Wikipedia talk:Volunteer Response Team

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:OTRS)
Jump to: navigation, search
Emblem-important.svg This is not the page to contact the volunteer team, report problems with a specific volunteer, or ask questions about specific ticket-related matters.
If you'd like to contact a volunteer who can help you about an issue on Wikipedia, then please visit Wikipedia:Contact us. If you'd like to volunteer for the team, then please visit OTRS/volunteering.
Questions about specific articles—or anything other than discussion of the Wikipedia:Volunteer response team page—will be removed. Thank you for your cooperation.

Assistance please[edit]

Hi there. I'm not sure how this whole process works but I'd like to request a speedy review of the image File:Oliver Lewis (violinist).jpg. It's up for a potential DYK mainpage appearance and until it is reveiwed it is holding up the DYK review process. Much thanks in advance for any help given.4meter4 (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

please help torsion field article is nonsense accepted as truth[edit]

The article have no reliable sources as pseudoscientific concept. Shipov`s Torsion field research was not disbanded and will never be (it becomed private) due to the 1991 eastern "revolutions" the Soviet Union itself dissolved (! The ultimate truth is that torsion technology is the best and used by NASA(US), Cern LHC (top European Scientifical Experiments),Russian Research Institute of Space Systems, in one word everyone uses Akimov and Shipov`s work, the only technology provided with unlimited funds from KGB (Russia)! Torsion field devices are sold all around the world. In 2010 Chairman of the State Duma and Chairman of the Supreme Council of United Russia, Mr. Boris Gryzlov ( gave an online interview ( «??????.Ru» “”,, where he commented the activities of "RANS" - the Russian Commission on Pseudoscience”. Chairman of the State Duma and Chairman of the Supreme Council of United Russia Party Boris Gryzlov denounced the activities of Commission on Pseudoscience of Russian Academy of Science (lead by ) as obnoxious (‘mrakobesy” Rus.) that work against development of Russia and her advances. He further named the commission’s scientific eloquence as “pearls” (an ironic substitute for an “obscene language” used by Commission to intimidate their opponents), which fell down below the intellectual level of top class experts in science.

He got over 6,000 complaints about the Commission’s activities
His Statement:

"The commission does not represent any of the legal departments of the Academy. The commission represents just the interests of few academicians, who stuck together as a group. Judging by the “pearls” of their “eloquences”, I may conclude that they do not perform at a level of the highest class professionals."

Gryzlov stated about his intention to detach “the commission from the Academy” the false group of scientists (the imaginary commission who asks for money from any new invention)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Query about OTRS actions and permissions[edit]

While looking into issues discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Aaron Saxton, I noticed that in November 2009, user:Kmccoy confirmed the OTRS ticket on two videos uploaded to Commons (1 & 2), but does not appear to have been granted OTRS permissions until August 2010. It gives the appearance that Kmmcoy granted OTRS permissions when they were not qualified to do so. I have left a message for Kmccoy, but they do not seem to be very active. I'm sure there is nothing untoward happening here, but I am confused by how it appears and would appreciate it if someone could explain this. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The OTRS userright on commons is unrelated to actual OTRS access (as far as I'm aware all it does is let them use an edit filter to track tickets being added by non-OTRS members). Kmccoy was an OTRS volunteer at the time those tags were added. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Query about usage of image[edit]

Recently, I got permission from the librarian from Special Collections at the Cal Poly Pomona University Library to release this image for fair use in the article California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. She e-mailed to both "" and myself the following:

The photo of WK Kellogg and his horse Antez may be used in the article about Cal Poly Pomona being written by student Marco Guzman. We will supply him with a copy to upload in the near future. The image can be released under “Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0)”
Best regards,
D****** C*** A****** [name censored to maintain librarian's privacy]
Special Collections Librarian"

She didn't add the link itself. Is this a constrain for its usage, or can I upload the image? Regards, -- Marco Guzman, Jr  Chat  19:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If you never received a response, my apologies. I would be of the opinion that the image can be uploaded without issue. NW (Talk) 17:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Louis Febre[edit]

