Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kmzayeem (talk | contribs) at 19:52, 18 May 2013 (Caution: Unconstructive editing on Joya Ahsan. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please leave your messages here!

Nancy (musician)

Hi. I've removed the Articles for deletion tag you placed on this article, as you did not actually say why you believe the article should be deleted. If you still wish to nominate the article for deletion, please have a look at WP:AFDHOWTO and follow the instructions there, or post a request (with your reasoning) at the Articles for deletion talk page. Or, leave me a note and I'll do it for you. Whichever way works best for you. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 19:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop making disruptive edits as you did here. You are removing large amounts of contents from those articles without even consulting to anyone, you are also removing reflinks as you did here, this is not how wikipedia works! I've asked you to discuss in the talk pages but you went on to revert my edits! If you have any concern regarding those articles, please discuss it first in the talk pages. Thanks. --Zayeem 17:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

hi. . . . . i had no intention to make disruptive edits, however, wikipedia does not allow us to use copious amounts of non-referenced text (these can be removed at any time) and also weasel words and peacock terms. all the articles you reverted included too much of such content, but it's not allowed to use advertising type language on wikipedia. we wouldn't find things like that in an normal encyclopedia. i hope if you go back and look at my edits, then you will understand what i was trying to do. believe me, you'll get it when you read what things i deleted! since you are highly experienced in these matters, i will also be grateful if you can also give this matter some attention and help fix these articles. Ricose (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry for the late reply. Well, appreciate your concerns regarding those articles but going with your edits, I think you are removing more contents than you should. In few cases I've seen you are removing the reflinks and putting the citation needed tag, this doesn't appear to be constructive. Besides, I'm not the only editor that you should consult with as a lot of other editors have also contributed in those articles. I would suggest to discuss your concerns in the talk pages of those articles and add the related maintenance tags in those articles. Also, don't remove the contents unless the discussions reach a consensus. Thanks. --Zayeem 14:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

hello my friend, no worry about the late reply. in reply to the message you left on my talk page, i do realise that other editors have also worked on the articles in the past, but wikipedia also has a few policies according to which all wikipedia articles must be written, such as

1. using reliable and neutral sources - for example, facebook pages, fan blogs or the personal website of the subjects are not considered reliable sources for wikipedia as anybody can set those up and claim to great, also the sources must be such that they can be verified by any other wikipedia editor in the world. material that comes from non-reliable sources or unreferenced content can be deleted at any time by anybody.

2. keeping a neutral point of view - this means just stating verifiable facts, also not adding biased adjectives like 'wonderful, awesome, disgusting, stupid', and not using superlatives like 'the best band of the country' or 'supreme virtuoso' unless they come from a world-class reliable source like say, newsweek magazine. this is why even worldwide famous artists such as top singers from the USA are described simply by their profession on wikipedia rather than including adjectives like 'heart throb singer', 'most popular singer of the world' or 'wonderfully fantastic'. please check the page of any famous international celebrity if you have any doubts. . . .as i read somewhere in the wiki guidelines, if someone is truly outstanding then the facts will speak for themselves.

3. sufficient notability - if a band has no albums (or just one or two independently released albums which have achieved relatively minor or little success) and just one or two concert reviews and a facebook page to prove their existence, they are not really notable enough to have their own wikipedia page.

4. sufficient number of sources - if a wikipedia article has just a single or very few sources, that is not considered sufficient by wikipedia standards. for example, the article about rock music in Bangladesh has only about five or six sources, but such a vast topic cannot be based on such few sources.

there are many more rules that need to be observed for wikipedia articles.

thus, i have tried to fully retain as much of the work of the past editors as possible while also respecting the rules of wikipedia. the edits i have made have no relationship with how many editors worked on the articles in the past, the edits is just to ensure that the material published here is meeting wikipedia guidelines.

