User talk:Tanbircdq/Archive 2015

Speedy deletion nomination of Jelina Berlow-Rahman

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jelina Berlow-Rahman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jersey92 (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Akhlaq Choudhury

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Akhlaq Choudhury requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. reddogsix (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jelina Berlow-Rahman

The article Jelina Berlow-Rahman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jersey92 (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Tulip Siddiq

Hi Tanbircdq, Thanks for formalising the references I added to Tulip Siddiq's page. I'm new to Wikipedia editing and was looking for an expert to advise me on how to do that properly. And thanks for pointing me towards the Wikipedia policies - that makes a lot of sense and will help me be less subjective in the future. However I do feel that there is now a section missing from her career - how would you feel about reinstating something along the following lines (sticking to the facts and trying to avoid anything that sounds promotional):

'During 2013 and 2014, since being selected as Labour's candidate, Tulip has campaigned against HS2, the proposed north-south train line expansion, and in opposition to high pay day lender charges on Kilburn High Road. She has also campaigned to keep Belsize Fire Station open, to improve disabled access at West Hampstead tube station and for the Swiss Cottage post office.'

All with references, of course. Without this paragraph it sounds like she hasn't done much since becoming a candidate, which I think would seem strange to a reader.

What do you think?

thanks

Graham (gs300) Gs300 (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Graham, I have to say for a new editor your contributions are very good, you have done well to improve the article, and it is great to see you already understand the importance of information being supported by sources. Thank you for your patience, and I also appreciate you politely and respectfully addressing the issue directly. I have added the paragraph with reliable sources, take care. Tanbircdq (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:2010s crime drama film stubs

Category:2010s crime drama film stubs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

how is going

Assalamualikum. I am Aldota brother. How is going your editing in wikipedia. I hope well. You created many good articles. I started again to edit wikipedia. Everyone should be free to use wikipedia, even a sockpuppet like me. It was better if you did not report me again in sockpuppet investigation. here Did not you tell me " I will not report you but I am pretty sure that eventually someone else will", and " If you continue to sockpuppet then I do not wish to engage with you any further, take care." As i can see, you did not respect this kind of promise. I do not know what is your profit to report me, maybe a vengeance for "yousufmiah" , which is blocked for me. I am very sad about this. This is our problem, i report you and you report me. I do not know for how long we will continue to do this. Anyway take care, may Allah give us sabr and right way to follow. See you. Shukran Rimidogla (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Waslaam, I am very well thank you brother. I agree that everyone should be allowed to edit on Wikipedia but you must respect the rules just like everybody else. Yes, I did say that, but you also said here "I try to avoid sockpuppetry (i asked forgiveness to an admin and he said me to wait few month)", in my opinion you have not tried hard enough to avoid sockpuppetry if you have managed to create another dozen accounts. I am sorry that I reported you, it was not personal, I have known about these accounts for a long time and I could not keep turning a blind eye while you continue to contravene these rules. Why do you feel the need to edit with so many different accounts anyway?

I see you have an account User:Livignatak, which you have used to create Abul Kalam Azad (lecturer), I suggest you continue using this account, AND THIS ACCOUNT ONLY, and I will not to report you again. However, if I find out that you have created another account, I will not only report all the new accounts but I may report this one also. Do I make myself clear? Tanbircdq (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

what kind of pact this is? Anyway, maybe you are right. I will use just this account, but i could use other accounts "for article of deletion to KEEP or DELETE, as you do with you IP starting with 8. However, we are muslim and we come from the same backgorund. we have to help each other and be friend. But can you please delete the last sock. investigation? Jazakallahkhair. I want ask you a private question, you created many article about many bengali british people, which i know some of them, but you how do you know and and find all information about them??? However thanks, thank to you and user green editor bangladesh is exapanded here in wikipedia. Shukran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.220.68 (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I will not delete the sockpuppet investigation until all your sock accounts are blocked. If you create and use any account other than Livignatak, I will report you, it is that simple! We can be civil and help each other, but I am not sure we have to be friends. I find all the information about the articles I create through online research, it is easy when you know how, that is all you need to know. Thank you for the compliment, I appreciate it, I try to do my best, take care. Tanbircdq (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"but I am not sure we have to be friends" is not acceptable. Especially a muslim, can no say this in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.218.161 (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want any help, then feel free to ask me and I will do my best. I will not treat you different because you share the same religious or ethnic background as me, I try to be impartial on this site. I am not on Wikipedia to make friends, if you want friends try Facebook. Tanbircdq (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

i am not saiyng that kind of friend like facebook. Just a real friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.218.161 (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

gift

		The Barnstar of Good Humor!
		Hello Tanbircdq. This is a small gift because you created many articles in wikipedia. Livignatak (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the kind gesture of appreciation, most grateful, take care. Tanbircdq (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Riaz Amin

Hello, I am Riaz Amin i would like to ask you how you found out the infomation about me and who gave you authorisation to do this. Please can you contact me as soon as you get this.

Many thanks, Riaz Amin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riaz Amin (talk • contribs) 17:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Riaz Amin, you should be happy for your ARTICLE. He did research and then found your information. Tanbircdq is an experienced user of wikipedia, and he does not need authorisation to do this. If you do not want your good article, ask Tanbir, he can help you. 217.42.218.161 (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Riaz Amin, I have replied to your question on your talk page, feel free to reply there.

217.42.218.161, I think I can manage to answer questions without your help, thank you. Tanbircdq (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes you do need authorisation as this article is about me and you have linke my personal social media accounts without permission. :::Can you please reveal your identity as i do not know who you are and how you have all of my information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riaz Amin (talk • contribs) 20:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Riaz, can you please reply on your talk page not on here as this conversation is being hijacked by an IP hopper? Tanbircdq (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Missed your ping

Sorry I didn't respond to this but I never did receive a ping (I've only noticed now because a block notice popped up on my watchlist). I don't know why the ping didn't work. Maybe if you launched the SPI using a form or template then it wouldn't work even though you had signed it? Anyway, I'm glad to see your defence of the encyclopedia's integrity succeeded. NebY (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have tried different pings before but never seem to get responses, so I tend to wonder if they work or whether I am just always ignored.

Thanks, I spent a lot of time and effort trying to help this guy but it would appear that it all fell on deaf ears. I even advised him that if he sticks to just using one account I will not report him but he still would not listen; you cannot reason with a self-confessed sockpuppet who does not see anything wrong with being one. With 74 sock accounts, I do not know if he is attempting to go for the world record, but it is beyond a joke now.

He reminds me of a career criminal who is beyond rehabilitation (or a Wikipedian equivalent of this), so no point flogging a dead horse any longer, my time can be better spent elsewhere. Tanbircdq (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

A Kind of English

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of A Kind of English, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.movies.com/kind-english/details/m38695.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Great work

If I may say, as someone who's grown accustomed to 'filling in' missing documentary film categories, your categorization work is impeccable. I know that may sound like faint praise -- but it's not meant to be. Great work. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, as AmaZulu: The Children of Heaven was described as being about "teenagers," I did change that one from Category:Documentary films about children to Category:Documentary films about adolescence, though. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't sound like faint praise at all; without sounding egotistical, I do like to take a meticulous approach in ensuring an article is as complete as possible. Thank you, it's nice to see that someone noticed, :-D. Oh, I must have missed that as it wasn't in subcategory. Tanbircdq (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Your addition to A Kind of English has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

British Bengali lawyers

Hello there!

In which firm are you working? I've noticed that you're a very experienced writer on this encyclopedia. As you should know (or already be known), most of the notable bengali lawyers are not sylethi. Therefore why here -----> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_Bangladeshis#Legal there are comprehended just the sylethi one? In my and everybody's opinion just Muid, Maya and Khatun may be considered as notable. Why other notable barristers and solicitors like Nashit Rahman, Fahmida Islam, Saiful Islam, taj uddin and so on are not included there? There are not any pages on wikipedia about them. We would be grateful if you could give some explanations to us and solve this issue. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.191.126 (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the late reply, I was on a break and have only just noticed your comment. I do not work for a law firm. The explanation of why those lawyers do not have Wikipedia pages is that have not received significant coverage from independent reliable sources therefore do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. To learn more about notability on Wikipedia, I suggest you take the time to read the following pages.

Further information: WP:VRS, WP:GNG, WP:IRS, and WP:INDY

See also: WP:BLP, WP:BIO, and WP:V

. Tanbircdq (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: Aldota sockpuppet accounts

Re your message from months ago: Sorry for the ridiculously long delay in responding to you. I took a break for awhile. As for your question, unfortunately that happens with some sockpuppets. They start playing games with their tagged accounts because it inflates their egos. If it becomes a problem on a particular account, ask for the page to be protected or mention on the SPI that the user page should be protected when the account is tagged due to past behavior. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

British Bangladeshi GA reassessment

British Bangladeshi, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Akhlaq Choudhury

Hello! You wrote this article under the title Akhlaq Choudhur. The article was then moved to Akhlaq Choudhury. You requested speedy deletion of Akhlaq Choudhur, which was done. The article Akhlaq Choudhury is still live. A new user claiming to represent the subject has blanked the page; they said the subject wants it deleted. That user cannot request speedy deletion, because they are not the article's author. However, since you are the author and sole contributor to the page, you could request speedy deletion of that page (G7), if that is your intention. Or if you still believe the subject is notable, you could restore the content and keep the page. I'm just letting you know the situation; not advising you one way or the other. --MelanieN (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Mohammed El-leissy

Hi

You created a page about me. My name is Mohammed Elleissy. There is a factual error I am not a Liberal politician. Please correct this. You can reach me at elleissy@gmail.com I am happy to verify my identity if you like — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.75.197 (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the page originally had you as an Australian Greens politician based on you standing as a candidate in the 2008 Darebin Council elections. However, a user on 22 May 2013 added "In May 2013, El-leissy was shown on ABC Television program Media Watch, admitting he is now a member of the Liberal Party" here, I assumed this was done in good faith but is this information actually false? Tanbircdq (talk) 06:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Note

The motive for having moved the friendship was to get readers' attention (although Wikipedia is not censored.)

You are invited to vote here---> Talk:Indian_people#Requested_move_1st_April_2015. Thanks.--115ash^→(☏) 09:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Awakening Records

Many apologies, I somehow completely missed/forgot this. I see the page has been protected and the editor blocked, although both are about up. However, it should now be easier to deal with Ame123ojfish if they continue with the same behavior. Dougweller (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Doug, Werldwayd appears to have no intention of collaborating with other users, is just repeatedly reverting my edits, reinstating promotional and inadequately sourced information, and ignoring my explanations according to Wikipedia guidelines. In particular I have attempted to sustain one of your edits from 19 August 2014 here. I do not wish to engage in an edit war with this person, so can you please review the page and remove what you think is necessary? Thanks. Tanbircdq (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've withdrawn from a number of areas where I used to edit and I really don't want to get dragged back into something where I have no interest at all, maybe DRN? Dougweller (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Invite

Please participate There's a voting going on here. It needs to close, but consensus is not certain. We need more participation. The issues can't remain without a resolution. Please, check it out. Closure of the discussion has started. (refresh) Please, hurry. nafSadh did say 14:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping straighten out the naming for the Sayeeda Warsi and Pola Uddin articles. Ravensfire (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You're more than welcome. I noticed AHLM13 is making pretty hard work of things with his unsupported, misguided, independent editing behaviour. Tanbircdq (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Ravensfire, assume good faith. Why are you talking privately? Tanbircdq, can you repeat? Where am I making mistakes? I've never noticed about WP:NCBRITPEER. -- AHLM13 talk 10:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

AHLM13, please also assume good faith. You made a mess moving that article multiple times when you didn't really know where it should go. You didn't bother to ask for help. Because of all of the moves you made, it required an admin to come along and correct things. All you had to do was ask, on the article talk page, "Hey, is this the correct name for this article?" I didn't know about NCBRITPEER before you started to move everything here and there, but I found it with some searching. Just ask next time, please. Ravensfire (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Really? It is you who needs to assume good faith, as you have responded me offensively and doing the double agent with other users. You shouldn't have left negative comment in that incident, seen that I've never reported you about your disruptive and offensive username. -- AHLM13 talk 11:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't as nothing within Wikipedia is private. I was just making an observation. Now instead of continuously mentioning AGF or personal attack, try to take the criticism you receive on board from the latest ANI of a few.

I suggest you acknowledge all the points raised by other editors. You have been blocked a few of times already as well being warned several times, should you fail to take heed then it is likely that you will receive a more lengthy ban next time.

As for not knowing the rule, this is exactly the point; that by making edits without knowledge of established policies and guidelines causes creating unnecessary work for other editors to then spend time in fixing your mistakes. As Ravensfire has pointed out, if you are not sure then take the time to research the relevant answer and if you can't do that than just ask. I noticed you have moved the article British Bangladeshi, without evening attempting to obtain community consensus, again creating more work for other editors to correct. Tanbircdq (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

listen to me

you need to stop to change the artIcles' name. Go to ask to a Bangladeshi where he is originally from, he will tell you BANGALI. -- AHLM13 talk 16:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, AHLM13, but per policy it's you that needs to stop changing the article name once you've been reverted once, and take it to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Why are you bringing back those stuff. Talk about the current one. -- AHLM13 talk 18:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Articles

Assalamualikum. I hope you are fine. Can you create articles about Pakistani people which are red-linked in the list of British Pakistanis, especially on politicians? Also, I think "BRITISH BANGALI" would be the perfect title for the article. Let me know. Thank you. -- AHLM13 talk 19:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Look, this has very little to nothing to do with the title of the infobox, which functionally changes nothing in terms of how the data is displayed, but on the content displayed and the removal of unused and unneeded, therefore superfluous, sections. I don't appreciate the patent wikistalking into my edits even the past two months, especially into articles far outside you're usual purview. Infobox bloat is rampant throughout political articles and your continuing to add the needless empty sections makes it more difficult to keep the data clean and the editing simple, and your hiding behind whether or not the top of the box says "judge", "cabinet official", etc in lieu of the neutral "officeholder" is insidious. If you want to make those distinguishing markers, fine, but I highly resent your wiping out all my edits wholesale because of the single clause and I have to ask that you stop. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you on your talk page (by Bagunceiro and I) which you've clearly ignored for the past four weeks (not two months by the way). The template provides clear guidelines on which infobox to use, as Template:Infobox officeholder states; "Please use the most appropriate name when placing this template on a page." Therefore, as previously requested please stop changing every infobox to officeholder.

FYI, I haven't been wikistalking you actually, I've only restored my edits whenever I've received a notification that you've reverted my edit (whilst you repeatedly ignored the discussion on your talk page which is in breach of WP:BRD). I also note you failed to respond on your own talk page despite the fact I requested this from you several times in the edit summaries. I doubt you even know what my usual purview of articles are. Nevertheless, many editors are involved in editing those articles, not just you. I don't require a licence to edit those articles anymore than you having an exclusive right to edit them. Tanbircdq (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Akhlaq Choudhury

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Akhlaq Choudhury, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. —SpacemanSpiff 05:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Amaan Reza for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amaan Reza is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amaan Reza until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Arr4 (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Dilruba Yasmeen Ruhee for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dilruba Yasmeen Ruhee is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilruba Yasmeen Ruhee until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Arr4 (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Muslim/Islam

@Tanbircdq:, Hi I see you have repeatedly reverting my changes without leaving any comment (check [1], [2] and more). Can you please clarify yourself here. Altaf (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Leepu Nizamuddin Awlia

I am guessing that you are not a native English speaker. I had to re-fix several grammatical errors in the text that I had previously fixed and you re-introduced.. If you have any questions about the usage, please past a message on my talk page.

1. up to -> until. more formal usage.
2. a -> an. an is used before words that begin with a vowel (and some aspirated consonants), and a is used before words that begin with a consonant.
3. proposed -> requested. Proposed is too weak a word here and is rather indirect. It is like an idea presented perhaps to someone other than the subject. requested is more direct to the subject.
4. gets -> get. gets is used with an indirect object get is used with a direct object.

Nyth63 03:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Guild of Bangladeshi Restaurateurs

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Guild of Bangladeshi Restaurateurs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Gbawden (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge tags

I have removed your latest merge tags. You are free to put them back, but please start the discussion and outline your rationale. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Helal Miah for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Helal Miah is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helal Miah until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gbawden (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Page for Jobeda Ali

Hello, thank you for creating a Wikipedia page for me. It's flattering to be considered a public figure.

I was just wondering if you know me or have a connection to me, or what your interest otherwise is for creating this.

Thanks again for your amazing collation and hard work gathering all this information together.

Jobeda Jobedaali@me.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.225.136 (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, you are most welcome. No, I don't know you nor do I have any direct connection with you other than sharing the same ethnicity, religion and nationality. Please check your email for my answer to your question about my interest in creating the page, take care. Tanbircdq (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sugapuff

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Sugapuff requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Enamul Hoque for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Enamul Hoque is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enamul Hoque until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice work

Especially on Brit Bengalis like Leesa Gazi and Mukul Ahmed and their work for the stage and other media. As a long-term editor and a fellow Brit Bengali familiar with their creative work for many years, a big well done! --Peripatetic (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I have also noticed the great work you have done on articles about British Bangladeshis. I was particularly inspired to write the page about Rupa Huq after seeing it red-linked on your user page. Tanbircdq (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Your addition to List of people who have been considered deities has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

British Bangladeshi GA reassessment

British Bangladeshi, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Tess Holliday article

I am not sure why you deleted some of my edits from the Tess Holliday page because it violated NPOV. I do not understand why you are say this. Tell Holliday IS morbidly obese and the that is deeply relevant to an article about her and her fat acceptance movement. Morbid obesity is defined as either 1. a body weight 100 pounds or more than what is medically recommended or 2. a Body Mass Index (BMI) of over 40. By either measure she is morbidly obese. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk

Reform movement in Judaism

Hello. As there is a majority in the talk page, and this version was there for a week, I reverted. Trust me, I am well acquainted with the subject. This article was quite an OR, and filled with mistakes. Of course, if you'd like to debate the issue further, I'd be happy to oblige. Please read the bottom of the talk pages there and in Reform Judaism; two users in total, HG and Malik, agreed. And they are the only ones who bothered to comment in a year. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yisrael Katz

You have violated 1RR on the Yisrael Katz article. Kindly self-revert or I will have to report you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Aldgate tube station

Please see WP:NAMB. How could Aldgate tube station possibly be confused with Aldgate railway station, Adelaide? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I would say ask the editor who added it on 27 July 2007 here, which was amended on 31 January 2015 here but they've both since been blocked. I think an other uses hatnote might suffice to Aldgate railway station, however, probably best to refer this matter to the article talk page too, take care. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Pregnancy over age 50: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. FYI Auric talk 17:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Amin al-Husseini. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

DS alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

“WarKosign” 12:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Trinacrialucente

This editor does not have 500 edits - they have 332. Please undo your revert. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, I have self-reverted, take care. Tanbircdq (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The prohibition is for "all anonymous IP editors and accounts with less 500 edits and 30 days tenure" not "500 edits OR 30 days tenure". Both the criteria of less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure needs to be met for the prohibition to apply, as the editor has been active since 13 November 2013, this prohibition doesn't apply to them. Tanbircdq (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you are incorrect, but will ask for clarification. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

When Other Legends Are Forgotten, I see more than 500 edits. Where are you getting 332 from? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

edit counters such as this https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=Trinacrialucente&project=en.wikipedia.org&toplimit=10. Where are you seeing more than 500 edits? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I have notified the other editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Tanbircdq, to edit these articles an account must be over 30 days old and have more than 500 edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Now that we have this clarification, please undo your edit. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The edit may stand if Tanbircdq wishes to take responsibility for it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, my mistake, thank you for clarifying that. I think for the interest of clarity it would read better to say "or" instead of "and".

I've reviewed the edits and I am of the opinion that they're valid from the sources provided with the exception of one section which is still in discussion on the talk page.

I think that regardless of if an editor is barred from an article, to continually revert an editors good-faith edits wholesale over content dispute by using the prohibition as a pretext is misusing the purpose of this prohibition, unless the edits themselves are actually disruptive (which they don't appear to be), as you also did here on Israeli settlement which RolandR reverted back. Tanbircdq (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

No, if ArbCom sanctions are to mean anything, they can't be selectively applied, allowing "good faith" edits to remain. We don't allow topic-banned editors to make "good edits", we don't allow blocked users to make "good edits", ad we don't allow sock puppets to make "good edits. Same applies here. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

That's not strictly true, after a banned user/IP has been identified that doesn't mean every single contribution made by that editor should be removed. The edits should then be taken on merit. Same would apply here.

Other editors may disagree but I think such editing behaviour is WP:POINTY. The purpose of such sanctions is to act as a deterrence. I think once an editor who may not be aware of the prohbition has been warned about refraining from editing on those articles, common sense should then be applied when removing the content that has been added, (especially in this case where the account was active prior to the RfC) otherwise it's just unconstructive in the interest of building an encyclopedia. Tanbircdq (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

So, should topic banned editors be allowed to make "good edits"? Isn't it WP:POINTY to revert their edits, just to make a point? The editor in question was notified (by me ) about the restrictions back on November 22nd, and they continued to edit the topic area, ignoring the notification, When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Tanbircdq:, I appreciate you looking into this. But as you can see, the kabal has spoken. I think any rational person would agree this "prohibition" was meant to prevent saboteurs and vandalism to these topics. Instead it is being used to target anyone with an opposing (note: NOT dissenting) view. None of the edits I made could possibly be seen as vandalism or sabotage, so for the moment we'll have to abide by this very blatant Wikipedia segregation and the subjective interpretation therein.Trinacrialucente (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm more than aware of why there was a need for the prohibition, primarily due to sockpuppets being deliberately disruptive in an attempt to force their POV across. Tanbircdq (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Such prohibition should stay - says a fellow IP-hounded Wikipedian (see my Talk page).

FYI, on Polish wikipedias where I also tinker all IPs are prohibited, while all edits are reviewed/accepted by experienced Wikpedians via an agreed verification process. Zezen (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI

I have raised my concerns about your behaviour at ANI. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tanbircdq and Israeli politician articles. Number 57 22:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources for Mujaddid

Surely you don't think a kindle study guide by Cram101 is a reliable source? I commented on it at the talk page. Doug Weller (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Ism schism

Ism schism probably working for Iran gov. Just see his recent edits, becomes quite obvious.--Sheildy (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Kharijite Rebellion (866-896)

Hi Tanbircdq,

I saw that you had moved the page Kharijite Rebellion (866-896) to Kharijite Rebellion. With respect, I don't think the new name is appropriate, as it implies that this particular rebellion was the only Kharijite revolt to occur, when in fact there were dozens that took place throughout the seventh through tenth centuries, some of which were more important than this one. In the Jazira area alone, for example, Kharijite rebellions also took place in the Abbasid period in 750-1, 776-9, 784-5, 787-9, 792-3, 794, 796-7, 802-3, 805-06, 817-8, 829, 845-6, 862-3, 870-1, 880-1 and 929-31. Ideally, a "complete" Wikipedia would have articles for every Kharijite revolt that ever took place; it just so happens that we currently only have the one for 866-896. If you don't object, I'd like to move the current page back to "Kharijite Rebellion (866-896);" let me know what you think. Thanks, Ro4444 (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, if there are other notable rebellions that took place then pages should be created for those and the Kharijite Rebellion title can then be made into a disambiguation page. However, until this is done I think the title should remain as per WP:PRECISION, if you disagree with this please start a move request on the talk page, take care. Tanbircdq (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)