Someone please sort this out? It looks like the author tried to add a ticket number or something. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  05:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

At some point it had an actual tag added and the ticket itself looks good, so that's fine and the tag can just be placed on the article's talk page if/when the article is approved. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Election administrators needed for WP:ACE2011[edit]

Three election administrators are needed who are Wikimedia Foundation-identified editors who can oversee the election, including the SecurePoll voting system. Anyone who is interested, please indicate below. This can include any of the functionaries or any of the WMF-identified WP:OTRS volunteers, but this does not apply to any current arbitrators or ArbCom clerks.

Anyone interested in being an election administrator should please indicate so at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Coordination#Election administrators. –MuZemike 17:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Image permission[edit]

Hello. Concerning the images: File:Atara-Thaer Atary.jpg and File:Beituniya-Khoury.jpg I provided permission emails from Thaer Atary and Joseph Khoury, respectively, at the file pages of each image. I tried accessing the emails a couple days ago but the links just redirected to my email account. I searched my inbox and I could not find them. To my knowledge, the emails had been verified here when the issue of permission came up previously. Is there a way you could check if the images were previously cleared? If not, do you know how I could access those emails? I would hate for the images to be deleted because of a dead link. Thank you. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Info-en-q turnaround time?[edit]

I recently (about 3-4 days ago) emailed the info-en-q address and haven't gotten any response yet. At what point should I assume that something went wrong with the email (my email system has been acting up...)? Thanks! Allens (talk | contribs) 19:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Right now, we're a bit backlogged. It might take a week, give or take. I've found the ticket though, Ticket:2012041410008516. Feel free to leave a note at OTRS/N with that number if you don't get any response in a few days though. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Understand; thanks! Allens (talk | contribs) 21:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

proposal that will impact mailing lists[edit]

see Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Time to do away with "no spam email" gimmick?. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Translation copyright permission[edit]

Is the grants of license for donated media also the place for text permissions, specifically an English translation of a 19th Century German poem? That link talks about images, not text. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Nutshell advice isn't as helpful as it should be[edit]

The nutshell advice includes "To contact OTRS, please see Wikipedia:Contact us." When you go there, OTRS is not mentioned once. This incongruity should be addressed, but I don't know how. For people who are told to "contact OTRS", this is confusing. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I fixed the link to point to the correct place and clarified that it's on the page as "volunteer response team". Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


I have only recently learnt of the existence of the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS). Could someone please write it up here or wherever is appropriate so that when I do a Wikipedia search for UTRS something comes up. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not related to OTRS so here probably wouldn't be appropriate. WP:UTRS already exists, it just doesn't detail the behind the scenes stuff. TParis (from memory) runs it so he might have an idea. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 14:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Yep, the system is more like ACC than OTRS. When we created WP:UTRS page, we duplicated WP:ACC instead of WP:OTRS.--v/r - TP 17:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of team-related edits[edit]

Hi. I would propose we make this change to the document. This would better reflect the current and appropriate practice of handling these types of disputes. This is also explained earlier in the document at this section. Thoughts? Rjd0060 (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I've actually made a few more changes. Please see User:Rjd0060/Sandbox (permalink) for what I'd like to change it to. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I largely agree with the edits, although maybe it would clarify things if " All Wikipedia edits must be supported by consensus" read instead "All Wikipedia edits must be in agreement, by OTRS agents or otherwise, with the standard collaborative editing process". This indicates that OTRS agents still have to follow the normal editing procedure when they make their edits; i.e they need to discuss the edits after making them if they are disputed. Second Quantization (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
In my last update I actually removed that line all together as it is clarified in the final sentence of the section. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I agree with Second Quantization. It is not clear enough in that final sentence, as the current dispute regarding Dann52's actions on two different articles makes plain. Without mentioning BLP concerns, he ordered other editors not to revert him, and there were no serious BLP concerns. He made intimidating comments and waved "OTRS" like some kind of magic trump card overriding all other policies and guidelines.

