User talk:Snackathon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Listed below are some brief introductions containing all the basics needed to use, comment on, and contribute to Wikipedia.

If you want to know more about a specific subject, Help:Help explains how to navigate the many help pages.

  • Google: Wikipedia is very well indexed by Google. Searching for a term, even about an editing question, followed by "wiki" or "wikipedia" usually pulls up what you need.


Where next?[edit]

  • If you wish to express an opinion or make a comment, Where to ask questions will point you in the correct direction.
  • If you would like to edit an article, the Basic tutorial will show you how, and How to help will give you some ideas for things to edit.
  • If you would like to create a new article, Starting an article will explain how to create a new page, with tips for success and a link to Wikipedia's Article Wizard, which can guide you through the process of submitting a new article to Wikipedia.
  • For more support and some friendly contacts to get you started, the Editors' Welcome page or the Wikipedia:Teahouse page could be your next stop!

See also[edit]

Good luck and happy editing.```Buster Seven Talk 21:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to [[:2013 Shahbag Protest]], without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. You have inserted few statement with non-reliable source, put opinion type statement without mentioning that from opendemocracy.net, you have removed a large number of statement without any discussion. If you think the reference doesn't support the statement, then tag it with [citation needed], dont remove that, you are engage in edit war with few wikipedians. If you continue, I'll report you. Freemesm (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV: Modifying 2013 Shahbag Protest[edit]

Please do not undo or revert edits in 2013 Shahbag Protest without resolving the issue in the talk page. Please discuss under the topic NPOV: Criticizing by Commentators and International Organizations. If you continue to do so, I will report you. Pratanu.roy (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratanu.roy (talk • contribs) 08:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet investigation[edit]

