User talk:Aminul802

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ameer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

undoing my edits

why are you undoing my edits without any discussion? it is a violation of wikipedia policy? -- Khan Muhammad (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ghulam_Azam#Warning_to_Aminul802_and_a_response_concerning_the_biases_of_the_Daily_Star Regards, Aminul802 (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)

[1] Please explain were in the source used does it say the figures are the subject of considerable dispute or even 58,000, and number of women raped at 25,000, both of which are themselves objectively high numbers.? This is a blatant misrepresentation of the source. You also removed Up to 10 million refuges fled to India and a further 30 million were displaced which was sourced to the academic press and a leading author in the field, please self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for specifying this. Please give me a few hours, after which I will be available to respond. Aminul802 (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Shines, it reflects a lack of a NPOV on your part that makes you consider this "a blatant misrepresentation of the source". For one, there are several sources that I am referencing, and the fact that they give differing numbers is one indication that there is dispute regarding the matter. The epithet "considerable" is entirely appropriate in light of David Bergman's analysis [2], which discusses in detail the extent of the dispute, and which mentions the figure 58,000 citing it from Necrometrics [3]. Bergman also discusses the rape figure, citing the lower figure of 25,000 based on an academic based in Australia, Bina D'Costa, whose article is available on this peer-reviewed journal [4]. He also notes that these are still high numbers, even if they are lower than the 'official' figures which he considers to also be exaggerations. Hence they are still objectively [5] high numbers.

Regarding the deletion of your reference, this was inadvertant, as I was undoing it based in part on the edit summary, which was about adding a rs tag to Bergman's blog, and I didn't realise that you had not disclosed the addition of a reference to refugees. Please state all the changes in the edit summary when you have the space, as you did in this case, and such inadvertant undoings will not occur. I will now undo the deletion. Aminul802 (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to post this here and not the article talk page. You have misunderstood what Bina D'Costa has written, 25000 is not how many were raped, it is how many were impregnated. Her estimate for rape victims is 200,000. And if that reporter got such a simple fact wrong he is not very reliable at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bergman's reliability probably cannot be judged by someone of your intellectual capacities. For you to charactarise him as getting a simple fact wrong, without trying to look for an explanation reconfirms your evident biases on this entire issue. He does not refer to this particular article, but to D'Costa more generally, and the rest of his investigative journalism and scholarly analysis lends credence to the fact that he has not simply invented the figure. Hence the number should be kept in the article as the published work of of an expert in analyst in the area, and should only be removed if there are convincing reasons to think that he is erroneous. The fact that it doesn't match up with one of the co-authored works of the same author elsewhere does not cast doubt on his quoting her as saying the figure is "too high". This quote isn't in this article, so there is presumably another source for Bergman's citation. You should verify that it is an error with either Bergman or D'Costa before you remove the figure. If we were to delete all the statements that weren't backed up with unassailable facts, we would need to delete the 3 million figure and the 200,000 figure, since both are simply "official" figures without convincing empirical evidence. Aminul802 (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find my intellectual capacities are just fine, read WP:NPA.

Much less has been written about the issue of rapes in Bangladesh but I think it is fair to see there is doubt about the accuracy of this figure. The Australian based academic, Bina D'Costa, who is amongst the few who has researched this area in some detail, thinks that this number is ‘too high’. From interviews of those involved in the abortion and the adoption programme that took place in Bangladesh after the war, she considers that ’25,000 forced pregnancies is correct’, though she accepted this may be a ‘rather conservative estimate.’ It is even less likely that we will ever have an accurate figure of the number of women raped in 1971. But even assuming D'Costa's estimate is correct, 25,000 rapes is a huge number.

He quotes her figures of "25,000 forced pregnancies is correct" then goes on to write "25,000 rapes is a huge number" Were exactly in that text does it say there were only 25000 rapes? Absolutely nowhere, as I said the low end estimate for rape victims is 200000. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Please read the following policy's carefully, WP:RS and WP:BLP. Using a comment you yourself made on a Wikipedia talk page as a source in a BLP as you did here [6] is a serious breach of policy. Read the relevant policy's I have linked to above before such errors happen again. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of David Bergman (journalist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Bergman (journalist) 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/David Bergman (journalist) 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 template from the top of the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mohammed Nizamul Huq for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mohammed Nizamul Huq 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/Mohammed Nizamul Huq 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 template from the top of the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ahmed Ziauddin

Hello, Aminul802. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Ahmed Ziauddin, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Ahmed Ziauddin to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ahmed Ziauddin