OTRS volunteers must (1) use the collaborative editing process and (2) follow existing policies and guidelines, without exception. They should not act like some kind of shadow government above the law. The existing PAG include how to deal with BLP and privacy issues, so there is no need to mention OTRS at all. If there are BLP concerns, they should mention it in their edit summary, and the normal process for dealing with BLP matters will tread into effect. Then the normal collaborative way of dealing with it should be followed.

OTRS volunteers must realize that they are dealing with COI issues, and they must not act as proxies or meat puppets for COI individuals/organizations, who naturally will tend to steer content away from NPOV. OTRS volunteers are then placed into a minefield which tends to violate many policies, and they need to be very careful. Such COI individuals must not be treated any more favorably or differently than if they were trying to make disputed and controversial edits themselves. They must not get the idea that using OTRS is a way to circumvent policies. Anyone acting for them would also be covered by the same concepts we always use here--they should keep most of their activities to the article's talk page and provide guidance and information, but not make controversial edits themselves.

These points need to be made very clear (1) to OTRS volunteers, and also be stated very clearly (2) for the sake of other editors and the public who read this page. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

How can you agree with the user who is referring to a sentence that does not even exist within the page anymore? Regardless, I personally disagree and strongly believe the current information does reflect the current practice in an accurate and in summary form. It ultimately (clearly) states that ArbCom has the final say over any on-wiki user issues (as is the case with anything going on within the English Wikipedia) and that OTRS agents have no special authority. With regards to the internal workings of how our agents operate, I've already stated we will be working on ensuring people are aware of the clarifications are made. I, as an OTRS administrator, have nothing further to add on this subject as I feel as if I'm repeating myself at this point. (Other agents/admins may be commenting, of course) Rjd0060 (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to emphasizing the "standard collaborative editing process." I can see no scenario where there would be any exception, including dealing with BLP issues. Can you name even ONE? If you can, then it needs to be included in existing PAG. OTRS should not be a method of circumventing, short circuiting, or getting around PAG, but a means of jump starting the process.
Secret information, OR, ignoring RS, and allowing COI individuals to steer content away from NPOV, are not options or alternatives to normal PAG. It was unfortunate that a volunteer, who is a relative newbie at Wikipedia, did exactly that.
Yes, it's good you are working on making sure volunteers understand the proper way to do things, but other editors and the public need to see it in print on the page here. Wikipedia's workings are based on openness, and hidden information raises suspicions, and when bad things happen it only confirms those suspicions, even if they are misguided. Any failure to work with editors who raise concerns here is unfortunate and will have a Streisand effect. You need to be more pro active and open. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm an OTRS agent, and I totally disagree that the statement on the policy page that implies that OTRS edits may not be reverted without following the procedure there. Every edit I have ever made is subject to the same rules as everybody else's; so I have always understood, so I have been advised by more experienced OTRS volunteers, and I would not be willing to participate in the OTRS system under any other basis. Nothing I have ever done really depends upon confidential knowledge, though I'm sure others have worked in such situations. What I do on-wiki relies instead on the same use of judgement I would make if the request had been on-wiki. I do hope to be consulted or at least notified before reverting, but that is all that I have a right to expect. I agree with BullRangifer in general. I think the best way to bring the Dispute Resolution section into conformance with the fundamental policy that all editors are equal is to give this as an optional procedure, advisable primarily to those edits that specifically are stated to deal with matters involving privacy. All other disputes belong on the article talk page, or, if necessary, on one a applicable existing general WP administrative boards and DR practices. The efforts in progress to educate OTRS agents better are complementary to this; they do not replace editing by the community. The OTRS noticeboard is for matters involving the interface with the community that more appropriately can be discussed there, not as a replacement to the other boards. In particular, the function of the BLP noticeboard as a central place for such questions must be preserved. Anyone who wants to be a super-editor should start their own wiki. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there may be a problem with ambiguity in this policy which has "Where an action is marked as CheckUser, Oversight, OTRS or Arbitration Committee, that action should not be reverted without checking beforehand" (emphasis in original). What does "without checking" mean? It may have been interpreted as meaning "without checking with the agent" in this case. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Alexbrn, etc.: s that is the Dispute Resolution policy, which now contradicts the actual practice as listed on this page, a discussion should probably happen on that talk page with regards to correcting this. Or the "OTRS" part can simply be removed, in my opinion. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I think additional clarity, emphasis or prominence should make clear to any reader that OTRS editors should be following PAG and that challenging an edit via normal procedures in accordance with PAG is entirely appropriate as a first line of challenge. To me the existing content seems to imply that reverting, raising issues/challenges on talk and the WP standard dispute resolution process is not how an edit by an OTRS agent should be challenged. The disclaimer at the end is weak by prominence and very non specific. Perhaps something like, "While any edit can be reverted, challenged on talk or subjected to standard dispute resolution, the OTRS team strongly suggests and would appreciate contacting the agent who performed the edit directly either via email or on that agent's talk page. etc." in the initial sentence of the subsection. Try putting that together in sandbox and giving it a read to contrast with the weakness of the disclaimer tacked on at the very bottom after a set of official sounding procedures are outlined. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Misty Copeland OTRS images[edit]


