Jump to content

User talk:Aditya Kabir/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of past discussions, from my talk page and discussants' talk pages. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Private Universities of Bangladesh

I have reverted the redirects, all of them. Now, you can go ahead and put some stuff on the pages you created. Otherwise they are going to get deleted. ANd, also stop adding advertising to the pages you create. The Independent University article has much advertising stuff, and I removed them already. - Aditya Kabir 16:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United University of Bangladesh

A tag has been placed on United University of Bangladesh, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. If you plan to add more material to the article, I advise you to do so immediately. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aditya Kabir (talk • contribs) 14:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

About Private University

You reverted the redirects, but not completely. If I get enough information hence I'll put stuffs on those pages or some1 else could do that.You don't have to worry for that. Now come to the point, you are acting like a vandal (I think you are)!!! How do you know I'm putting too much advertising stuff on the article?? That was a basic introduction about IUB (not advertising stuff). But you were keeping unnecessary thought in your mind. That's why you changed it. You also put {{fact}} that was unnecessary. I put those external links (Schools of the University and clubs and organizations) on the article so that some1 can get quickly access to the desired web pages. Please visit Duquesne University, Drexel University and Duke University. See their external links (multiple links under the same website). Multiple links are not harmful as you think. You also mentioned a tag has been placed on United University of Bangladesh. But it's showing the "List of schools in Bangladesh"(Redirected from United University of Bangladesh). Where is the tag ?!! You copied some thought from user Zetawoof. Please don't do nonsense type change on the article. You aren't only the reader. Thanq NAHID(talk) 11:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ref: About Private University

Let me apologise first. I should have remembered your freshness to WP, and explained things a little more elaborately. Your article on IUB had many usage of words like finest, most healthy, prime, excellent, well supervised and such. Please, understand that this is an adverstising tone of voice, suitable for the universities own website that promotes it, but not for an encyclopedia that doesn't. For better understanding, please, check WP:NPOV.

Also check WP:NOTE, to find out how to decide which information is notable and which is not. I tagged a few examples of you quoting that the students are encouraged to do this and that, which is again supported only by the subject itself. And, that to from material it uses to promote itself. Plese, understand that advertising is not necessarily fact.

And, please, try to understand, not everything acn be edited at the same time. There are far too many new articles submitted everyday than there are editors (admins or veteran contributors). Thanks for mentioning the universities you did. I will try get myself or someone else to check on them. Also, the fact that someone has done something wrong elsewhere doesn't necessarily empower you to claim the same mistake as right.

I am sure that you are acting on good faith, with the sole intention of expanding a source of knowldge. But, that is not always an easy task. You may also check WP:GA? for tips on how to write for WP.

Please, don't jump at accusing vandalism. Before you do that, check WP:VANDAL, and remember that everything done to your articles were communicated to you, with explanation, as well as other wikipedians. Though it may be a bit difficult in the beginning, but you could try following WP:WQT in discussions. It generally makes a good impression, therefore a better impact. Thanks for you efforts and passion. - Aditya Kabir 02:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appendix: I forgot to tell you that I didn't have to steal any idea from Zetawoof, because whatever he posted, and I did to is text generated by an automated process. Both of us just copied the automated process and pasted to yourtalk page, as is the convention with the {{db-empty}} tag. And BTW, both the tagged articles got deleted (Zetawoof or I didn't delete them, though). Please, don't put the entries back like before, as long you don't have enough veriable information to press their notability. They can exist as red links in the private universities template, so they can be crated whenever the information is available. There's no rush. - Aditya Kabir 06:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article

I support WP:NPOV. I don't have any interest to remove those stuff from any article (that is made by someone else) though, but you should recheck BUET (also other Schools and Public Universities of Bangladesh) and have a look on its introduction. It may contain some advertising / POV stuff. There you can perform your job. As You and User Rmky87 did with Viqarunnisa Noon School. May be You are right about those advertising stuff. Check other local/foreign educational organizations as well. Please don't stick with only local educational organizations. You've already added unis name on the article Gulshan, Dhaka. Thanks for your infos. NAHID(talk) 25-12-2006

Re: the BUET article

Yes, you're right. The BUET article is full of blatant POV that needs immediate purging. I'll get back to it soon, but currently I'm a bit busy with other things. So, for now I've posted my comments on the BUET talk page (see Talk:Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology#POV). If you want you can edit the article on these guidelines and/or post this link to the original cotributor(s) talk page. - Aditya Kabir 08:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrights

One more thing came to my notice - you are attributing GFDL licenses to all the images you are uploading. That may not be appropriate for all of them. As far as I can see the convocation image you've put on the article The University of Asia Pacific has been taken from their website. Did you take the picture? Do you have a permission in writing that empowers you release it under GFDL? If not, please, change the licensing information accordingly (check WP:TAG.

BTW, your heroic efforts in starting so many articles (an entire category) and getting the articles right, all by yourself, is a most commendable job. Please, before you go upset again, understand that I am only trying to help you here. Else, I could just slap tags on and inform the admins without explaining anything to you. - Aditya Kabir 03:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ref: About Private University-2 & image

Since you seem to have a problem with me looking after you, I think I should begin with that. If you want an admin to adress your issues you can put an {{help me}} tag on your discussion page, and ask your questions. One admin or other will check your questions out mighty soon.

But, please, don't get upset at seeing me coming back to you repeatedly. Usually that is the way with WP, people do get busy with particular projects and contributors according to necessity. I had my fair share of attention from quite a few editors, and most of them were not admins. Please, don't shoot the messenger. All I'm trying to do is to show you the wiki-way of doing things, principally because of your enormous potential. Few people here has the courage of beginning with a project as big as the private university project of yours.

Now, for the images. I don't think any licensing for the images would be good. You can't have them. WP:FUC 1 specifically says:


That means if the subject still exists then you should actually get hold of an image released to the project in writing by the copyright holder, or take a picture yourself. Logos used to examplify the subject on the partcular article on the subject are exempt from this rule. Madhuri Dixit's image isn't deleted yet because it was uploaded before the copyright rules were tightened since 13 July 2006 (check WP:FU). But, any fair use image of living subject since that date are all destined for a fast deletion.