Hello, Aminul802. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Ahmed Ziauddin, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor, Phil Bridger (talk · contribs) has removed the {{prod}} tag from the page, writing that there are sources showing that Ziauddin was notable before the scandal - so happy editing! (I suggest you ask Phil Bridger what those sources are, so that you can add them to the article, so Ziauddin's independent notability should be obvious. Also, I think if you split the part describing the Economist hacking scandal to its own page it would still be of great benefit, because, after all, most of the coverage in the references provided now describes this incident primarily, so it is certainly notable in its own right.) הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Daily Star

The Economist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Daily Star

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

David Bergman (disambiguation), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Disambig-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linkvio

You cannot link to external sites which have copyrighted information per WP:LINKVIO Please refrain form doing this again. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out which links have copyrighted material. Please don't remove other links that have nothing to do with what you consider a copyright violation.Aminul802 (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linkvio Concern

You cannot link to external sites which have copyrighted information per WP:LINKVIO Please refrain form doing this again.--Freemesm (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out how there is any copyright violation involved in posting what is now in the public domain? The linkvio page doesn't say anything about the kind of youtube links posted, namely those that have been posted of Nizamul Huq and Ahmed Ziauddin's conversations. If they entailed any copyright violation, they would have been removed from YouTube.Aminul802 (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:VAND

& WP:NPA Call me a vandal again and yuo will be reported. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Bergman (journalist)

I saw the discussion about your article. This is salvageable. Would you like to bring it up to a point where you can win over the others?Crtew (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to bring the article up to higher standards? Crtew (talk) 05:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to. I'm away for a week or so, with limited internet access. I'd love to hear your suggestions. I think Bergman is immensely important, and is not recognised as such only because the country he investigates is not geopolitically interesting to the international media. This is despite the fact that Bangladesh is one of the worlds largest countries by population, and is a democracy that is under threat. Aminul802 (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LINKVIO

I have already warned you about this yet you persist[7] in adding links to copyrighted material on youtube. Do not do this again please. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've commented similarly elsewhere: please point out how there is any copyright violation involved in posting what is now in the public domain? What exactly is copyrighted as intellectual property here? The linkvio page doesn't say anything about the kind of youtube links posted, namely those that have been posted of Nizamul Huq and Ahmed Ziauddin's conversations. If they entailed any copyright violation, they would have been removed from YouTube [8]. In this link, if you click "What will happen if you upload infringing content?" you will learn that YouTube removes any copyright infringing material at the first opportunity. Until I see some evidence presented that wiki disallows the use of hacked material now in the public domain, like wikileaks material which is extensively discussed and documented in the relevant wikipedia pages, I will consider this vandalism and undo it. For wikileaks pages, see this [9]wiki article and those linked within it. I will undo your edits until you can present a convincing case that this constitutes a linkvio. That will require more than merely invoking wp:linkvio. Please do not delete like this again. Aminul802 (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are private conversations, stolen. The content of emails or private conversations fall under linkvio. If you do not believe me ask User:Moonriddengirl who is an expert on such matters. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly ask her, and the material should not be removed until this is verified. If this is indeed the case, it should be made plain on the relevant wikipedia page on copyrights too. Perhaps you could help with that, and also explain the situation with respect to leaked documents like those of wikileaks, which I address above, which are treated in great detail, including the contents of private communication, on wikipedia. Incidentally, you didn't only remove what you accuse of being a linkvio, but also articles by the Washington Post, the Huffington Post and The Daily Star. Please check what your deleting. Indiscriminate deleting is becoming a trend. I've already warned you about this yet you persist. [10] Aminul802 (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting her comment [11]...Aminul802 (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the AN/I discussion linked to below, I took a look at the situation here, and wanted to share my conclusions (largely similar to my comments at AN/I).

The you tube links are not permissible. By default any recording of a conversation is copyrighted, and the participants have a copyright interest in the substance of what they said. Because we know that the conversation only got on youtube as a result of the hack, we can conclude that there was never any copyright permission to upload to youtube. While youtube does enforce copyrights when a violation is brought to their attention, if no one complained about the conversations, youtube may not realize they are a violation. While it is probably reasonable to assume generally that content uploaded to youtube isn't a copyright violation, in this case that we know the hack occurred means we must assume the upload to youtube was a copyright violation. If youtube hosting it is a copyright violation, then we must not link to it per WP:LINKVIO. That the content was acquired by hacking isn't the direct reason we can't link, but does lead us to the reason we can't.
The links to US diplomatic cables are different. While they to were stolen, the works of the US Government employees created in the course of their duties are in the public domain by operation of law, as such, when the cables were stolen, what was being stolen was public domain works. The illegality of releasing them had nothing to do with copyright. And once out, they are fair game. As such, it is not a copyright violation for anyone to host the cables, and therefor not a linkvio for us to link to the host.
Particularly when it comes to BLP content, we should avoid relying directly on primary sources when possible. When a reliable source uses a leaked document as the basis of a story, we count on them to have taken appropriate steps to verify the authenticity of the leaked material. For us to use the source directly doesn't provide that extra verification. We have no way to know if the primary source is authentic. It should also be noted that you can get around the linkvio issue from bullet one, by using a reliable source that discusses the conversations, rather then by going directly to them. While linkvio prohibits linking to a copyright infringement, a reliable source that includes small excerpts of the work is probably not violating copyright, and thus WP:LINKVIO would not apply to a link to that coverage. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Monty845 (above) and Moonriddengirl [12] for explaining where we stand. To summarize, WikiLeaks may be used. Articles referring to the Bangladesh tribunal leaks may be used. But thus far, you both feel that citing YouTube's recordings of the judges private, if legally questionable, conversations is not acceptable, even if it's in the public interest. As far as the public interest is concerned, that is for journals like Foreign Policy and the Economist to address, and we may cite their citation of the leaked material. In light of this, I'll reinstate my WikiLeaks and Foreign Policy citation that was deleted earlier today by DS. I'll also add articles by journalists on the tribunal leaks, even ones that quote the leaks on fair use grounds, as noted by Moonriddengirl, but I won't link full citations of YouTube conversations. One question that remains is this: can I cite truncated versions of Youtube clips on fair use grounds? If so, what percentage of the original clip do that have to be? If not, why not? Many thanks for your contributions. Aminul802 (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How much you can use as an excerpt and still claim fair use is a massive gray area of the law. I would urge avoiding the need to cite directly to a truncated version in favor of citing secondary sources, which would keep us safely outside that gray area, but I don't think there is a bright line rule that applies. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain this

[13] and read WP:COI beforehand. Did you take this picture? Darkness Shines (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was taken from [14]. I called them and asked if I may use the photo. They said yes, so I uploaded it. I'm emailing them now to get written confirmation. Aminul802 (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the licence you said it was your own work. I have nominate it for speedy deletion as a copyvio. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I will just as speedily reinstate it once the email gets back to me. Aminul802 (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW can you explain your relationship to this[15] Seems peculiar that this was posted not two hours after you "got permission" to use the image. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly--BDINN does a lot of coverage of the Tribunal, and I follow it avidly, hence I must have thought this was relevant to the article as soon as it came on. I only saw it a few minutes before I put it on the article. This is a current issue. New things are coming to light frequently, and I try to keep track of them, and update accordingly. I'm not always able to do that, but I try. Aminul802 (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not BDINN. Explain your relationship to thiswebsite Darkness Shines (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to do with that site. What are you trying to suggest? This campaigning website will obviously publish anything that appears online and is useful to their work. They presumably have taken the photo from BDINN too. What is unusual about that? Aminul802 (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The writing on that site is very much like yours. But I will AGF for now. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem appropriate. The writing on that site [16] is very much like yours. But I will AGF for now. Aminul802 (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ahmed Ziauddin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ahmed Ziauddin 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/Ahmed Ziauddin 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 template from the top of the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh), please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell

Are you on?[17] This is a BLP vio, you were already told this. Please self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You also broke 3RR. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP noticeboard report

- Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#International_Crimes_Tribunal_.28Bangladesh.29

Hi one of your desired additions is the subject of a report at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, please join in the discussion there and don't replace the content without discussion and WP:Consensus support from other editors - thanks - Youreallycan 14:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

I have rewritten the article, I hope you will help expand the hacking and reception sections. I have done the refs in a different way so do not worry if you get ref errors, I will fix them. I think if we work together then this article can be brought up to GA status. See you on the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think doing this unilaterally is helpful. I'd much prefer we work on the last article, and improve on that. You're asking me to redo a huge amount of work. This is unreasonable. I'm going to ask the arbitrators to comment. Instead of a complete rewrite, you could add whatever is new in your rewrite to the old article. Aminul802 (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last article was a pigs ear. You can look in the article history to retrieve content you wish to restore. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DS, I think you should self-revert. My closure of the report at ANEW was based on an understanding that the article would be left alone by both of you. If you want to move your rewrite to part of your user space and then ask Aminul to discuss it, that's fine, but what you've done is unacceptable.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: the ANEW report may be found here: [18] Aminul802 (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

Call me a vandal one more time and I will report you to ANI. Stop reverting BLP violations into the article. Please explain your objections to my changes on the article talk page, I have already started a section there. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who has to explain. You're the one who changed unilaterally the page after Dreambeaver said the page should not be changed without discussion. Deleting large chunks of reliably sourced material counts as vandalism, for your information. Aminul802 (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not deleted large chunks of material, I removed material which is duplicated in the body, why do you not move that content to the relevant sections were it belongs? And given you unilaterally change that article all the time without discussion you really have to right to whine just because I have tried to improve it. Just explain what is so wrong with the edit on the talk page please. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ali Ahsan Mujahid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bangladeshi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Abdur Razzaq (barrister)

