Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Mohammad Nur Khan. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Nur Khan Liton. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Nur Khan Liton. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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 deleted 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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinegarymass911, aah snap! Wasted efforts. Sighs. Although nice to see a more comprehensive version exist. By the way, shouldn't there be a redirect now? X (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Since a redirect is viable, speedy deletion is not appropriate. I've gone ahead and made it a redir. Cheers! - UtherSRG (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:PROD of D'Arcy Keating is declined because it had a previously declined proposed deletion on February 8, 2018. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at Ramzan Miah as requested. I have made a few minor changes, but overall it looks OK. However, you must provide a reliable source for his date of birth, or remove that info. Regards, WWGB (talk) 04:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Xkalponik, and welcome to Women in Red. I see you have already written several interesting biographies of women and look forward to many more. If you have not already done so, you might like to look at some of our Essays, perhaps starting with our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red - June 2023

Women in Red June 2023, Vol 9, Iss 6, Nos 251, 252, 271, 272, 273 Online events: New: Alphabet run X, Y & Z | LGBTQ+ women | Wiki Loves Pride | Women in Music Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Women in Green: June 2023 GA Editathon event page Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride/2023 global campaign The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref - May 15th to June 5th Tip of the month: Looking for new red links? Keep an eye out for interesting and notable friends, family, or associates of your last article subject, and re-examine group photos for other women who may still need an article. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Ipigott (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Delwar Hossain Sayeedi. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. LucrativeOffer (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, read the edit summaries. I did not remove any sourced content per se, but these sources did not verify the claims. Just because there are a lot of links aligned, do not make the claims verified automatically, I invite you to check them yourself, which I did, and found the sources did not verify the claims. Then I partially removed those and rewrote some of those claims in other sections, that reflected objectivity. Please do not start an edit war. I'm a more experienced user than you. If you have complaints or would like to discuss or want me to further explain my actions, please say so. Thanks. X (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have concerns, raise it in the talk page and reach a consensus. I don't see any valid reasons in your edit summaries to remove all those sourced contents which is why they have been restored. I have checked the sources and they look fine. If you really are experienced, I assume you are aware of the WP:BRD and WP:DE policies. What I'm seeing is you are trying to claim ownership of the article by reverting all the other editors which is quite disruptive. LucrativeOffer (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm aware of those policies. I'm not trying to claim the page. And I have not reverted edits by all other users. Re-check the edit history, you'd notice there have been constructive edits by several users, which I did not revert, even I brought back constructive edits by other users myself, again, because they were "constructive." This is a fact, that you seemed to have altered, and I put your assertions and accuracy into question. I explicitly said, I did not remove those entirely, but I rewrote those in the latter sections in an objective manner. I even added new sources along with new lines that describe the claims better. And I removed and rewrote factual error claims. Those were comments by his supporters, and sources reported that saying, X and Y commented/opinionated "this and that." These do not constitute facts, but comments, which can be added in the controversy/reaction section. X (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xkalponik! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Delwar Hossain Sayeedi several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Delwar Hossain Sayeedi, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. SpaceExplorer12 (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Delwar Hossain Sayeedi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. LucrativeOffer (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]