And, oh, I'm not associated with the Bangla Wikipedia yet. - Aditya Kabir 13:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Private University-2 & image

Thanks 4 your guideline about WP's (Though I had a look on them b4..but didn't have enough time to read). Later on, In template, materials could be added on those empty pages and (also on the pages, which has been deleted). Now can you please visit in Bangla wikipedia. There you'll find a similar template named "Private Universities in Bangaldesh or বাংলাদেশের বেসরকারী বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়" (I hope u have an acn on bangla wiki).Because, in that template, most of the pages are empty(except 2 or 3 pages). You can aslo perform your tag job there. Did you click on the convocation image in The University of Asia Pacific (or r u overacting) ?? I did't upload that. You should've checked the user name properly!! It was uploaded by User Bluemind boy. I uploaded 2 images (Hrithik and Amisha) under GNU . I didn't find any License for images, which are only found in the internet (there are lot of images r available in this category) ? Most of the actors/actresses or notable persons image are available on the net. I've bit confusion about this type images license. I've already noticed a license {{Promophoto}}, it may be replaced instead of GNU 4 the images of Hrithik and Amisha . What can be the appropriate license 4 those images(Which are mostly found on the net) ? Check Madhuri Dixit. You should also check other Indian actors/actresses pictures as well. If you want to change something mercilessly then notify it with solution!!. Check random articles if you find any errors, don't stick with the same User along with his/her article. (Ill highly appreciate an admin advice THAN YOU) NAHID(talk) 5:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

About Private University-3 & image

I know about the tag {{help me}}. You shouldn't have changed the category of IUB. The categories were relevant to the article NOT HARDLY RELEVANT (It might be your opinion). That university (along with other private university) is located at Baridhara (Dhaka) in the BD ! ! ! I think mentioning those categories aren't making any problem. Check other universities as well. It seems to me that you are too emtional or U have an envy on private university related article and you are trying to change it in that way. I'm not shooting ur messanger. Now come to the image. I mistakenly uploaded more than 1 iub logo (Some of them were made as in art category as u've already seen them in cotribution page). Actually, I uploaded those logos while writing this article and several time I tried to change the article. That's why I uploaded several logo with 3 different name(under the license{{logo}}) one is already tagged. I was looking for appropriate logo (and its color) for the article. How can I remove that tag for keeping this logo (the colored logo not that black and white logo) or should I replace it with previous image(I've already replaced it with another IUB logo).If it's not possible than how can I keep this current/another colored logo under the license {{logo}}. 1 logo should be exist. If that/those logo(s) get deleted, I wanna upload the iub logo again. Will that be a problem?? and also is it a problem to upload same image several time by changing their name? Don't just try to catch only errors rather try to give solution(c bold text in appendix). NAHID(talk) 5:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Appendix: I've noticed a license {{Fair use in}}(Where they are used...?) and it's different form. Can it be used 4 those logo that I uploaded with different name? If u know better then which license ({{Fairusein2}} or {{Fairusein3}} is appropriate 4 the logo that I want to keep or should I apply this license to all the logo that I uploaded with different name? Don't just mention those WP's (You can say, this license {{}} is appropriate 4 the logo or other images if it's tagged under speedy deletion ). Give me the ans.

Appendix 2: Thanks for your answers. I'm appreciating that. Please visit in BUET and RUET and see the category or you can perform quick check through this template {{Public Universities of Bangladesh}} for other universities as well. There are numerous educational institution which contains multiple category. I'll try my best to add content on those empty articles, which are in the entries. Now I understand the logo problem. They were same logo right. However I want to keep that convocation (The University of Asia Pacific) image anyway, which has been tagged. That image may contain wrong license {{GFDL-self}}. I think the license {{promophoto}} may be appropriate for that image. Because it can be taken by the University press kit. If you know the proper license for that convocation image, then please mention. I want to replaced it with that. I still have a big confusion about the license of those images which are basically taken from the website. I noticed those type of images are usually uploaded under {{GFDL}}, {{GFDL-self}}, {{cc-by-sa}}(version 1 or 2) or other kind of license. I read about this license in WP though. Can you please mention this type of images (proper) license? If I uploade images with wrong license can I change it by replacing correct license? You wrote, "deleting a notice that states what happened to something you uploaded or posted would not make the problem go away". Again My question is if a image is tagged under speedy deletion can I remove it by replacing appropriate license? I did it with amisha and hrtithik jpg. Because I found lot of images are in this {t1|promophoto}} category. Another matter is about the license{{Fair use in}}. Please see here[1]. Can I use this license on any image (including that convocation image) which is relevant to the its article? Although I don't want to describe too much about the image. Now come to the Hugo Chavez. I had some question about the wikimedia common. Some of the pictures of Hugo Chavez are taken from the wikimedia common and in the image page there is a license This image is from wikimedia common.... I uploaded the images of IUB at first in wikipedia and then in wikimidia. In that case do I need to mention license in image page that "it is taken from wikimedia common"? If so then how? Though I was the uploader. Another thing, do You know the license of logo in wikimedia common? Because common has very few license of images. When I was uploading the logo I did not find any logo license. If u know then let me know the license, the way I mentioned avobe. I think I've repeated some question. Thank you NAHID(??) 22-12-2006

Re: About Private University-3 & image

Answering your queries:

  1. If you want to upload a new version of any image, please, check at the bottom of the image page. You'll find a Upload new version of the image link, or something like that. Make use of that. Otherwise, WP's limited server space gets clogged with unused multiple copies of the same image.
  2. If you are looking for an appropriate tag for the logos you're uploading, use the {{logo}} tag. It'll work fine. But, I guess you've figured that out already.
  3. The {{Fair use in}}, {{Fairusein1}}, {Fairusein2}} are basically variations of the same licensing. adding 1 or 2 in the template means they are fair use material for more than one article. If you use this tag, please, mention the name of the article in the tag, as well as a detailed rationale on the image page.
  4. For images that are not just logos, I suggest that you either get hold of free images of the subject (if it's still existing), may be take pictures yourself, or request the same to Wikipedians active on the commons.
  5. Removing category overload is nothing emotional, it's done periodically by editors to keep navigability of WP better. I removed the categories I myself had put there to begin with, to draw attention of contributors to your entries, so that they are protected against deletion. That task done, I think, we can safely remove additional categories from them. Articles are supposed to belong to categories that ensure people finding them, there is no prestige involved in putting them on variations of the same category.

Thanks for your questions. I wish all Wikipedians were civil and inquisitive like you are. Now, for three more things:

  1. I apologise for using an idiomatic phrase without checking if you're familiar with it or not. If you are interested to know what Don't shoot the messenger implies, check here.
  2. Why did you remove that comment on Hugo Chávez? I was about to look into the matter. I may still do that. But, please, know that nothing you write on WP is really deleted. What you deleted is only two mouse-clicks away. And, more importantly, you did exactly the right in brining a matter, that you think is important, to someone's attention.
  3. That brings us to another point. Though there is policy against deleting stuff on my own talk page. But, please, understand that deleting a notice that states what happened to something you uploaded or posted would not make the problem go away. Understand, please, that the notices are not the problem, forgetting to notify the concerned contributor is (like me tagging one of your images for deletion, and not mentioning it to you).

