User talk:Sjb72

Here because I deleted your article? Read through this first to find out why.

If you do leave me a message I will generally respond here, unless you want me to reply elsewhere.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 14 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hey, hope you're doing well, i contacted you to seek advice on that article, so the User who nominated that article for speedy deletion twice, and you declined them because the article establishes credibility, and needs to be discussed first locally before deleting it. That same user holds special Administrative privileges on ckbwiki and wants to speedy delete the article; he actually did and i undeleted the article and started a discussion with them on their talk page, i have tried to persuade them not to delete the article and first establish a local deletion discussion so the local community decides on that, but he insists on doing so,
My question is, if they end up speedy deleting the article anyway, would it be a plausible remedy to raise the case to ckbwiki's local Arbcom? or i should drop it and let this one go? —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I had a look at the discussion, and had to rely on a translation program, so it is probable that there is mistranslations. One bit at the end that i think is what you said (following my reasoning for declining speedy deletion the second time):

> "This is what the administrator of Wikipedia says that the value has been established and cannot be deleted by copyright."

I would like to make it very clear that copyright violations must be removed immediately, either by deletion of the text, or (if there will be nothing of value left after reversion) speedy deletion.

As for what you should do, I would suggest improving the article (and remove copyright violations). If there are lots of suitable references out there that establish notability, add them. Don't wait for someone else to do that. As for Arbcom, I would see that as a last resort. Instead, go to the administrator help desk and ask for their advice on what to do. For politeness, I would also let the other admin know that you are seeking advice on how to resolve this before it results in an edit war. Stephen! ^Coming... 05:46, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

is that a Google translation? if it is, it got 90% of the conversation Wrong for you, i suggest you use Gemini Translation, it is decades ahead of Google Translate, because it does not do Literal translation, translates things with Context and chooses the right words. Sorry for all that, i translated the Discussion for you, you can check if there is any copyright violation at all : ) —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 06:31, 1 August 2026 (UTC) ==== translated discussion ====Reply toolReply

Sakura emad — 10:22, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
Hello @Pirehelokan, thank you for your contributions to deletions and your reactivation as an administrator. To be honest, I restored the article because it cannot be deleted under the Criteria for Speedy Deletion (CSD) and does not fall under its criteria. It should be deleted through Articles for Deletion (AfD). We are currently setting it up via Twinkle: see Village Pump. Previously, an AfD discussion was held once—see Jamil Ali article deletion discussion, which you participated in as well—and the article on Abdollah Abdi can only be deleted through that process. {Many thanks} —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk)
Sakura emad — 10:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
I believe you yourself opened an Articles for Deletion discussion on English Wikipedia! Because over there as well, they stated it does not fall under the speedy deletion criteria. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk)
Pirehelokan — 18:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
@Sakura emad:, thanks for the ping. Please take an hour of your time and tell me, according to en:Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Verifiability, how many reliable secondary sources online or offline can be found that discuss this living person? Certainly close to zero. What the English Wiki did has nothing to do with our community. Over there, they didn't tag it for speedy deletion because the article had been sitting there for a few months unnoticed, so they tagged it for deletion proposal/discussion (AfD). Furthermore, most users there don't understand the language of the sources and lack expertise in the subject. Most of those sources are not about the person. This is Wiki-spamming. Pirehelokan (talk)
Pirehelokan — 15:25, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
@Sakura emad:, I am waiting for your reply. You reverted another admin's administrative action without discussion. Then, after reverting, you wrote here that the article does not fall under CSD criteria. I don't care that there was more than a week after the tag was placed on the article to express objection—and you could have discussed it before reverting my action—but now explain to me why the article shouldn't be deleted according to CSD (speedy deletion). Thanks. Pirehelokan (talk)
Sakura emad — 16:06, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
Kak Pirehelokan, it's true that an administrative action shouldn't be reverted without discussion, but now I've come to discuss it with you and tell you that it doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria because it has sources asserting notability. Whether it fully establishes notability or not is decided through an AfD discussion. A single admin cannot make an absolute decision on an article that doesn't fall under CSD for non-notability—that is the policy :) What's your rush? We will activate AfD soon, and you can discuss it there. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk)
Pirehelokan — 16:26, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
I'm not rushing. It had the CSD tag for a week and you all said nothing. If I seem to be rushing now, it's because this is a biography of a living person (BLP). Please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons alongside the English version. Besides, where are its sources? Just having four numbers listed at the bottom of an article doesn't make them sources. None of those websites mention the claims made inside the article. None of those so-called sources are directly about the person. Do you even recognize those sources? How can we write someone's biography with such sources? What happened to reliable and secondary sources? Fine, let me say you don't know Persian, but you know English—where is the New York Times article about this person? Or how can that Middle East Eye article serve as a standard for a biography? What English Wiki said about why it shouldn't be CSD is because the article was old. Other Wikis are not a standard. If other Wikis were a standard, how come it was deleted on Persian Wiki where all users recognize the sources? Pirehelokan (talk)
Sakura emad — 16:33, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
Kak Pirehelokan, even if your points about the sources are correct, you cannot unilaterally make a decision on an article that claims reliable sources and has listed a dozen references. If you are in a huge rush and want it deleted right now, I can open an AfD discussion for you right now, ping the core community users, and you can discuss its deletion there—I have no problem with that? —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk)
Sakura emad — 17:16, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
Also, I forgot to answer one thing: you say the CSD tag has been on it for a week and you all did nothing, as if I neglected it. Whereas if you read the first message I sent you above, it becomes clear to you that I intentionally left all those articles that don't fit CSD criteria alone while we set up AfD. That means either you didn't pay attention to what I said, or you don't understand what I mean when I talk about deletion discussions (AfD). : ) —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk)
Pirehelokan — 19:12, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
@Sakura emad:, there are two issues here.
Reverting my administrative action without discussion, which I did not expect from an experienced user who is an admin.
The issue of speedy deletion. I have nothing to say on that, because policies are clear, and what I did was according to the guidelines I mentioned above. What the article author did is called en:Wikipedia:No original research and had Wikipedia:Verifiability issues; the life story of that person wasn't in any of the sources, and what was done is fabrication of sources. Wikipedia policy regarding biographies is very sensitive and states that it doesn't even require discussion to delete. Our Wikipedia is not ownerless to become a playground for wiki-spammers. So please, delete the article, re-tag it with CSD, or if you have a few reliable sources that discuss this person's life, send them to me. Thanks. Pirehelokan (talk)
Sakura emad — 23:50, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
Kak Pirehelokan, I came to discuss it with you; I didn't just revert the article and say nothing. Furthermore, if you consider me experienced, I'm telling you this article cannot be deleted like that. If that were the case, on English Wikipedia they would have allowed you to delete it. On Simple English Wiki, where I also participate, we get many articles like this that cite a bundle of sources with no direct relation to the topic, but they don't delete them via CSD—they handle them through AfD (Requests for Deletion). Take a look here [1], it's full of the exact kind of articles you want to delete now. You say English Wiki and Simple English Wiki have nothing to do with us, but that's not entirely true. English Wiki just can't dictate policy/rules to us or tell us what we must do, but otherwise, we can learn from their administrative practices—after all, you yourself are citing English Wikipedia policies! to explain how this article must be deleted immediately. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk)
Sakura emad — 23:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
We've had all this discussion and dialogue; if my action had been wrong, I would have reverted it by now and apologized! But we must no longer use the CSD criteria for a topic that doesn't fit under them. I know deletion discussions (AfD) are something new to you and haven't existed in Sorani Wiki until now, and you haven't fully participated in them, which might be why you feel everything should be deleted via CSD. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk)
Pirehelokan — 00:16, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
@Sakura emad: If an article meets CSD criteria, it must be tagged with CSD and deleted. That article meets all criteria for speedy deletion and needs to be deleted quickly. Keeping it only tarnishes Sorani Wiki. Pirehelokan (talk)
Sakura emad — 00:43, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
Well yes, but this does NOT fall under CSD criteria, as I'm telling you! If you want to force-delete it anyway, go ahead, I won't stop you! —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk)
Sakura emad — 00:57, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
Just for your information, since this current thread will become history—in case you delete it, let this remain as history—the admin over there didn't tell you to go open an AfD because the article was old (as you claimed above), but rather repeated the exact same argument as mine. Here:

Sjb72 talk contribs 7,490 bytes −10 →(top): CSD Declined (Again). The article makes credible claim for notability, so A7 does not apply. Suggest PROD/AFD/Improve. undothankrestore Tag: Manual revert

CSD Declined - notability asserted. Suggest PROD/AFD/Improve

These are the exact words of that administrator on English Wikipedia, saying that notability has been asserted and it cannot be deleted via CSD, suggesting to open an AfD. If you still use your administrative powers to force-delete the article, let this stand as proof. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for that. I am reluctant to use any form of AI tools because AI can never be trusted to be accurate (that, and a lot of other ethical reasons I won't bore you with here). That said, the translation you provide is a lot more coherent than what I got.

I would suggest that you have a look at your Wiki's dispute resolution process, and see what you can do to get it sorted before an all out edit war happens. However, if you can add lots of suitable references that demonstrate notability, it will make it easier to protect from speedy deletions. Stephen! ^Coming... 06:47, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

well, using Gemini for foreign languages is not all bad. if anything, it provides translations that are far more accurate than traditional machine translators, which often rely on Literal word-for-word translation without any understanding of the context —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 07:14, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

that being said, Both me and Pirehelo are Mature people, if you read the full discussion above, i told him that if he tried to delete the article anyway i wont prevent him meaning i dont push my way around it, i came here to see if seeking Ckbwiki's Arbcom for an issue like that is the correct route : ) since it's an issue between Two Administrators —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 07:14, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

You may be interested to note that the article has been deleted through AFD. Stephen! ^Coming... 10:25, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! i noticed you're replying using Reply tool i've enabled this tool on ckbwiki, but I've forgotten how can i do it again on Enwiki. Could you tell me how to do it again? —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm using my PC (Google Chrome Browser), and just after your signature I can see the word "Reply". I click it, and the text box for responding opens up. Hope that helps! Edited to add: I've not done anything (that I'm aware of) to enable it; it is just there. Stephen! ^Coming... 11:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

lol, i realized what the problem was, i had Factotum installed, the script basically suppressed Normal Mediawiki Reply tool : ) i got it back now after uninstalling it. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also you can use {{ping}} to notify me on the replies you make, you don't need to place {{Talkback}} on anyone's talk page each time you reply to them : ) it will be tiresome for you. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 12:54, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply