User talk:Plethora12

Welcome!

Hi Plethora12! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) I've been using Wikipedia for so many years and have always wanted to help / be part of the community. There is a LOT to learn so I appreciate the links you shared! Plethora12 (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mahyad Tousi (July 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by SafariScribe were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mahyad Tousi and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Plethora12! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mahyad Tousi has been accepted

Mahyad Tousi, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SafariScribe, thank you for your quick attention – I was under the impression you were on a break from wikipedia so I'm happy to see you're OK!

Could you please help me understand the significant deletions you made? For instance, deleting nearly all of the films and television series that were listed, which had cited reputable sources. I have been reviewing your edits individually but explanations simply labeled "clean up" are not clear to me. If you can share your critiques I can ensure that any further edits I make are compliant.

Additionally, when I do so, I will be copyediting the "Early life and career" section; the new copy does not make sense ("an entertainment based company helping contents related to the Middle East" and "an accelerator program industry").

Please advise, thanks! Plethora12 (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(For context, Tousi's business partner's page goes into quite some detail about their shared business's projects: see Reza Aslan, "Business ventures" section.) Plethora12 (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Plethora12, you might want to read WP:BURDEN for improved familiarity. Welp, avoid overloading an article with unnecessary details, especially if they lack references, only focus on the main accomplishments of the subject. However, your draft (now article) has instances where the same citations are used multiple times as if they were different sources. If he produced films, list them under "filmography" (which is typically a list of films), see MOS:SECTIONS.

To your enquiry, I removed unnecessary and repeated and duplicate or non existing referenced words to help it meet the standards for acceptance. Whenever you're writing, make sure that what you are writing fits the subject matter—for instance, a section about a writer should focus on writing-related achievements right? and should be supported by reliable sources. It seems you might not be familiar with what constitutes a reliable source. Although it can sometimes be contentious, but for me, national newspapers, magazines, books, and journals are generally reliable (I'd check the content except generally unreliable sources including blogs, social media or users generated sources) especially if they have their own Wikipedia articles. We usually check the "editorial policy" and trust publishers that provide bylines and follow editorial standards.

When editing, also avoid puffery and always consult words to avoid. Before writing or creating a draft, especially about a living person, browse relevant topics first. By reading the linked pages, you'll understand why I made those changes before accepting. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the Filmography section.

I'm glad you agree that national newspapers and magazines are generally reliable. A few sources in your deleted sections are reputable publications, according to WP:Verifiability's criteria: The Ringer, HuffPost. Not protesting, just letting you know in case you're not familiar.

Re: citing the same source twice – I linked the source of each piece of information, so if two pieces of information came from the same source, I'll make sure the "re-use" citation feature is being utilized. Plethora12 (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Plethora12, I think you are giving me the impression of not reading the Wikipedia links I advised you to. In my first removal are Hollywood reporter's article about Starfish, which was even about the selection and not about the company. I considered it as unreliable and adding unnecessary weight. I refilled the articles of Interview instead of refusing them as you did. The advocacy is promotional and sourced to a interview, hence my removal. IMDb and Popcollab.org aren't reliable. Then, the starfish article is an WP:UNDUE addition of a company that should not have been in the biography. Are you sustained? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]