Thanks again. - Aditya Kabir 16:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: About Private University-3 & image (appendix 2)

Hahaha, may be you're overdoing the appendix bit. I new header at times won't do you any harm, you know. But, seriously, let me answer your querries one at a time:

  1. Using {{promophoto}} tag for the convocation picture would be fine. And, when you do that, you can also remove the notice tag from the page. Just don't forget to write detailed copyright and source information as well as detailed fair use rationale for the image. And, please, write what you did in edit summary, it's most helpful practice.
  2. And, yes, you can change the license tag as you see right, It's always better to change the licensing to a proper one than sticking to the wrong licsense.
  3. {{GFDL-self}} applies only to images you created yourself.
  4. To use images from the commons just write the image file name of the common file into your Wikipedia article, a mirror file will automatically be created. You don't need to re-upload it.
  5. If you have free images (GFDL or Public Domain) to upload, it's better that you upload to the commons.
  6. If you feel that a lot of images are tagged dishonestly, please, post them on you talk page, and slap a {{help me}} tag on top of it, asking for an admin to look into the case. There are many admins working mostly on the image issues, and they would be the best person to weed out the crap. You can tag them yourself disputing their licensing as well.
  7. The article on Hugo Chavez is a featured article and it has gone through far more scrutiny than any average article. I'd guess that most things about the article is perfect, including the images.
  8. About the Amisha and Hrithik images, I don't think you have way of prtectingthem from delete. May be you can delay their deletion for sometime, but that's about it. WP image convention is currently very sensitive about Bollywood stars particularly (there have way too many cases of copyvio there).
  9. Please, don't take images uploaded before 13 July 2006 as examples. The fair use convetion has gone much tighter since that date.
  10. Finally, just an additional information, check for the copyvio lawsuits against WP. You surely don't want WP held responsible for copyright violation in courts around the world.

Keep the good work going, just be a li'll more careful. - Aditya Kabir 09:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logo in common

I think I'm overdoing the appendix bit. Yes, vandal people can only be harmful. But You didn't mention the logo license in common. What should it be? I uploaded logo there under {{GFDL}}. There is no logo license available there. Thank you NAHID(talk) 23-12-2006

Re: Logo in common

Unfortunately I am not much familiar with the Commons environment or conventions. Though I can find out things for you, but I guess you could try talking to some other wikipedians. Here's a list of some who may be able to help:

Thanks for seeking info on the unknown. I hope thses Wikipedians can help you on the Commons issues. BTW, did you notice that many of the private uni entries got deleted, and turned into red links on the template? Maybe, you have not been fast enough in uploading info. Two more things:

  1. Please, purge your articles from peacock words like best, excellent, well managed and such. If you must use them, then cite a source outside the subjects own website or brochure. This kind of language may be treated as advertising and/or spam.
  2. Could you put the unis at Gulshan, Banani and Mahakhali on the appropriate list on the artcile [[Gulshan (Dhaka)?

Thanks again. - Aditya Kabir 05:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Would you check the article on Islamic University of Technology. It seems to fall right into your area of experties. It needs an inclusion into the Private Unis template, copy cleanup and category reorganization. You may want to take a look at the troubles the contributor is going through as well. - Aditya Kabir 16:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ref:Request

Islamic University of Technology is an international university. It doesn't need private unis template. Please check/read carefully before you think to change anything on any article. Didn't you check OIC and its type in infobox? Another thing, Don't be afraid of admin ;) You can change those adv.stuff related article in the name of wikipedia policy( WP:NPOV ). Where is that policy now ;)? NAHID 08:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry

I reall am sorry that I made a request to you. All this time I was thinking you would be a valubale addition to the wiki family. But, since you have decided to remain cleverer than others and just can't stop making snide comments like - Another thing, Don't be afraid of admin ;) You can change those adv.stuff related article in the name of wikipedia policy( WP:NPOV ). Where is that policy now? - would rather leave you alone.

Just remember that being polite and listening to the conventions are virtues, and being arrogant is not. I don't know what you meant by that silly remark, but if you thought I am afraid of the admins, you are no cleverer than any other newbie like you. Try to have some respect for people who know more than you and works harder than you. That would make you a better wikipedian, and more imprortantly, a better human being. - Aditya Kabir 10:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Sorry

The comments weren't for your request. It was my own comment only for you. Please check the university again. I've already mentioned its type and other things above. I can't claim myself as a cleverer person. I'm trying to learning new things here. Since I volunteered here I got advice from some admin and user as well. I appreciated their advice and I will. Sorry for those comments. Yes that may leave me alone from you. As you are working on wp:npov (ramdom article and educational institution in Bangladesh) and other policy then keep that. If you change only one/two article by using wp:npov, then why don't you change other articles. That, those aren't written based on wp:npov. Are you looking for newcomers who can make these errors and you can change them easily and immediately, huh!!! and not those articles(lack of wp:npov) written by admins. Another thing, I couldn't add content on BUET. why didn't you change BUET introduction and its other contents based on wp:npov. Aren't you checking other educational organizations/article (whether they are written under wp:npov or not)? NAHID 12:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of South Asia

Bangladesh Observer, the longest surviving English newspaper from Dhaka, seems to think there is a University of South Asia in Bangladesh (please, check here), though User:NAHID believes otherwise. Please, do not keep reverting valid contributions, that's vandalism. I'm trying to find a full list of the mushrooming score of public universities in Bangladesh. It's not available on-line, so I have to go on-ground. With the time I can spare to do that, it would be tough, but not impossible. Give me a week or something. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 15:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Without any verifiable source we shouldn't use materials in an article / template. That won't be productive. --NAHID 22:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most right. Now, can you help to add verifiable sources for the enormous number of names you added to the template, but most still are just red links, thus unverified? I have already done that for University of South Asia. Thanks for reminding a core principal. Aditya Kabir 05:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh, Are you trying to make new universities list in both Public/Private univ templates, that you are trying to get from ground. Before making this template, some public/private universities were existed in List of universities in Bangladesh, some I found from web sources/newspapers.One weblink were existed with article, which included the univ list.It might be removed from that list. I also found another website but couldn't remember that. Same thing happend with Public University template, that was created by User:Hermitage17. However, Newspapers also mention the univ name that may not be included with website.And how can you judge red link as unverified? Are you bearing to add material to those red links? You could've mentioned the link of University of South Asia when you were trying to add it in template. Indeed, you already mentioned the link and it makes clear point. I searched GOOGLE with University of South Asia but it always showed this univ belongs to Pakistan (you may find it in edit history). That made big confusion. Thanks --NAHID 20:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I think I will add new names to the template, if I can arrange to lay my hands on the complete list and if the list shows there are more names to add. The University Grants Commission office in Agaragaon has that list, and it may be available to you too. For Google, next time when you are looking for something try adding more words to the search string for better results (like - "University of South Asia" Bangladesh - instead of just - University of South Asia). Check Google search help for more tips. I didn't mention the links, and rather asked you to Google for it, because I believed you can use Google properly. Sorry about that. Aditya Kabir 04:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again refrain from edit war. I should've mentioned "University of South Asia Bangladesh" (It was the search point NOT University of South Asia) instead of University of South Asia in above section. The reference you mentioned that doesn't deal only with University of South Asia Bangladesh. Other universities are also available there.And You found it from that certain online newspapers not from Google. Looks like You created the GOOGLE (I salute you for that) and You only person know the use of GOOGLE :0 Please Check and search it again and learn yourself first (how to use it properly), then suggest others. I'm sorry that you're suggesting without knowing it.--NAHID 15:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. From my talk page, you wroteI am happy that you finally have answered to any of my postings that concern you. Sorry, there's no need to be happy here.I don't know what bias encourages you to wasting your efforts as well as others. My be you'll come up with more paragraphs for getting responds !! Sigh......

Template talk:Private Universities of Bangladesh

I have left a message for you on Template talk:Private Universities of Bangladesh. Please, check. Aditya Kabir 16:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of South Asia 2

Thanks for providing specific informations. Regarding on this statement Please, do not keep reverting valid contributions, that's vandalism-- I just want to say, You should've mentioned the link before my reverting. I'm not taking it otherwise.However, We shouldn't test on an template or article. As User:Aditya Kabir attempted to do that.

And also: Without any reason User:Aditya Kabir Repeated (POV Vandalism) same University links (see here) in the template, those were already existed. Also, Engaging edit war isn't acceptable (See Wikipedia:Edit war). It's easy to write / put something from own thoughts and that can't be helpful practise. So please refrain that. Thanks--NAHID 19:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would you like to explain why you think an oversight (for which I apologize already - Sorry, Dude) is equal to POV Vandalism? Also, if possible, can you explain why you think reverting someone else's removal of a valid contribution (provided along with ample reference and a tool to verify - i.e. Google - none which the other person provided) is equal to edit warring? I apologize for missing the point here. Aditya Kabir 05:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop riddles please.You could make more points (whatever comes to your mind) ! You did what you like by repeating the links. And your VALID cotribution refered the Pakistani University that I mentioned above (read above section again). And repeating the link again and again without any valid reseon isn't acceptable.For avoiding confusion, You could've mentioned it before.Thanks --NAHID 21:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings

Here's a cupcake to show my goodwill. Here's an article you may smile at - Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Cheers.

I am sorry if I have misunderstood you again. Even more sorry that I seem to forget the first instance of misunderstanding. I know you have only the best of Wikipedia in your heart. You may have noticed that, because:

  • I already have repeated that many time (POV sure, vandalism it probably was not)
  • I have awarded you with your first barnstar
  • I have lent my hand to help you with your efforts with private universities - saved them from redirects, started articles for a few of them, brought your example of creating a template to public universities, and yes, eidited and re-edited a lot of those articles, along with providing all the advises I could manage
  • Forwarded my goodwill when your wikistress blew through the top
  • Have attempted to help you (not very successfully, I must admit) through the ways of WP when you started editing
  • I have always kept you posted whenever I did something drastic to any of your contributions, which more than what you can claim when you did something to my contributions
  • And, I left you alone when you though Admins would understand you better (though they probably didn't, as understanding right is more important than understanding better when you're an admin)

Repeating again - Sorry, dude, if I have hurt your feelings. I am happy that you finally have answered to any of my postings that concern you. You have ignoring my postings to your talk page, deleting them, too, for long. It is good to see you responding, even if on a more public talk page and even if slightly disturbed. Have a cupcake, dude. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 06:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh--- nice comments but mixed with jesting. It's easy to mocking at someone by writing such essay.--NAHID 23:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And also

Regarding on comments of user aditya kabir...

  • You said BTW, it's good to see you caring for fairness of image use.-- No need to be good here. Be normal.
  • You said I know you have only the best of Wikipedia in your heart.-- thanks for the comments !!
  • You said I already have repeated that many time (POV sure, vandalism it probably was not)-- don't need to repeat it rather we should follow it.
  • You said--I have awarded you with your first barnstar-- thanks for the barnstar.
  • You said--I have lent my hand to...-- yes we should help each other BUT again engaging edit war isn't acceptable.BTW You always put memorising negetive materials than infobox and other valuable information in the articles.
  • You said--Forwarded my goodwill-- that was really sweet of you.
  • You said--I have always kept you posted whenever I did something drastic to any of your contributions, which more than what you can claim when you did something to my contributions-- I should've checked the image (Image:Riya Book.png) page and posted Rfu tag on your talk page.Sorry for that.
  • You said--And, I left you alone when you though Admins would understand you better (though they probably didn't, as understanding right is more important than understanding better when you're an admin-- I don't know what do you think about yourself? Are you trying to take control over user / admin? Please refrain from that.

After tagging Image:Riya Book.png (uploaded by User:Aditya Kabir. He also removed Rfu tag [[2]], when it was once tagged by another user) User:Aditya Kabir attempted to engage in edit war and he was scoring my contribution. Few months ago, He tried to do the same thing . He also attempted to target User:Prince Godfather when he removed Aditya Kabir's images from article (though the fault was Prince Godfather). See discussion User talk:Misza13/Archives/2007/02#Two images unfortunately deleted by you, can you help?. There, Aditya Kabir's statement I am checking this user as much as I can, though without the tools available to admins it's quite an arduous task---as he has / had wide interest to do that. Simply, if someone disagree with Aditya Kabir in any matters, he starts to score that user's contribution, mocking at him (probably Aditya Kabir also does it in his own User Page or any Talk Page regarding on that user) and attempt to engage in edit war. But wikipedia is not the right place for targeting user.--NAHID 20:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • WOW. Not a lot of argument, but definitely a lot of anger there. Okay. Keep complaining, and see if it gets you anywhere. I apologized (posted on 00:47, 12 March 2007) on Template talk:Private Universities of Bangladesh to you and this is what I get in return, so I don't think I'll apologize again,not now. It's nice to find a really civil and respectful contributor. And, I guess, telling you relax will actually fuel your anger, not help you. Aditya Kabir 03:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, check this out

User:NAHID, for some obscure reason, is trying to stalk me, whatever little edit he does on Wikpedia is mostly spent on the Welcoming stuff (which is highly recommendable, I am sure, but can also be interpreted as an attempt at generating endorsement support for his behavior) and stalking my edits (sometimes coupled with disruptive editing. His initial jest in contributing to Private Universities of Bangladesh (especially Independent University, Bangladesh), for which I myself has presented him a barnstar has degenerated into private-university/English-medium agenda-pushing. He has already tried to recruit User:Niaz bd to that end.

He also has shown exemplary profusion as a troll (see his repeating blitz of irrelevant questions for which answers could easily be found on the policy and guideline pages on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, Wikipedia talk:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Help desk). His lack of civility is also of concern (especially his blood boiling moronic edit summaries targeted at me). (See also: User talk:Aditya Kabir/Archive 5 and User talk:NAHID). I know only one Bangladeshi administrator here - that's you - and I can only turn to use for advise. What is to be done with this high amount of thickness? Aditya Kabir 16:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC) - please, pardon my French, I'm frustrated a bit, and answer to my talk page[reply]

  • Post Script: Well, I am taking back my complaint. Thanks for not responding. I guess, frustration led me to say bad things about the user. It's all part of the game as I understand. No use getting upset at so little. Though the facts are right, my reaction was not (how I miss Zora, my godess of wikilove, she would have seen right through all that). Sorry.
  • And, What was this - "Ragib and Aditya Kabir seem to be pals, I have already mentioned in first deletion review that I have a problem with Ragib he has been systematically following the articles I have worked on and undoing changes... User:Ragib is friends with Aditya both have given shallow strong deletion votes, both have been collaborating before" - from User:Atulsnischal's comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural History of South Asia mailing list (2nd nomination)? It seems we are collaborators now. WOW!!! There's a definitely some wikilove missing here. What to do? Aditya Kabir 16:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding on Aditya Kabir's comments