Currently, a sock puppet investigation was requested by User:Darkness Shines about you. Your matter is of interest to me only in that it involves another pending matter that involves the User:Darkness Shines, the listing of multiple names on a warning list involving WP:COI, and a name on that list that I have requested to be removed, which is connected to your case. You may want to represent your own case at [1]. I am in now way connected to this sock puppet or investigation but am interested that the other matter be taken care of. However, I believe you should be informed of your right to comment on your own behalf. Crtew (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at 2013 Shahbag protests[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Snackathon reported by User:Pratanu.roy (Result: 24h). EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr EdJohnston for your comment. I would like to point you to the accusations made against Molla first made in English by Tahmima Anam [2] and which have now spread everywhere. Here is the response of David Bergman who is the leading English journalist on the war crimes issue and friend of Tahmima: [3]. I hope you can see that there are BLP problems here. I'm sorry I forgot to mention this in the discussion. I don't mind being blocked for 24 hours, although if you think this is making more sense, you can change the block. Can someone copy this to EdJohnston? Snackathon (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aha Moment! Thank you Snackathon. Now I finally realize why editors are attacking David Bergman (journalist). I get it. Thanks for this citation!!!! (And by chance I had you on my watch list from the other day. Prince Serendip is at work again.) Crtew (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Mr Crtew. I think everyone is fighting against Mr David Bergman because they don't like his view. Now Freemesm, who is working with Darkness [4], is biasing the article again. I think many editors have POV problem here. Mr David has more balanced view I think, and he is attacked because of this.Snackathon (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snackathon, Please take a break for a day and then let's talk about how you might be more productive. I've been editing the David Bergman (journalist) article and have experienced some of these other editors (which is why your cites above you placed helped me figure out their disagreement). I understand that you have a very short editing history and you're editing in very difficult territory. From what I've observed, people are using misusing editing privileges, using the system to game the content in all kinds of ways, and even ganging up on another editor to try to goad them into making errors. While we are always to assume GOOD FAITH, it's kind of hard to do that when you see policy violated without scruples for self-gain. What I'm saying is that you have to tread very carefully and work smartly. You were reported the other day as a sock puppet by Darkness Shines but the volunteers there couldn't find evidence of it. Do you know what a sock puppet is? It means you're working two accounts. Beware of Darkness Shines is my one piece of advice; One thing I've learned for sure is that DS has figured out many ways to get what he wants and he can cause a lot of trouble and does so, but he's not so very smart as he thinks he is (and I'm sure he'll be reading this, lol). Anyway, I'm not sure how a new person is supposed to maneuver around these part of Wikipedia without much experience. I myself feel as if I need to be retrained (lol)!
As for me, I do not work on articles about the subcontinent only, but I work on journalism and human rights, which is what brought me into Bergman's WP article when I saved it from deletion. I have a couple questions: 1) Can you read Bengali script? (I don't and I need some help.) 2) Would you be interested in editing Abdur Razzaq (barrister), Ahmed Ziauddin or Mohammed Nizamul Huq? Take a look at them. All of them need help, and while you might get some interference you probably wouldn't get too much, especially if you work in your own user area (you could work there without any interference at all). If you don't know how to do that, I can help you. 3) Do you regularly follow the media in Bangladesh? Without you giving too much info about yourself, this might help me to assist you in getting started on a better foot. I've never been blocked before, but I couldn't imagine it's not fun. Crtew (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Mr Crtew for being very helpful. What you said is very complicated so thank you for explanation. I will try to be more careful from now. I recently joined wikipedia, because I attended a course for editing. They didn't explain what sockpuppet is, but i checked google. Very strange thing to say. This is my only account. I don't understand Darkness Shines, but I will be careful like you say. He seems much in favour of Awami League government and their so-called International Crimes Tribunal. There are many people like this who don't care what the human rights organisations are saying Do you know if he is Bengali? I have been very interested in Bangladesh these days--I try to follow their news closely in English because I don't know Bangla, but have friends who are Bengali and might be able to help. I would like to look at other articles about Bangladesh politics too. It is very important these days. So I'm happy to help editing other pages you suggested. Thank you very much again for your help!Snackathon (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also Mr Crtew, that you for your comment on talk page. I forgot to mention clearly that criticism was deleted by pratanu, and it was from Open Democracy, which is reliable source. If you see [5] there are two articles [6] and [7] which Pratanu and others deleted without right even though Spyghana was weaker. Do you think Open Democracy is reliable in the deleted para?Snackathon (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snackathon, You can just call me Crtew (or Sir Tew, hahaha, if you want to be ironic!). I agree that there seems to be a lot of POV editing going on and some unfair tactics, too.
You bring up some good points. While I'm not saying that I don't read OpenDemocracy (I do from time to time), Wikipedia has it's own way to evaluate sources of information based partly on verification and on independence and neutrality. Journalists, for the most part, are independent from interests, attempt to be neutral, and verify information. However, not all journalists are equivalent in this system. The major news outlets (Associated Press, Reuters, New York Times, AFP, BBC News, The Guardian (UK), or Deutsche Welle) are seen as vastly more credible than less established news organizations or alternative news organizations. Those institutions have established reputations that for some go back over a century and they have an established system of controls for quality. OpenDemocracy describes itself as a loose federation, which means the people in the main office are not always in control of the people in the field. HuffingtonPost is the same. Citizen journalism sites are generally seen as weak. Even worse than what these organizations publish are public relations/news releases, which come from parties with a self-interest, POV, and no independent verification. There are many more layers here, but my comment about OpenDemocracy was not meant to disparage the organization but to explain how Wikipedia evaluates sources. I would use a source with less credibility only when I have stronger sources.
The Wikipedia system is not without its problems. What is especially troubling is that media from non-Western countries, non-major powers, can be evaluated unfairly against the powerful, even when the media from smaller countries report about themselves and on their own turf. I have trouble sometimes when I cover journalists from smaller countries with people who argue that this is not WP:SIGCOV. I also run into a similar problem when I cover alternative journalists, who do not receive attention from the major established press, which happens for the reason that the major papers simplify the voices heard through for them normal editing decisions.
Shoot for impeccable sources and people cannot challenge your source, but they'll find some other way (like expression). So you also have to aim for NPOV writing style and voice.
Take a look at the improvements I have made at David Bergman (journalist) (compare the differences in history). I made all those content expansions in my user space so that no one would interrupt me. When I worked in mainspace, all I got was grief! If you're new, and you don't know how to do this, I can create user space versions of the above articles and move them to you user space. From there, you could edit, I could provide constructive comment about your work without hassling you (I promise!), and from there your edits could be transferred to those articles. Crtew (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice classroom indeed!! Did I missed anything? :) --Freemesm (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Crtew, I was busy for a few days. I'm happy for your help. I don't mind if you hassle me! I think these are important things, so it's not a problem. I'm sorry if I'm slow to reply though!Snackathon (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snackathon&oldid=540767817"