Talk:Balatarin

Please discuss adding controversial content here first.

Abuse Report

I didn't quite understand the meaning of this senstence:

Sometimes users complaining Balatarin managers for administrating "Abuse Reports".

It's Baladar's job to administer abuse reports. Did you mean they sometimes don't respond to abuse reports as reporters hoped? In that case, please write it under "criticism." Dochar (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

diggeh.com This article is on Balatarin.com specifically. Diggeh.com is not an alternative to balatarin, and adding a one-line text about it under a new section is inappropriate.Dochar 08:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diggeh

Virtually any wikipedia entry for any service or product has a mention of competitors or alternatives. This entry even mentions that there has been criticism of balatarin and such. It is only fitting that an alternative out there is mentioned. not advertised, simply mentioned for the sake of getting that important fact out there (that balatarin is not the only persian version of digg) and perhaps open the door to comparison

ّAs you obviously know, diggeh is not even a known website, leave alone being a "leading competitor." And it is advertising. Dochar 17:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think thats a matter of personal opinion and not objective. Nor, is it a basis for its deletion even if it were true. If there is another persian version of digg, which you believe IS in fact balatarin's leading competitor, please present it 208.179.110.201 17:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can diggeh be the "leading" competitor, when it is so young? Then what about plak or others? How do you say diggeh is the "leading" competitor? Any references for that? As you might know, Wikipedia only welcomes objective views. The fact that Diggeh is yours doesn't make it "leading". Moreover, balatarin is not a mere Persian digg. The only common thing between these two is that they both gather links; how they do it is absolutely different. The concept of energy, negative votes, and hot topics are just some of the new ideas in Balatarin. Dochar 18:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. It is A competitor, and the only one that can be found. Thus, as far as can be determined it is the leading competitor, unless there is another (at least). Secondly, the fact that it is the only competitor, even if you don't want to consider it "leading" qualifies it as an "alternative," a competitor nonetheless, and thus that information should be made apparent to those researching Balatarin, their industry, and market share. 208.179.110.201 07:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even read what I write? I said what about plak, aftab, and other balatarin-likes? diggeh is not the only one, you just don't know about the other websites. And a question. Do they cite Microsoft Office's competitors on it's Wikipedia page, the way you advertised your website (devoting a whole section, with a single line, to brag about your product). The correct way is to add a link to diggeh.com's Wikipedia page in "See Also" section. Why don't you do that? Write an article on diggeh.com and your link would be absolutely welcome. Please respect Wikipedia's integrity. Dochar 07:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would take your no-response as your contest to removal of the added section. Dochar 19:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

once again. show me a link to other sites. if you like we can add those too.208.179.109.199 16:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Plak http://itblog.blogfa.com/post-191.aspx], [Oyax http://www.oyax.com], and Alef, which I cannot find its link. In any case, a one-line description doesn't qualify for a whole new section. As I said, you can add it in the "See Also" part. Also, please take a look at Microsoft Office's article and see if they devote one whole section to their competitors. As you you, this distracts the reader from the main focus of the article. The article about Balatarin is to talk about Balatarin. Please do read what I said before. Dochar 17:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a blog entry and a non-niche bookmarking site are not the links I asked for 208.179.109.199 01:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TODO

live page
filtering and new addresses
newly published regulations
updating logo and screenshots

I've updated the article to reflect the above (plus many more) Dochar 00:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Web 2.0 Persian website

I removed a claim from the article stating that Balatarin is the first Web 2.0 Persian website. It definitely is not. Wikis are among Web 2.0 web sites (see Web 2.0) and Persian Wikipedia was founded years before Balatarin existed (let alone other Persian Web 2.0 websites). huji—TALK 19:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Guidelines

I don't think this article meets Wikipedia notability guidelines for Web content

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#A7

By the way, I don't think 7-sang should be considered a "well-known" and significant award as mentioned in notability guidelines. It is not significant enough to have its own Wikipedia entry; how come they can issue an award to confirm notability of another Web site?

79.127.24.194 (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this problem is not answered, I'm gonna put back the SD thingy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.127.26.99 (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my changes are lost. I answered this issue on March 16, 2009. Anyhow, I am trying to rewrite my previous answer here.

Thanks for your edit. I am not sure if the problem you are referring to would fall under the speedy deletion criteria. The sheer extensive news coverage (either by Persian news websites or weblogs) Balatarin received during the time it was unavailable justifies the "significance" of the website, if not its "notability." Unfortunately, it is true that the current article, while extensively documenting features and history of Balatarin, lacks proper references. Therefore, I believe a call for adding references and more accurately documenting the current events would've been more appropriate. Please refer to the Wikipedia Criteria for Speedy Deletion, especially the last two sentences:

The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source.

and

If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

Dochar (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Balatarin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080316232200/http://blog.balatarin.com:80/?p=70 to http://blog.balatarin.com/?p=70

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]