  • It's easy to accuse somebody by mentioning these points. What obscure reason?? Ragib Bhayia, After tagging an image, he (User:Aditya Kabir started to scoring my cotribution, mocking at me and attempted to engage in WP:Edit war. Same thing he did it with me before.
  • He made quarreling environment in Template talk:Private Universities of Bangladesh by repeating the same univ link again and again. And Mocked at welcome commette members in his user page(Paragraph starts with: If you are new here).Also he's mocked at me 'coz I'm a member!!
  • Always insulted me in his talk page archive by calling me newbie and has placed a derisive template box.
  • Called me Wiki demon at User:Bsnowball's talk page by refering the statement: You see, I am making this roaster of Wikidemon, and this would come handy.
  • He also put wrong-assesment in notable university article. The university article had an assesment by Arman Bro. For example: no need to mention. Ragib bhayia, You've already judged it as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bangladesh/Assessment.Thanks (though it's notable and had pre-assesment)
  • He tried to target another user in this talk page. User talk:Misza13/Archives/2007/02#Two images unfortunately deleted by you, can you help?. There, Aditya Kabir's statement I am checking this user as much as I can, though without the tools available to admins it's quite an arduous task---as he has / had wide interest to do that and take control over other user / admin.
  • Now he's trying to target me and harassing me.Because of what? I don't know, how many users he is going to target and Stalk in future? His disruptive behavior always remind us the blocked User:Oden (User talk:Oden/Archive 3) (Who was blocked for targetting and Stalking user).
  • Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, Wikipedia talk:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Help desk) these three desks provide solution for the user / admin. Even experience editor / admin asked question there. So, should we judge someone as a troll if he asks some questions there?? If so, then why do we need those help desks?

But he took it otherwise, as his intention is to blame me.

  • Contributing in a particular (or other areas) are always considered to be valid contribution. I've tried to lend my hand to Niaz bro as he is very productive. May be User:Aditya Kabir envies me for that (His comment:He has already tried to recruit User:Niaz bd to that end)

Ragib Bahiya, both of you may have good relationship. But I'm not here to involving quarrell with any fellow editors ('coz it always waste efforts). I shall be grateful for your comments/replies. If I'm wrong let me know. I'll be happy for that. Thank you --NAHID 22:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please See User talk:Bsnowball#Hi and User talk:Bsnowball#The borges quote on your user page. He left that message just after my message.--NAHID 23:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC) P.S.But he shouldn't have illustrates lie things here.Removed[reply]

I have left a huge post on Nahid's talkpage. I hope it clears up some of the bad blood, if not all. Take a look at it if you want, and tell me if the approach was right. Aditya Kabir 14:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hahahahaha...Now That's become your proof!! Hmm you'r trying to be a good man by providing that Epic (in the name of a billion times that I have hurt your feelings). What about your hidden bad blood? However that was good approach. And might make you happy.Keep up the good works :) Thanks--NAHID 20:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Ha ha, sometimes, inaction / procrastination is a better option :) (I didn't know about the dispute, but I then went looking into the pages to figure out what it was about). As for the rant in the AFD, believe me, that's pretty usual when someone gets frustrated about opposition. I've had a lot of similar "cahoots" "pals with" comments from users belonging to various polarities (e.g. got rants accusing me of being pro/anti Indian, pro/anti Pakistani, pro/anti Rohingya(!) etc etc.). It's better to just disregard them. --Ragib 16:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: comments

Hi Nahid, We have a very small number of Bangladeshi editors in Wikipedia, so if we quarrel among ourselves, the net loss is to Bangladesh.

Having spent 3 years editing in Wikipedia, I've been through a lot of disagreements with other users. The best way to deal with something you feel is not right, is to ignore it. That works quite well every time.

If you still feel you have any problem, there are several ways to resolved disputes. WP:PAIN is for personal attacks, WP:ANB/I is for administrator's noticeboard incidents. WP:DR for dispute resolution.

However, I still don't see any reason for you two to have a dispute (talk pages fail to show any big disagreement, except for a few minor ones).

In the end, I'd suggest both of you to calm down, and settle this, and focus on many more articles we need to write on Bangladesh. Thank you. --Ragib 22:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, a billion times, that I have hurt your feelings

Aditya Kabir 09:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing![reply]
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I have just come across you comments about my poor self on Ragib's talk page, and I am happy that I did. It seems that I have hurt your feelings seriously, but had no clue that I was doing that. I guess some of the stuff that made you sad needs a bit of clarification to remove the misunderstanding. This may be long, but I guess it is worth it.

Look up newbie in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
  • Always insulted me in his talk page archive by calling me newbie and has placed a derisive template box. -- You were a newbie back then. Since, you have ceased to be newcomer a long time back, you'll notice that my discussions with you are no more included there. My talk page archives mostly exist as lesson in what is not to be done. If I was not good enough to help a newbie with patience, it must be there. It should not make you look bad, rather should make me look like a bungling goof. I also have archives for my troubles with image uploading and my battles with other Wikipedians - all serving the same purpose.
  • Also he's mocked at me 'coz I'm a member!! -- Please, don't feel that way. If read the whole text of what you have mentioned then you'd find out that it also mentions Wikipedia adoptation project and the Kindness Campaign in the same spirit. Are you member of all of that? Then I am doubly sorry.
  • Called me Wiki demon at User:Bsnowball's talk page by refering the statement: You see, I am making this roaster of Wikidemon, and this would come handy -- It is a pretty cute list of WikiDemons - Wackos, Angry Mastodons, Headless Chickens, Bots, Tolls, Gnomes, Faeries, Doppelgangers, Vandals and Sock Puppets - all with appropriate links. It has got nothing to do with you (if you don't declare to be one of this group, LOL). If you read the Borges quote on Bsnowball's userpage, you'd know it fits the list of demons elegantly. BTW, Borges remains one of my favorite writers and while making the list of demons I missed one of his works very much - The Book of Imaginary Beings.
  • He tried to target another user in this talk page. -- That user was actually disrupting Wikipedia, and got banned for that reason. I have already told you that. Unfortunately it seems that he is back with yet another sockpuppet. What I did in that case was a research through the Wikipedia for 2 days on end, not following him for weeks. In fact I found out about the ban when you posted a complaint aganist my targetting of him. I am sure you don't find guarding Wikipedia as an insult to you.
  • I am sorry that I called you troll. That comment was silly, and I have already said that on Ragib's talk page, where the original post was made. But, to answer your question - So, should we judge someone as a troll if he asks some questions there? - I can lead you to Wikipedia:What is a troll#Pestering. Again, I regret my comment very much. It goes against the principle of assuming good faith.
  • I also regret that I accused you for trying to recruit other users. (It was about - Very few BD wikipedians have the courage to expand private university related articles on wikipedia - on Niaz's talk page and also about - in some cases private universities are doing better compare to some so called 'Public' universities.--Concured. Yeah, Bro you're right :) Regards - on the East West University talk page). I am not envious of you. In fact I suggested Niaz to talk to you, and awarded a barnstar to you for you efforts regarding private universities in Bangadesh.
Have some chocolates.
  • Finally, please, check your contributions to find that for quite some time now all you are doing is monitoring my edits. I am sure you have a reason for that. That reason until now was quite obscure to me. Now I know that you are doing it because you feel wronged and hurt by me. Very sorry. But, please, if you keep editing mostly my edits and commenting on my comment, sooner or later it may considered as disruption by someone. I have full sympathies for you, not everyone may have that.

I hope this clears up some of the bad blood. I really am sorry (though there were times when I was quite irritated, but now I can very well see the reason). I also hope that we can collaborate on the private university articles. Quite a few still exist only as redlinks on the template, and most others are only loosely structured or poorly referenced. Let's improve the situation (can I hope for a treat now? A cup cake or an ice cream, may be?). Cheers. Aditya Kabir 05:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hahahahaha...Now That's become your proof !! Umm you'r trying to be a good man by providing this epic(in the name of a billion times, that I have hurt your feelings). What about your hidden bad blood? However that was good approach. And might make you happy.No hard feelings.Keep up the good works :). Thanks--NAHID 20:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP Talk: WP Portals

I've just gone through the portal discussion again. You raised absolute right point at the end of the discussion. In this situation, (Aditya's behavior) WP:GAME and WP:KETTLE might be applicable. Well, let me explain something, I tagged some articles which were unsourced and had some peacock words (though I usually don't see the creator of the article). But I was surprised after seeing these edit summaries ([3], [4], [5] and [6]) made by Aditya. Soon after that, he tagged IUB article by mentioning "Maintenance tag" ([7]) in the edit summary (which I referred you before). When I made comments ([8], [9] ) on WP Portals discussion page on 30th August and 2nd September, he added more tags [10],[11],[12],[13] (also an advert tag) after seeing my comments there. You already may have noticed those issues. What I understand is, this user tries to take revenge by raising pointless issues and tagging the articles (instead of improving them) whenever any disagreement happens. It's not acceptable at all. I also noticed this person removing (Prothom Alo) references along with other references and revert previous advert tags. It seems to me, he's getting angry time to time and engaging in edit ware. My question, is it the right place for expressing his personal feelings or anger mood ? !

BTW, you are doing excellent job on this article. Thank you--NAHID 12:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nahid, I am aware of these and trying to work out the problems with Aditya. If all of us (including myself) can forget these silly incidents and focus on the job of contributing to wikipedia - that would be the best scenario. I am also noticing that the tagging option is being misused as a tool to disrupt other's works. We need to discuss this at a more policy level to decide whether there needs to be any control on tagging. At present the best way to respond to excessive tagging seems to be to address the problem highlighted in the tag. Happy editing. Arman Aziz 04:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's my problem

That's a very simple problem - I'd like to see a bigger better Wikipedia and make my small contributions help that cause. There are no enemies here, Wikipedia is not a battleground. If I didn't ask you first that was principally because - (a) you seem to be largely inactive these days, like Uttam who I didn't contact when discussing the geographic matters he'd understand most as he works mostly for the bpy Wiki; and (b) you seem to largely non-responsive to suggestions outside a narrow band, like Bellayet who I contact only for photographic reasons as he works mostly for the bn Wiki. I had, and still have, no intention to hurt anyone. If I did that I apologize. In fact I had wanted to take on quite a few other userboxes directly created in that userspace, but apparently it's alright to create userboxes in that userspace. I hope you understand. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aditya, You wrote, (a) you seem to be largely inactive these days. If so, then why didn't you notify the uploader / user, when you tagged number of images (here)? Hope they weren't inactive, were they? And most of the deletion request (no source / other stuffs) were declined by administrators. Tagging images without notifying user is a kind of abused work. Would you please stop engaging these type of behavior? It won't help you at all.--NAHID 07:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does not make any sense. My tagging isn't for particular editor. Since you Own all of your articles and images, you're judging it in that way. And that apparently makes your comment like hoax. After all, we want to see a bigger better Wikipedia, right.--NAHID 09:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Check what you were doing on the Wikipedia between 00:49, 11 December 2007 and 00:49, 11 December 2007. No particular editor, eh? Over a 100 edits and nearly all are to pages that I edited. Funnily, none were edited by anyone but you (therefore Recent Change Patrolling don't apply). Hoax indeed. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Over a 100 edits and nearly all are to pages that I edited. Funnily, none were edited by anyone but you - You should remember this motto of WP - "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". I thought you know this basic concept, but I was wrong. Nobody owns the articles they contribute to. To answer your rest of comments, please check WP:OWN again. Because your comments (seems like, I edited, so I own them all) still conveys with OWN. --NAHID 14:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(inserted in the middle) Yeah sure. You started responding 6 minutes after the edit you mentioned in the thread. And you went on tagging articles and images as diverse as Christian Commission for Development in Bangladesh and Jayne Mansfield films and DVD covers of Jazmin, a pornographic actor. You couldn't have come to them as part of your recent change patrolling, for they were not edited before you did in the recent past (like the few intervening edits you made that immediately followed a recent edit). You couldn't have come to them through the Bangladesh Wikiproject or the Bangladesh category. The only way you could do that was through the page User:Aditya Kabir/My contributions.
I don't own these articles, but I don't own a thick skull either. What's the use of repeating the same line, dear? Is it helping you much? And, oh, by the way, evidently the uploader didn't need any notification from me (he actually tagged a dozen of images uploaded by me first, before getting around to getting his images right). Besides, that - And most of the deletion request (no source / other stuffs) were declined by administrators - seems like a bit of fabrication. Did that really happen after the edit you mention? Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think, we should be more tolerant with each other. We are working here together for the last few years and I am quite sure (you support me or not) we have created a bond between us. I have seen people in Bengali WP working like a family but in English WP we failed, with some rare exceptions, such as Nahid. Whenever, I was in need of any support, I found him beside me. I also received brother-like behavior from Arman Bhaia and AA. If we can convert this bond to a community, it will work for the betterment of WP. It's not like we are very far from it, we are there, just an initiative is needed. Arman Bhaia has already taken few steps and I think we should help him by participating actively in those activity instead of involving in text-war with each other. So, can we close this chapter right here? I hope you won't disagree :-). Cheers. - Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 12:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. But, what do you actually propose to build that family? Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arman Bhaia has already taken few steps. I have also seen some constructive discussions between you two where you people figured out few core issues about promoting WikiProject Bangladesh. I like the concept and believe that this can be the first stair to build our Wikipedia family. By the way, the term family doesn't mean that we won't criticize each other, but at the same time we'll encourage and help members of our family so that we can prepare a better Wikipedia, or at least some well-cited and resourceful Bangladesh related articles. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmmm, good idea! Let's disagree, but let's collaborate. I like that part. And, yes, wikiproject collaborations are the best to begin with and fight about. I remember quite a few collaboration proposals (geographic standards, statistical update, education, liberation war, article requests...) lying about. Do we get to those now? Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:NAHID and non-admin AfD closes

I would like to clarify the role of non-admin closure for AfD discussions. User:NAHID has been closing debates after a day rather than the five days prescribed by deletion policy - "The discussion lasts at least five days". Examples of this include:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Baird (footballer)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourism in Tokyo
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Carson Middle School (2nd nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cameltoe
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazumi Tanaka
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1951-1952 United States network television schedule (weekday)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lycée Carnot
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Lancaster
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Pata (2nd nomination).