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 Abdur Razzaq (barrister) 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Abdur Razzaq (barrister) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abdur Razzaq (barrister) 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/Abdur Razzaq (barrister) 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 template from the top of the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

File:Yes

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

CIreland (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aminul802 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've been blocked for sockpuppetry--apparently I'm Umayma1 too. The reality is that Umayma1 is my wife, and reading the wiki policy on meatpuppetry, neither of us has done anything wrong intentionally. I did not recruit her to join my cause. She had been interested in joining wiki for a while for her own reasons--her research interests are usually different from mine, but we share some research interests. This is reflected in what she edits. We don't edit exactly the same things, though there is overlap. She hasn't been able to join properly before now, as she's been busy with studies, but she did some work during a holiday, before having to focus on exams. Overall, I think we've both contributed to improving wiki, although according to meatpuppetry regulations, we appear to have not been completely in line with rules in a couple of areas, which is why my wife stopped editing in my area after we learnt that, and has not been active in my area since nearly a month ago. Due to exams, so she's also stopped editing in other areas of her interest, but hopes to get back into it soon.We were not familiar with the policy on 'meatpuppetry' when she joined, and on reading the section, we realized that it may be advisable to clarify our relationship. We hadn't worked out how to do that, and since she stopped editing in my area, we thought we'd be fine. We decided to consider our identities to be a single one when we consider issues of voting and edit warring. We weren't aware of the rules that applied to these areas, and her early wiki work reflected this. Since we have become aware of the rules, we now treat our two identities as one for the purpose of voting and 'edit warring'. Hence I request an unblock of both identities. As for Tariqmia, never seen him before, though he seems reasonable to me.

Decline reason:

See the new light at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aminul802 and reviewing the technical evidence at hand, I don't see how this could be your "wife" especially with a third account involved. I've also extended the block to a month. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aminul802 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thank you for taking the trouble to look at this situation. I must say, I'm surprised, and find this situation somewhat surreal. Everything I've said is true. User:Umayma1 is my wife. I'm not sure what technical evidence suggests that a third person is involved, but I just called my brother in law, who I surmised was User:GOALWAY, given his editing interests--which are completely different from my own--and it turns out that he is indeed GOALWAY. I wasn't aware that he was a wiki user, but now it makes sense why this has had the admins somewhat confused. I think the unique identity of GOALWAY can be discerned from the fact that we've both been editing today, and live in different cities. My wife and I, of course, visit my brother-in-law frequently, and we have both edited Wikipedia at his house. You will also notice that my brother-in-law GOALWAY has probably never edited anything that I have edited, so sockpuppetry cannot be claimed, and he should not be penalized for my edits. His account was also made the year before mine. Hence, I revert back to my initial reason for requesting an unblock, mentioned above [19]. That my Umayma1 is my wife, and that once we understood meatpuppetry rules, nearly a month ago, we stopped breaking any wiki rules, which before then may have been contravened unintentionally on a handful of days.

Decline reason:

A checkuser did not find your explanation credible, and I do not find your explanation credible. You may return to editing in one month from one account, provided new versions of you do not appear in the meantime. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

So you and your wife edited Wiki at your brother in laws house frequently, but did not know he edited Wiki? Seems strange he did not mention as you and your missus used his computer to edit that he did not make mention that he also edits? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We all used our own computers--many people use laptops today--real convenient. You should try it sometime. Aminul802 (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And naturally you all have the same OS & browser choice, why have you not told your brother in law he has been blocked as a sock? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So do most of the people I know, though for the record, I use a different browser to my wife on most occasions. My brother in law is obviously aware of the sock puppetry accusation by now, since I spoke to him about it.

Strange he has not posted an unblock request. Well, up to the admins. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He seems never to have used his talk page, so not too strange. Aminul802 (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GOALWAY and I are clearly different people. [20] and [21] have nothing in common aside from an occasional IP overlap. Aminul802 (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Seems like thriller movie! Yesterday spoiled my whole day by edit warring and false reporting. :@ --Freemesm (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement

I have filed a request for arbitration enforcement against you here I will copy over anything you wish to say in your defence due to you being currently blocked. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may copy the following

Aminul802 would like this discussion to take cognizance of his own statements here [22]. Aminul802 (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ahmed Ziauddin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ahmed Ziauddin 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/Ahmed Ziauddin (2nd nomination) 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. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Matthew White (historian) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Matthew White (historian) 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/Matthew White (historian) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Levivich 18:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]