This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) at 18:42, 12 August 2013 (Robot: Archiving 1 thread (older than 31d) to User talk:Plot Spoiler/Archive 3.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:42, 12 August 2013 by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) (Robot: Archiving 1 thread (older than 31d) to User talk:Plot Spoiler/Archive 3.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Ways to improve CenTrak
Hi, I'm EagerToddler39. Plot Spoiler, thanks for creating CenTrak!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please improve the neutrality of the article. This phrase is of particular concern. "Through the system, patients are more efficiently managed, staff is more effectively utilized, and assets are more easily located and employed"
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Removal of Seyed, Seyyed, Sayed, Syed, etc from names
Hi,
I have come through several of your edits where you have removed Seyed, Seyyed, Sayed, Syed, etc from names citing the reason that they are prefix/honourifics. Can you point me to specific policy which specifically bans use Seyed, Seyyed, Sayed, Syed, etc in the names because as per my undersatnding & knowledge these are part of names and denote in general that person belongs to sub-set of Hashimite which in turn is subset of Quraysh and specifically to children of Imam Hasan & Imam Husain; further suffix like Husaini, Zaidi, Kazimi, Rizvi, etc also are found showing further distinct lineage branch.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidercs 10:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
activist Scholar
Hello Plot Spoiler, thanks for your contribution. Can you reconsider you posting on the page Majid Rafizadeh. Here are few references for notability by others http://www.france24.com/en/20120831-syria-majid-rafizadeh-kidnap-family-targetted-civil-war-shabiha-opposition-bashar-assad
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/world/meast/syria-shiites
The content is rewritten to meet neutral policies. Advertising language removed by Flat Out. Mediaoutlets (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
It has also been edited by Flat out and Farhikht to remove vandalism. Mediaoutlets (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello Plot Spoiler , I appreciate your contribution. Can you revaluate the issue you posted? Your issue on the page is most likely really hurting and harming the subject's work, job, and life. Would you please either delete the page, which has been there almost two years, immediately, or take other action. Some things you asked for were provided here some ( http://www.france24.com/en/20120831-syria-majid-rafizadeh-kidnap-family-targetted-civil-war-shabiha-opposition-bashar-assad http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/world/meast/syria-shiites http://m.aljazeera.com/story/20135237261364277Remobk (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello Plot Spoiler , the page, Majid Rafizadeh ( human rights activist),that you suggested editting was under vandalism without sources and attacks to the subject and the reason was told that he was labeling iran as theocracy on CNN and other places. The page is protected from vandalism. You suggested editing and as you mentioned, the page was revamped, comprehensively cleaned up by several[REDACTED] editors who are in good standing. Do you mind check if you are available to remove the template since you nominated it? Mediaoutlets (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
deleted content at Iran–United States relations
Hi, Plot Spoiler. I don't want to get into an edit war with you, but I wish you would undo your changes at Iran–United States relations. While you might disagree about the reliability of some of these sources, it is not reasonable to exclude publications like ZMag, the Washington Post, and the LA Times without talk page discussion. Furthermore, I think it's not good witiquette to repeat a mass deletion after someone else has contested it. Please restore this content for now, and we can discuss the individual sources on the article's talk page. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)