I am the main editor of the Misty Copeland page. Some images were added via an WP:OTRS process recently. I believe all three images were on the same OTRS ticket. However, one of these images was deleted. It seems odd to me that exactly one was deleted. I would have thought that either all or none of the images would have been deleted. I made some inquiries at Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2014_September_25#Deleted_OTRS_submission and followed that up with inquiries at User_talk:Ellin_Beltz#Expired_OTRS. However, I remain at a loss for what has happened. It remains my belief that either the image should be restored or the other two should be deleted. However, I don't know what the issue is. Please advise.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi TonyTheTiger, sorry for making you wait. All three images were released under free licenses and the permission of all three images can be found in Ticket:2014081710007206. I have asked that the image be restored at Commons:User talk:Ellin Beltz. Please post any future requests on the OTRS noticeboard for a faster reply. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Clear and explicit policy on COI driven edits needed[edit]

I think a clear, explicit and prominent policy requiring disclosure that an edit by an OTRS team member driven/suggested/directed by a party with a COI be disclosed as such on the talk page of the article edited is urgently needed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Validate OTRS tickets[edit]

Hey all,

I'm sure this has been posted in the past but as the archives seem to be from prior to 2011 it seems like a good time to ask it again. Are there plans to allow non-OTRS members to validate details about individual tickets?

Sometimes editors/admins run in to OTRS tickets which are obviously wrong, e.g. this note where a ticket was added by a non-team member that pointed to an unrelated item on a different wiki, but that is only obvious to OTRS members. It's possible that we could look up the user rights of the editor who added the ticket (assuming that the OTRS userright is used to track all members) and then raise an issue with a team member should the editor not be an OTRS volunteer but that's really laborious and not all that feasible given that most tickets are added properly by OTRS members. This isn't just an issue with potentially falsified tickets. On the requests for undeletion board we occasionally get requests associated with tickets (see here for one) and we're not equipped to respond to them in a timely fashion without either verifying that the person requesting undeletion is a team member or asking someone from the OTRS team for help.

