response here leaves me little choice. Among several other things, the largest problem is that you added content stating in Wikipedia's voice that US sanctions on Iran are illegal, when the source you used made it clear that that was the view of the Iranian government; and when I asked you about that diff, you didn't acknowledge your mistake, even though it had been explicitly pointed out above. This TBAN is for a year, but it could be shorter, if you work in other areas and show that you can write in a policy-compliant way. I think working in an area where you don't have strong feelings would be good for you, and in time you can return to this topic with a clearer perspective. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: This was not deliberate editing,you are right that I had to add the attribution for it. I admit my mistake. But please note that how I can do it purposefully while I always have been worried about attribution in edits (for example, 1, 2, 3, 4. Please take a look at my positive edits in Wikipedia and give me another chance, 1 year ban is not fair.Saff V. (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. I appreciate your willingness to admit a mistake, but that's not much use if you can't recognize the problems before they happen. I did give you a chance, when I asked you to explain the three worst diffs; but you didn't recognize the problem then. And you've had more than your share of warnings. You have the option of appealing this to WP:AN if you so choose, but I'd recommend that you find a couple of other areas you are interested in, and get more experience building content in an area where you don't have such strong feelings. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Requesting copy edit support

Hi,

Season's greetings

I am looking for proactive copy edit support/input help any of the following (So far neglected subjects) articles. If you can't spare time but if you know any good references you can note those on talk pages.

• Draft:Islamic advice literature

Your user ID was selected randomly (for sake of neutrality) from related other articles changes list related to Islam

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello Saff V.,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

• A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
• A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
• Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

OR

I see you added the primary sources tag to Shia view of Aisha. That article is also not NPOV as it doesn't give any space to Fatwa of Ali Khamenei against insulting revered Sunni figures. I think most of the article might need to be WP:TNT-d.VR _talk 01:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Saff V.,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Education in Islam

I noticed you created the article Education in Islam. What was the intended scope of the article? Was it "Islamic views of education"? What is the state of education in the Muslim world? I think the narrow topic of "Islamic views of education" is better because it is narrower and the article can remain focused.VR _talk 19:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I apologize for the delay in responding. My mean is "Islamic views of education". I don't think changing the title of the article is the right thing to do. It is better that the suggested title by you could be redirected. According to Wikipedia rules, the title that has seen more on Google search results is the original title and the rest of the title would be redirected.Saff V. (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Talk:Education in Islam where Eperoton also disagreed with my proposal to change the article name.VR _talk 19:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Shia eschatology

Hello, Saff V.. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Shia eschatology".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

این نشان برای شما!

	نشان نویسنده
	Amirsara (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Saff V.. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Mz7 (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Saff V. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I got blocked in April 2020 from editing the MEK and articles related to Iran's politic. from that time, I have tried to behave as the warning you mentioned and stopped any edits which violate the warning(such as it). I am an experienced user and many users appreciated my efforts on Wikipedia (the last one) then there will be no reason for me to pose a risk to my user, while I knew that the ban will be removed by passing a year. As you know I haven't edited since long ago because of illness and I will not be able to activate soon. But I can't stand my account being blocked for no convincing reason. it is really a silly idea to create a suspected account for me because my account is very old and valuable.

I used the "summery" phrase 3 years ago to mention something about "edit summary" while Ghazaalch didn't use that phrase for this mean. I use the "pick up" phrase as a substitution for "remove" but Vanamonde told me that does not convey the meaning. from that time I stopped using the phrase (if it is needed, I can send that diff). About the rest of the reasons, there are many other active users on the Mek article who have similar ideas such as Stefka, Barca. Can we accused them of suspected sock puppets because they have the same ideas or POV? Similar pov is not enough. Another clear point is the time when I was active in Wikipedia. If compare over time you will notice that the pattern of my edit time is so different from that user.(me and Ghazaalch)

if you check our logs, I often edited political articles, while Ghazaalch is focused on Shia ones. Therefore, while I was only limited to editing political articles, I was able to edit religious articles with my current user and there was no reason to establish a new one. @El C: I wonder if you mention your opinion as an active and experienced admin in the MEK article.Saff V. (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Accept reason:

After reviewing this case further, I have decided to unblock Saff V. and Ghazaalch.

The technical evidence here is relatively inconclusive: we can only conclude from the CU data that the editors are editing from the same country. Additionally, one user has only edited from a desktop computer in the last three months and the other only from a phone.

The behavioral idiosyncrasies highlighted in the SPI were initially convincing to me and apparently several other editors. However, after more holistically examining the writing style of the two editors, I found that there are sufficient dissimilarities to raise doubt as to whether the editors are the same user. Specifically, Mhhossein correctly points out that Ghazaalch's command of the English language appears to be stronger than Saff V.'s. You can find a few examples of this in Saff V.'s talk page archives, e.g. [3][4]. Compared with Ghazaalch, it does feel like they are different users [5][6]. In light of these concerns, it seems to me that the behavioral similarities highlighted in the SPI were merely coincidental, and I think the possibility should be seriously entertained that Ghazaalch's is another editor who merely has the same editing interests and viewpoints as Saff V.

To Saff V., please accept my sincere apologies for having made this erroneous block. Welcome back, and if you have any questions, please feel free to ask me on my user talk page. Mz7 (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Blablubbs and Mz7: I was really astonished to see such a strong conclusion was made based on some trivial clues. Saff V is a reputable user and has done a lot of valuable edits to Wikipedia. Hence I believe there are much more evidences proving they are not the same. Just look at their languages; Though they are both non-native, Ghazaalch has a better grasp on English language. I think the "pick up" and "summery" items were well explained by Ghazaalch on their talk page. Saff V is not a new user and I believe sockpuppetry seems like the silliest solution for resolving his ban or block. Moreover, Oshwah's investigations did not end up with a concrete evidence except that they are "in the same geolocation and very wide range". Needless to mention that they have different time cards and editing behavior. Moreover, I believe El C's comment may also be determining here given his experience. I think the least thing we can say here is the case needs an in depth investigation and we should not rely on the superficial items presented in the SPI case. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I hope you're back soon

I just realized you're sick and can not edit any longer. It's not a good news for me and for the Wikipedia and I hope you're back very soon, healthy and happy. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Best wishes for a speedy recovery from me, too. Sorry I wasn't around to help with the socking allegation and block, but glad to see it got resolved favourably. Hoping to be back soon to comment more substantively. Take care. El_C 15:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Military operations of the Iran–Iraq War for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Military operations of the Iran–Iraq War 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military operations of the Iran–Iraq War until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article.

Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 21:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainEek:

I have been blocked in the last few days. You recognized me as alternative account for users that i don’t know them at all. Can I ask you about evidence that made you sure?! Based on which evidence you blocked me?!Thanks

Sorry, didn't see your message because you didn't sign it so the ping didn't go through. Convincing private evidence was found. If you wish your block appealed, I suggest you appeal to the Arbitration Committee via email (as a member, I will recuse from this case of course). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Unveiling of Secrets.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Unveiling of Secrets.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)