here are a few pages you could read to learn more, in a ddition to the ones benzband (talk has listed above. . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:NPOV http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:W2W http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:V http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:OR http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Masking_the_lack_of_notability http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_one_cares_about_your_garage_band

so let's try to respect wikipedia policies! Here's to a clean wikipedia! Ricose (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

benzband (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Kolkata Bands

Hi, about this edit to Bangladeshi rock: You wrote "...there's a wiki article for that" -- where? Please see Talk:Bangladeshi rock#Requested move, as I expect you can contribute helpfully. – Fayenatic London 21:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

please check the talk page of that article for my suggestions. Kolkata bands and great, but they don't belong in a page about 'Bangladeshi' rock. Ricose (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote there too. The page started as a cross-national article about Bangla rock, but was moved without discussion and renamed for one country exclusively. – Fayenatic London 20:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

As long as the title says "Bangladeshi", the material should continue to reflect the title. I believe a discussion has already been opened regarding this on the talk page of that article, therefore please take your discussion there as there is nothing I can do about this, until further title changes. Ricose (talk) 04:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

De-illumination

You have again removed a reliable source here and this is the 3rd time you have done it in the same article. This is surely not acceptable. You may remove the peacock terms and weasel words but don't remove more than that. And nothing is violating WP:OR in the article as all of the contents are supported by the sources. Thanks. --Zayeem 16:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. . . It is completely acceptable for any wikipedia editor to edit an article on wikipedia according to the guidelines of wikipedia as many times as is necessary for that article to be maintained to the neutral and correct format that is necessary for wikipedia. The article you mentioned, which is actually written more like a personal interview of the band rather than a wikipedia/encyclopedia entry, was not in an acceptable format for wikipedia and was also loaded with puffery. In addition, there were only two references to the article, both of which happen to be dead links. the two external links are not helpful either as both are self-published sources by the band. Ricose (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, removing reliable sources from an article is definitely not acceptable even if it's a dead link. You can't even remove the contents which are cited by those dead links. And as for the links, the website of The Daily Star is going through some technical issues, they have even kept a note in this regard on their main page here which is why the links are not working, but it can surely be expected that they will fix it soon. Thanks. --Zayeem 15:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed acceptable to remove dead links, as well as content referenced by dead links. The reason for this is,how would one know whether the 'referenced material' was really there in the reference or not? In wikipedia everything must be verifiable my friend. Ricose (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope, you can't remove it, read this. And you have also removed some reflinks from Warfaze here so I'm undoing it as well. --Zayeem 10:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Then please fix the dead links! Also, dead link or no, a reference should never be used to add puff and peacock terms to an article. Leave that for their own websites. Ricose (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

benzband (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Mim Bidya Sinha Saha

You have again removed a reflink from the article here, this is now really getting serious! And please provide a source to support your claim about her birth date, 1981 surely not seem to be correct, at least I've shown a source, be it a facebook page, you didn't even shown a single source! --Zayeem 06:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Facebook pages are not considered reliable sources on wikipedia, since anyone can make a facebook page about anything with any information they want. Misplaced Pages asks for 'reliable' 3rd party sources. If you have doubts, please delete the information for the time being. if you have doubts about that date being incorrect (since you keep re-adding it again and again), note that the date is definitely incorrect, since one has to be art least 18 or 20 to participate in that pageant. She was in the pageant in 2007, so now you can decide for yourself before knowingly adding wrong information to wikipedia. Anyway, i will find the hard copy source and give it as a reference when I do. Until then, please do not add incorrect dates. Ricose (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your vandalism

I've already explained why your reverts are vandalisms here, so please stop reverting my edits! --Zayeem 14:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Making articles wkipedia-ready by removing peacock terms, puffery, FPOV and other such adjustments is not vandalism. The explanations about all of my edits have been given all over your talk page by me and an admin, as well as several other places. please read them before making FPOV reverts. Ricose (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

In the name of removing the puffs, you are simply vandalizing the articles. I've already explained the reasons in the link I posted above! --Zayeem 10:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at Joya Ahsan. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Zayeem 19:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)