User talk:S. M. Nazmus Shakib/Archives/Archive 2

WP:BEFORE[edit]

Hi, please remember to carry out a thorough WP:BEFORE on articles before you nominate them for deletion. The speed of your nominations suggests you have not followed this procedure, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC

Atlantic306 Thanks for you suggestion. Actually I have read WP:BEFORE before nominating those fot AfD (please see the comments on AfDs. I think those will remove your suspicion).S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read[edit]

... point 3 in WP:GOSSIP. We don't add it is said, it is heard on the Wikipedia especially for WP:BLP. Adhere policy.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New message from DBigXray[edit]

Hello, S. M. Nazmus Shakib. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha.
Message added 13:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DBig Xrayᗙ 13:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

An editor had attacked you here [1] for nominating an article for AfD. This is being discussed on this thread. You can share your comments there and add more diffs if you faced more such incidents from that user. --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, At WP:ANI it is expected to provide WP:DIFF as evidence for any comment that you make. I have replied there adding the necessary diff. Please review them and confirm there that you are indeed talking about the same diffs. regards. --DBig Xrayᗙ 05:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For trying to help clean the spam away from Wikipedia :) Best, Sambhil32 (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swamping AfD[edit]

I see today you swamped AfD with a large number of articles of the form: region Mahila Congress Committee. Per WP:BUNDLE it is best to bundle these all together, possible with one first as a test case and indentified as such, rather than each individually to avoid swamping the AfD system. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I agree with Djm-leighpark, that it is better to BUNDLE if you have decided that all of these must go. I also believe that these political SPAM must not have been allowed in the first place, but with such large scale bundling, there is always a risk that some notable (if at all, there is one) article will get ignored to be considered on its own merit. --DBig Xrayᗙ 09:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark: Some of these articles migh pass our notability criteria. So, I think it will be better to consider them independently.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My immediate off the cuff response to that is: why are you submitting to AfD articles that "migh(t) pass our notability criteria" to AFD and claiming that they don't pass our notability criteria in the nomination? Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark: The articles seem to me will not pass our notability guideline. So I have given it to AfD. I am not 100% right in AfDs in Wikipedia. So I used migh(t). (N. B. I judged article's quality and use google to know their condition in our notability criteria. So, I went to AfD).S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answer seems to indicate a pretty cursory WP:BEFORE and no attempt to improve articles. Probably why I am nudging Missvain for a refund of BJP Mahila Morcha as I am somewhat of the opinion the Women's wing of a main (?largest) political party in India, a country of 900 million, cannot really fail to be notable. At the absolute minimum it should have been a redirect. Actually its a possible case for a DRV.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark: Whatever you think. But, its my intention there, I am not 100% right in AfDs. So I used migh(t) in respect of other users who votes against my opinion in AfDs and the AfDs ended in there opinion. (As Wikipedia is a neutral place so I used the word migh(t) in respect of their opinion).S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say the same exact thing. Nominating as many articles as you did for deletion all with the same justification is simply disruptive. You should have had two nominations, All India Mahila Congress and a seperate one for its affiliates. I do not want to see this ever happen again, please. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is my suggestion as well. Either the deletion discussions could be bundled or perhaps 2-3 of them could be nominated every week.--DreamLinker (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark, MJL, and DreamLinker: are calling to bundle them I think I am right in this AfD. Will you help me to bundle those, plese?S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think what has already been nominated can stay as it is. My suggestion is for future nominations.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd concur the actions of bundling this set would now likely cause as much collateral fog to the other related political wings/parties currently at AfD as helping clarify them; and I surmise requires deft work by nom. possibly aided by one other; or an admin; to accomplish neatly without landing in heap.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BJP Mahila Morcha[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BJP Mahila Morcha. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?[edit]

Outlook and Scroll are even unreliable websites?— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 12:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harshil169, please be Kind, people sometimes lack the necessary information or previous discussions on wP:RSN ⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 12:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opindia[edit]

Opindia is not a reliable source. it was discussed at WP:RSN please do not edit war with User:Harshil169. He is a good editor, here to help. regards. --⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 12:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harshil169 and DBigXray I know that. I have said briefly on Harshil's talk page that it was done for the difference of seconds. I was going to remove OpIndia. And, here again difference of seconds!S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S. M. Nazmus Shakib, ok. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for your help in improving this page. ⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 12:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for North East Delhi riots[edit]

On 26 February 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article North East Delhi riots, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. --⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 12:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would not have been possible without your helping hand to update this--⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 12:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More than reverts[edit]

[2], [3], [4], [5] and many more-- if you don't know then this can lead to block on you for violating WP:3RR. These are not blatant vandalism and edit summaries are must. Don't engage in edit wars even with trolls; someone will remove problematic edits.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 13:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Harshil169 These are blatant vandalism, BLP Violation and out of the purview of 3RR see WP:NOT3RR--⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 13:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DS Alert[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Avoid repeating links[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to S I M Nurunnabi Khan, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aly Fayez[edit]

Hi I received message That tells me i can delete that but explain why in your edit summary and i explained why in my last edit summary. Thanks Ahayad38 (talk) 03:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. — Sanskari ^Hangout 09:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aly Fayez[edit]

i Do what I reed and you revert it You can Explain to me what i wrong about because i New User if you revert my edit again without explain what is wrong i will add request to block You. Ahayad38 (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About the proposed deletion process[edit]

Hello,

I noticed that you have been readding the PROD tag on Aly Fayez. The proposed deletion process is a one time process for any page and removal by anyone (including the article's creator) invalidates and permanently cancels the tag. The page may not be nominated for deletion again via the proposed deletion process. Please see WP:CONTESTED for the policy on this. Your readdition of the PROD tag is both against the proposed deletion policy and also is a violation of our edit warring policy. If you continue to edit war, or break 3RR, then you may be blocked.

In short, the PROD tag cannot be added back as it has been contested. Use the criteria for speedy deletion or a deletion discussion to nominate the page for deletion. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aly Fayez[edit]

Your repeated only and final warnings to Ahayad38 (talk · contribs) are inappropriate. I would highly suggest that you apologize to Ahayad38 for the excessive warnings rooted in a misunderstanding of the proposed deletion policy. Final warnings and only warnings (levels 4 and 4im) are only to be used for obviously bad-faith disruptive edits; these edits were neither. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the beginning, thank you, I have no problem, and I don't need an apology. I only care about correcting a friend's point of view again Thanks 💜 Ahayad38 (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About Ahayad38 issue[edit]

Seriously, I don't really like the way you treated Ahayad38. Going through the whole issue made me sad. Please, do not bite the newcomers, but rather, encourage them. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 09:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]