Talk:Tishma/Archive 1

Personal attacks

The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article. The talk page is not a place for users to gang up to poke fun at other users, especially referring to them by name. if u have issues with anyone, why not message the users directly rather than writing derogatory remarks concerning them on the talk page of a public wikipedia page? u may or may not agree with edits, but that is no reason for personal attacks. thanks. Faisal961 (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

copying and pasting a section below to explain: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines&action=edit&section=6

Behavior that is unacceptable

Please note that some of the following are of sufficient importance to be official Wikipedia policy. Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia.

• No personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. This mainly means:
  • No insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist. Instead, explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it.
  • Do not threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you. Explaining to an editor the consequences of violating Wikipedia policies, like being blocked for vandalism, is permitted however.
  • Do not make legal threats: Threatening a lawsuit is highly disruptive to Wikipedia, for reasons given at the linked page.
  • Never post personal details: Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely.
• Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means:
  • Be precise in quoting others.
  • When describing other people's contributions or edits, use diffs. The advantage of diffs in referring to a comment is that it will always remain the same, even when a talk page gets archived or a comment gets changed.
• Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article.

Faisal961 (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

This talk page is the primary place for discussion regarding edits to the Tishma article, not indivual users' talkpages.

Faisal, please yourself do not misrepresent other people. No one insulted, made legal threats, posted personal details, or used the talkpage as a forum. Concerns have been raised about edits made to this article, and about the users making those edits, namely: 114.130.31.4, Faisal961, Signaltome, FellaRain, and Checkin34z. According to WP:SOCK:

• For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee issued a decision in 2005 stating "whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets."

I'm restoring the threads, feel free to challenge them in written form but please don't delete them. benzband (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

so basically if i see another user use my name in a derogatory way in a public talk page, i have no right to say anything about it? wikipedia is a place where we are all free to make edits, does it give other users the right to attack us for making those edits? i have written nothing offensive, i have not attacked or mocked anyone for making their edits, so if i expect the same in return, am i asking for too much? Faisal961 (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course you can say something about it, just please don't go deleting other editor's comments. benzband (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

i see. in that case, the taunting comments written by the person who started the thread were indeed not inappropriate. in wikipedia we are all supposed to be civil to each other and not offend others' sentiments and launch into personal attacks. Faisal961 (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to note that suspicion of sock-puppeting is best dealt with that way, and a talkplace is not the right please for it. Don't do that. Also: removing such comments is not the way to deal with it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

A story of a die hard fan

This article is very badly written by a fan of Tishma. All the text came from his/her heart rather than a proper cited source. It is full of hyperbole, peacock terms, weasel words and many incorrect claims of being the "first" and repeated paragraphs (Since Tishma was the pioneer in her field....). The sentence - She hummed her first tune before she even spoke her first words! - is crème de la crème.

Going through the revision history I have found this "die hard fan" is User:114.130.31.4. Any effort to fix this page is undone by him/her stating "vandalism" (!). He/she has been warned in User talk:114.130.31.4. And this article has been semi-protected for 7 days.

But the fan is back ! And with a new account of User:Checkin34z (User talk:Checkin34z).

By the way, he/she is also a fan of Tasbiha Binte Shahid Mila. altaf 10:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

And now apparently writing as User:Signaltome [1]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, possibly User:Faisal961 and Special:Contribs/114.130.31.4… benzband (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Almost certainly. And now User:‎FellaRain has just appeared. What fun. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I must point out that MOST of the articles on Wikipedia about Bangladeshi celebrities appear to be written by "die-hard" fans. This article about Tishma (which, by the way, has been completely re-written since this thread was started, and in which, by the way, the aforementioned 'claims' of being the 'first' turned out to be TRUE upon further research!) seems to be one of the only very few articles about a Bangladeshi celebrity that is actually cited and researched very thoroughly. Unfortunately a lot of the articles on Bangladeshi celebrities currently need a huge amount of work; it's not just the "die-hard" fan point of view in those articles but also the grammar, strange sentences and huge amounts of unverified information/no citations that will need to be re-edited and researched. It is also difficult as internet has only recently started to propagate in Bangladesh. It will take ages to work on all of those wiki articles! But it will be worth it I'm sure! Faisal961 (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Non English sources

This article relies heavily on sources in Bengali. While such sources are permitted under WP:NONENG they should only be used when a translation is provided. Note that any material sourced solely to untranslated Bengali texts may be challenged and removed at any time. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Nah, that goes only for quotes: Quotes in the text should be offered in both Bengali and in English. It is preferred to have an official translation in that case, but fine for any wikipedian to translate it. References in Bengali are fine if no equally good sources exist in English. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

That depends on how you read footnote 9. The problem here is that large parts of the article are sourced solely to non-english sources (14 references by my count). Indeed there are almost no english language reliable sources about Tishma at all. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Martijn Hoekstra is right. Bangla is the mother tongue of Bangladesh and naturally as such, Bangla media far outweighs English ones. In fact, as a search on any random Bangladeshi celebrity on Google will confirm, much of English material about Bangladeshi celebrities exists on blogs. Internet is still young in Bangladesh and is not yet so widespread like many other countries. As such, there are not nearly as many English sources as Bangla ones. Anyway, most of the sources given for this article seem to be the websites of newspapers so those are sufficiently reliable, certainly. However, just because sources about Bangladeshi celebrities are less on English, then according to you,Jonathan A Jones, does it mean that their existence is also less? Then in that case, what about the many Bangladeshi celebrities for whom almost no English content is available? Then according to wikipedia will that also mean that they simply don't exist?! Faisal961 (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

According to the English Wikipedia such topics scarcely exist: they have a place but it isn't here. The proper place for articles relying wholly or mainly on sources not in English is the appropriate language Wikipedia. There is an argument for having a small article here on the grounds of completeness, but no more than that. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I very much disagree with that. I never heard that reading of wp:v, and I don't think there is any consensus for it. Start an rfc on the subject if you think a consensus for it can be found. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Educated in Camberley or London?