And another example where the user closed a discussion after a day [14] and an admin subsequently reopened it [15].

I know that there are some instances where out of process early closures are acceptable such as speedy keeps and (maybe slightly more controversially) snowball closes however I was under the impression that there was only consensus for non-admins to close the most obvious of prossess based keeps. Even though accepting the exceptions some of the closing decisions seem a bit off. For example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourism in Tokyo was closed as speedy keep after 19 hours without giving a reason even though I don't think it meets any of the speedy keep criteria (nomination seems to have been in good faith by a non banned editor and there was an additional editor who thought the article should be deleted). Other examples are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Carson Middle School (2nd nomination) closed as keep after 22 hours as keep despite multiple editors stating that they thought that the appropriate action would be to delete the article and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Lancaster closed after 17 hours without a unanimous consensus. Most of the other closes had only recieved keep !votes at the time of closure but none had the overwhelming pile-ons that usually justify snowball closes. If the discussions had been allowed to continue past a day then editors with dissenting opinions may have contributed. Additionally where a reason was given for closure it is usually just a policy (links to essay), such as: "The result was Keep. Based on the discussion, it satisfies WP:N." or "The result was Keep per WP:N.". These seem more like arguments to give in the discussion rather than a reason to close it - which should be based on the consensus established by the discussion.

I tried to discuss the issue with the user (see hereand here) and have informed them of this "thread". I think the issue of who can close AfD and in what circumstances should be clarified in addition to WP:DPR#NAC. [[Guest9999 (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

  • I think in the areas where there is a dispute as to the merit of the AfD non-admin closes should be prohibited. In most of the cases cited above (all but 2 I think?) the keep !votes are unanimous. In these cases, he should be citing WP:SNOW not individual policies, because he is not empowered to make a policy judgment in the closure of an AfD. Avruchtalk 22:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still, you are right - you can't judge SNOW based on a listing that lasted only one day. One day AfDs should only be closed IMHO if they are bad-faith nominations. NAHID needs to take a step back and let the process work the way it is supposed to. Avruchtalk 22:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree absolutly. I make non-admin XFD closures regularly but closing after one day of discussion is ridiculous.--Phoenix-wiki 22:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the unanimous Keep debates had only 5-8 !votes, after only a day does this really represent enough of the community to support a WP:SNOW close? [[Guest9999 (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
  • I've found some admin / non-admin closure (or if you see other afd discussion achieve) within 1 or 2 days and even within few hours. Just curious about them (Though in some cases we usually close afd discussion as keep / speedy keep and delete / speedy delete, we should stick with policy.)--NAHID 08:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW may not be the right idea to quote in these closures, as 17 or 22 hours don't provide enough time to outside editors to raise a "reasonable objection", while drawing people to consensus is part of the reason we take AfDs to WikiProjects. Besides, this particular editor doesn't seem to well versed on policies and guidelines, much less the spirit of Wikipedia. As is evident from my recent interaction with the person (including bouts of borderline stalking and lamest of edit wars, where the editor's repeating excuse was WP:OWN). Non-admin closures are for editors in good standing (and that would include constructive contributions, not just assiduous RC patrolling), and that too may not apply here. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aditya, please don't discrediting other contribution and don't bring your personal matter here (You did these before with other editor). Through the links you took it personally. Seems like, you're getting a chance here and taking advantage by making false accusation on me. --NAHID 07:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This exactly is my point. On this very thread the editor in discussion has already gone against WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:WQT (going WP:MASTODONS of course) and, more importantly WP:OTHERSTUFF (other stuff exists is one of the lamest of reasons for any action, both on and off Wikipedia).
WP:SNOW may not be the right idea to approve of a weak grip on policies and principles, as it very much turns AfDs into Wikipedia:Ballots. Well, I'm outta here to keep my WP:COOL and seek some WP:LOVE... how was that for using cuts (a.k.a. WP:WTF)? :). Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these closes are not correct, in that they are inappropriate speedy/snowball keeps (something non-administrators should not be doing) and the closer asserts his/her own personal view on the merits of the deletion discussion in the close, rather than evaluating the consensus. Suggest blanket-reopen and admonishment to avoid further such closes. Daniel 11:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel is correct here. east.718 at 18:15, January 5, 2008
Armbarred? Natalie (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, when I first visited this topic, I thought there is something going really wrong. Then I visited all the Delete Discussion and found it absolutely pointless to bring such a complain against the user NAHID. To my surprise only one vote for delete was submitted in one discussion and rest of the discussions received either keep or week keep. Some discussions also received Strong Keep as well. A better consensus than this one can ONLY be found in an Utopian world. I know we have some policies that recommend us to keep deletion debate open for five days at least. But we shouldn't forget that at the end of the day Wikipedia is for the users, not for the ill-minded Wikipedians who try to convert it as a text war playground (it's my right to express my view, and I am not being uncivilized at all here :-p). When an article receives so many KEEP vote, even less than a day, it clears the picture that someone tagged them intentionally (unfortunately nowadays it became a common culture here in Wikipedia). And for the betterment of WP, I strongly support a quick closing of such discussion. You may talk about policy. Remember, policy is not an unchangeable religion book that we can not modify. In such case, if requires, I prefer to start a debate on Policy Modification. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 14:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably you mean policy modification to make what he has been doing acceptable, which it is not at present. Good luck with that. In the meantime, he should be asked not to do it any more, even if none of his closes actually need re-opening. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a point of fact, this discussion (mentioned above) involved multiple users who expressed the opinion that the article should be deleted - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Carson Middle School (2nd nomination). [[Guest9999 (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
While I agree in principle that there's no reason to keep debates open longer than necessary to gauge concensus, I'll also note that Wikipedia is for the users, not the users who may have been online on a particular day and saw the debate. It's possible that all those who would recommend deletion happened to be offline on that particular day, or busy elsewhere, or just didn't see the notice. That's a major reason for the five-day rule. To delete an article without giving due process is unnecessary, and may actually increase the headache (with additional debates, discussion, and DRV). Also, per WP:SNOW, uphill battles are still winnable, and 5-8 keep votes could easily be overcome with sound policy arguments in favor of deletion. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. That would definitely mean a lot of hassle. Like when the user in discussion disputed fair use of a non-free image I uploaded. When I put a hang-on tag and detailed the rational on talk page, he went on to put it to speedy. Luckily, another user saw it and removed the tag, and rebuked the user for that. He also managed to get the image deleted, though it was restored (it involved three highly active image patrolers, too), and the user apologized to the rebuking party (no concern about me, of course). But, overall it was quite a hassle. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Too much of a material for an incident report. Striking out. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear! As soon as I mention the editor's behavior around the image he takes the image to Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 January 9. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Striking out. This trouble is getting nowhere. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sundarbans and Cox's Bazar

