No, this is not an article, an essay or a summry of WikiGuidelines, nor it is a real archive of my talk page. Rather it is a compilation of discussions from quite a few pages, put as chronologically as possible. This only serves as an example of how difficult the task of spreading WikiLove can get if not done right. Aditya Kabir 13:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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:
“ | No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense. For example, the information in a newspaper article can easily be used as a basis of an original article and then cited as a reference. Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources, though simply "tracing" copyrighted material does not make it free. Neither photographs nor sound clips, however, can usually be "transformed" in this way. However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken. | ” |
— Exceptions, Fair Use, Wikipedia Policy |
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)
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)
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
Answering your queries:
Thanks for your questions. I wish all Wikipedians were civil and inquisitive like you are. Now, for three more things:
Thanks again. - Aditya Kabir 16:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
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:
Keep the good work going, just be a li'll more careful. - Aditya Kabir 09:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
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
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:
Thanks again. - Aditya Kabir 05:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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......
I have left a message for you on Template talk:Private Universities of Bangladesh. Please, check. Aditya Kabir 16:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
Regarding on comments of user aditya kabir...
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)
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
But he took it otherwise, as his intention is to blame me.
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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!
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.
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)
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-- NAH ID 12:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)]]
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)
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)
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.-- NAH ID 19:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A diff (calling editor again blind) NAH ID 11:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
No, this is not an article, an essay or a summry of WikiGuidelines, nor it is a real archive of my talk page. Rather it is a compilation of discussions from quite a few pages, put as chronologically as possible. This only serves as an example of how difficult the task of spreading WikiLove can get if not done right. Aditya Kabir 13:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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:
“ | No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense. For example, the information in a newspaper article can easily be used as a basis of an original article and then cited as a reference. Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources, though simply "tracing" copyrighted material does not make it free. Neither photographs nor sound clips, however, can usually be "transformed" in this way. However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken. | ” |
— Exceptions, Fair Use, Wikipedia Policy |
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)
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)
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
Answering your queries:
Thanks for your questions. I wish all Wikipedians were civil and inquisitive like you are. Now, for three more things:
Thanks again. - Aditya Kabir 16:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
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:
Keep the good work going, just be a li'll more careful. - Aditya Kabir 09:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
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
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:
Thanks again. - Aditya Kabir 05:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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......
I have left a message for you on Template talk:Private Universities of Bangladesh. Please, check. Aditya Kabir 16:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
Regarding on comments of user aditya kabir...
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)
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
But he took it otherwise, as his intention is to blame me.
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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!
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.
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)
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-- NAH ID 12:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)]]
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)
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)
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.-- NAH ID 19:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A diff (calling editor again blind) NAH ID 11:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
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)