What are people using as a sourse for her supposed education in "Camberly", which I assume is a type for Camberley? I really can't see this in reference 2 which is the source given. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Checking reference 2, it's written quite clearly that she studied in UK. Specifically Camberley isn't mentioned in that particular reference, but it's mentioned on the page that links to the soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/tishma and others. On the other hand, other sites, like this bbc website states she studied in London as well (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bengali/multimedia/2011/05/110518_sm_tishma_gangolpo.shtml) that means she began her education in Camberley and later studied in London and other countries. in some interview or tv show of tishma i saw she mentioned that she also attended a couple of schools in Dhaka, Bangladesh also, and now attending college in Bangladesh. for wikipedia, i'm sure we should only use text sources though! Faisal961 (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Text sources are preferrable but you can in principle use sound files as long as you link directly to the source (you can't just use links off a page that you link to). In a BLP it is particularly important that every statement should be well sourced. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

thank you, sounds very complicated so i'll just stick to web text sources! i also don't know what a BLP is, must check that! also have no memory of which exact sources i got that info on anyway, just when channel surfing or something i guess! :D Faisal961 (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:BLP, WP:IRS and WP:NOR. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

i already did sort of check those, thanks. that's why i stick to web sources, as they are just easier to verify. Faisal961 (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Music-love and last.fm

Music-love and last.fm appear to be blog sites, and thus self published sources under WP:BLOGS. If this isn't correct could you clarify precisely what they are, and in particular which individual or organisation exercises full editorial control? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Last.fm: (from the article) Users may add relevant biographical details and other information to any artist's main page in the form of a Wiki. Edits are regularly moderated to prevent vandalism. A photograph of the artist may also be added. If more than one is submitted, the most popular is chosen by public vote. User submitted content is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License and GNU Free Documentation License.

I deeply love Last.fm, but I wouldn't call it a reliable source per WP:RS. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that, I said that it isn't a blog.--Auric talk 18:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The person who opened the thread basically wanted to know if last.fm is a blog or not, so Auric was just helping to answer his question. :) Faisal961 (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

In any event it's clearly a self published source under WP:USERG. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter now, the sources have been changed. Faisal961 (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

That's usually the best way to solve such problems: if a source is dubious find a better source.

On a different matter, please don't reorder sections on the talk page, but leave them in the order they came in. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Music-love is rather harder to define, but does appear to have social media features. --Auric talk 12:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Archiving and changing talk pages

Please discuss here first before attempting to archive a page. You are strongly advised to read WP:ARCHIVE first, and to use an automatic system such as MiszaBot, as manual archiving lays you open to charges of selective and/or biased archiving.

And please don't rearrange and retitle sections. This is widely considered as rude. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, i have read that already. What you state is not mentioned there, rather, they themselves have neatly and clearly laid out the process for manually archiving talk pages that have become bulky. There is no such thing mentioned there about "manual archiving laying one open" to any charges, in fact, if that were so then they would not have outlined the process for doing do. And further, there is absolutely no scope for charging one with "biased" archiving, as an archive by definition stores all previous discussions, for anyone to access at any time, so i think if anyone has done anything wrong then it will be there for all to see for themselves. And could you please specify which 're-arranging' or 're-title' may be considered rude? The only archive title i remember changing today was the title of a section I myself had created, and that too was changed to reflect an additional question that I myself had asked. Please be reasonable, I think the only time this can be considered rude is when one has changed a title created by someone else in such a way that, say, it is edited to reflect the opposite view of that inside the thread, such as changing it from, "I love oranges" to "I hate oranges". Faisal961 (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Since you have read WP:ARCHIVE you will be aware that this talk page is well below the size at which archiving is recommended, and as such any decision to archive is unusual. In such circumstances it is highly recommended to discuss archiving before implementing something.

You will also be aware that "Given that archived discussions are immutable, archiving a discussion effectively ends that particular discussion". As there is frequently disagreement as to whether a discussion has ended it is unwise for any participant in a discussion to make this decision. The advantage of using an archive bot is that it makes these descisions in a simple, transparent and objective fashion. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason why changing section titles, even section titles which you wrote yourself is considered rude is that you are changing the topic after other participants in the discussion have made their points, and are thus in effect misrepresenting their views. Please don't do it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

If you have read WP:ARCHIVE, please note that the size they suggest is a mere suggestion, it is not set in stone. rather, in fact, please note that they also clearly say;

"It is customary to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page when that page becomes too large. Bulky talk pages may be hard to navigate, contain obsolete discussion, or become a burden for users with slow Internet connections or computers. Notices are placed at the beginning of the talk page to inform all editors of an archive."

the issues they mentioned concerning bulky talk pages were all very applicable in my case, so archiving seemed the ideal thing to do. as for the title change issue, i made to my section was from '"redundant tags?"' to '"redundant tags? and concerning bot activities"'. any point previously made under this title, within the limits of reason, could not possibly be "misrepresented" later on by a change like that, and it is not mentioned above either.Faisal961 (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

archived few resolved sections that are now 3-4 years old and have not been updated for years, since we are having a discussion below and it is a pain to scroll down so much unnecessarily through all this irrelevant and old bulks whenever we want to discuss new things! Checkin34z (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)