The article on Sundarbans and Cox's Bazar seem have a number of problems that you have been tagging articles for - citation, in-line citation, factual accuracy, trivia... and more. Since you have already visited both pages, I thought, this must be a mistake for a diligent tagger (i.e. not have noticed the problems). I am sure, as you said, betterment of Wikipedia is your goal, and identifying problems is a part of it. As you have stated an interest in developing the article, may you want to take a look. Thanks. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tagging Bengal Assam Railway for ref improvement. Since I happen to be the only editor who contributed to the article, it deserves to be tagged appropriately. I do understand that articles like Sundarbans and Cox's Bazar are not good enough for you attention, as both are being observed and edited by a number of editors. But, could you be a little more precise about why and how the references should be improved? I am sure, anyone who ever takes a look at the citations will get be able to see that the sources are adequate. Do you need me to repeat the same sources with every line of the article? Or is it something else? Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tagging the Banglapedia article. The speed with which it was tagged in the wake of Nishkid64's removal and my reinstatement of the sources is highly commendable. I would also like to draw your attention to a few articles maintained by the Bangladeshi Universities WikiProject? The following articles seem to suffer, by and large, from the same problem - Independent University, Bangladesh, American International University, Bangladesh, University of Science & Technology Chittagong, Leading University, Stamford University, Northern University, Bangladesh, South East University, Daffodil International University, Daffodil Institute of Information Technology, International University of Business Agriculture and Technology, City University, Bangladesh, Asian University of Bangladesh, IBAIS University, Darul Ihsan University, Eastern University, Bangladesh, United International University, World University of Bangladesh, Asa University Bangladesh, Bangladesh University of Business and Technology, Dhaka International University, Universities in Bangladesh, Metropolitan University, Sylhet, People's University of Bangladesh, Comilla University, Government Saadat College, Kumudini College, Shanto Mariam University of Creative Technology, Premier University, Chittagong, Atish Dipankar University of Science and Technology | America Bangladesh University | Southern University, Bangladesh, Millennium University, Prime University, Victoria University of Bangladesh, Sylhet International University, University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh. Since you are a major participant in that Wikiproject and a diligent tagger of articles, you may want to take a look at some of them. Thanks. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a method to your tagging? Like being selective to make certain cases highly "taggable" while making other cases "ignorable"? It seems that you are very quick to tag certain articles, even if they are only a stub, or even though you could fix some in a few seconds on your own. At the same time it seems that you are quite reluctant to tag some other articles that has same or similar problems. Is there a reason behind this? BTW, thanks also for the tagging of Grameen Bank. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, have you noticed that Image:TVRaven02.jpg is non-free and is used without a rationale to depict Jeffrey Meek, a living person? Since you worked so diligently to remove Image:Ananthabhadram Kavya.jpg, I thought you'd want to take a look at this image as well. BTW, It was not uploaded by me. But, I hope that alone does not make it fair. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attack

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. A diff (calling an editor blind).Thank you.--NAHID 19:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are so thin-skinned when it comes to our follies! Aditya(talk • contribs) 01:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, note

Please, note that disruptive editing (especially, Campaign to drive away productive contributors) is not conductive to building an encyclopedia or an encyclopedic community. I hope you have the best of Wikipedia in your heart, and would reconsider your idea of helping it.Thank you.-- Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, note that templating the regulars is not conductive to building an encyclopedia or an encyclopedic community. I hope you have the best of Wikipedia in your heart, and would reconsider your idea of helping it.Thank you.-- Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the threat. I really needed it, like you needed to take things personally. Thanks again. Aditya(talk • contribs) 19:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since, obviously you won't refrain from templating me, please, do not game the system at least (especially, mischaracterizing other editors' actions in order to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction). It is entirely counter-productive in building an encyclopedia. Thank you.-- Aditya(talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hello Nahid, and thanks for your mail. You expressed concern about excessive tagging on an article about a specific institution. I won't be able to help there, but I suggest you ask User:Ragib, who is an administrator and seems to have worked on the same article. If he is not available, ask at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. Make your complaint as specific as possible. I don't notice you using that article's Talk page very much; the people at WP:EAR may ask you if you have discussed the issue with the editors involved before consulting them. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A diff (calling editor again blind) NAHID 11:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awww so cute. Obviously very civil, matured and responsible. Aditya(talk • contribs) 19:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Please refrain from stealth canvassing (especially when you're targeting an individual editor repeatedly. Like is evident here, here, here and here. All of that was directed against a single user, whom you threatened recently and had decided to troll extensively in the past (remember what you have been doing between 00:49, 11 December 2007 and 11 December 2007?)

If you can't remember what trolling is, let me recap, it involves misuse of process, pestering, misplaced criticism and other creative trolling (see What is a troll?) To resolve dispute Wikipedia has talk pages, which you often ignore to use (remember the time when you desperately fought] to have an image deleted against five experienced editors without posting a single comment on the talk page?).

May be you'd like to take a you mind of from the articles that you apparently own, as you're been found happily tag-bomb other people's articles (certainly you remember this, this, this and this when your ideas of tagging an article had to be to the village pump). If you're short on understanding you can try the essay on tagging.

This sort of behavior is very much disruptive editing (especially, Campaign to drive away productive contributors), and may, just may be, be highly block-worthy.

And, It is an editor's duty remind your that the articles that you claim to have excessive tagging also has editorial concerns unresolved for over an year. We must start removing those unsubstantiated and already challenged claims soon (it's called a cleanup). You may not be aware of the fact that editors who add information bear the responsibility of proving them with reliable sources, not university adverting brochures.

If you still want to go to WP:EAR, please do. It would be fun, I guess. (BTW, thanks for helping with the Riya Sen article, one of my GAs) Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Aditya a little advice for you. You can help yourself by laying off personal attack. What you decided threat that was formal warning against your personal attack. Try to avoid harsh comments and links which conveys with your personal feelings. BTW, thanks for helping with the Riya Sen article, one of my GAs - which somehow coveys with Ownership of article. Remember nobody owns any article (but you have failed to adhere that) No need to mention red colored highly block-worthy. Because you were already going to deserve this situation as you had been caught while making personal attack. Now you have come up with tons of personal notices to hide your disruptive behavior. That is really funny.--NAHID 17:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good if NAHID would express his concerns openly on the article Talk pages, and it would be good if another editor involved would reduce the borderline incivility in the edit summaries. (Words like 'blind' and 'idiot-proof.') While these edit summaries are not blockable, at least by me, they do raise tensions and they annoy anyone who has to review the situation. At Bambusa balcooa there are sharp exchanges between two editors in the edit summaries but nothing at all on the Talk page. *Use the Talk pages*, and use WP:Third opinion if needed. If you think something is not a reliable source, ask for comments on it at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aditya_Kabir/Archive_10&oldid=1142833340"