I recognize that OTRS deals with private information that can't be shared, but I think we need a means for the ticketing system to report that the ticket exists and what page it is affiliated with. That way I could quickly resolve that a ticket matches the page and move on. If this request needs to be made on meta I'll do that and if it needs a tracking bug in bugzilla I can do that as well, but I think this is necessary. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The current way that we encourage verification of OTRS tickets (on any wiki) is to contact other members of the team. There are central venues (like WP:OTRS/N or commons:COM:OTRS/N) and more general ways (such as contacting individual agents via wiki, email or IRC). Unfortunately there would be no way to allow the member of the community to have access to tickets - it's impossible with our software and also just generally, due to privacy issues, could not be accommodated.
As we continue to brainstorm and MediaWiki continues to develop as well, we can find better ways of making sure that OTRS permissions listed on the wiki are accurate. As you noted, the OTRS member right was just recently implemented so there is little value at the current time that we would gain from that. However on a long-term basis, the user right will help identify valid OTRS permission assignments. What I would suggest is using an OTRS noticeboard (they are watched by many people) or contact any agent/admin directly. You could also leave a note on MetaWiki. (Also, if you're an IRC users #wikimedia-otrs usually has several agents around available to answer questions). Rjd0060 (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I dug through the developers manual for OTRS and I agree it would be something of a pain to implement what I'm suggesting. Kind of a shame because if login weren't baked into the system you could set up a db with ticket # as the foreign key and just the article/file name as the content. Protonk (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely. OTRS was the software they initially decided to use (as one of the largest open-sourced CRM ticketing software available). It would be extremely difficult (if not nearly impossible) to switch to a new system - our ticket database is so humongous. ;-) I do know that there may be an API available within OTRS - though I'm not the best person to talk to about that specifically, I wonder if that can be used to do some sort of reporting/integration as you initially suggested. That's something that I will poke somebody on. I could be completely off-base. But in summary, we're always looking for ways to improve this area, especially with regards to permissions tickets. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I think you can create a "module" (their term) to create something that looks like a public API so it's not impossible, just not something I could gin up in a week (also XML and Perl, ew). :) If you poke someone on this let me know. As I said above I'd be happy to create a tracking bug in bugzilla and try to gopher around for a good way to do it provided that someone on the foundation side thinks developer time would be worth it for this project or the team feels that this is something which is worth tracking. Thanks again. Protonk (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

As a note, I had no idea Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team/Userright RfC existed and assumed that the userright listed in the permissions page was informative. If that's not the case (i.e. there's no way to independently verify membership) then this change is more important. Protonk (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

All OTRS agents' usernames are listed at m:OTRS/Users. This list is "officially" updated by an OTRS administrator once to two times per month. If you are unsure of a users access, that would be the best first place to check. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

OTRS members user right[edit]

Hi all,

I've added a section to the page regarding the OTRS members user right, please feel free to discuss and/or modify as needed. Since it redirects to the page I think it's important to have something there explaining it. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this page, Wikipedia:User access levels#User groups (once updated) or both are the best spots for this message and redirect. Rjd0060 (talk) 09:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
To Callanecc: Is WP:OTRSN the right place to request the permission, or is WP:AN better? As far as I can tell, only WP admins (and bureaucrats) can grant it. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Meta RfCs on two new global groups[edit]

Hello all,

There are currently requests for comment open on meta to create two new global groups. The first is a group for members of the OTRS permissions queue, which would grant them autopatrolled rights on all wikis except those who opt-out. That proposal can be found at m:Requests for comment/Creation of a global OTRS-permissions user group. The second is a group for Wikimedia Commons admins and OTRS agents to view deleted file pages through the 'viewdeletedfile' right on all wikis except those who opt-out. The second proposal can be found at m:Requests for comment/Global file deletion review.

We would like to hear what you think on both proposals. Both are in English; if you wanted to translate them into your native language that would also be appreciated.

It is possible for individual projects to opt-out, so that users in those groups do not have any additional rights on those projects. To do this please start a local discussion, and if there is consensus you can request to opt-out of either or both at m:Stewards' noticeboard.

Thanks and regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Eliminate the local user group[edit]

Having a local user group is extremely silly, essentially a bug. The OTRS-member global group has been created (see section above and [1]): I suppose everyone agrees that the local group must be eliminated after the global group is fully implemented? Please file any bug/feature needed to reach that goal, in particular please report if the abuse filter fails to include global groups among testable information. --Nemo 09:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, I am currently in the process of working with the Stewards on getting the global group off the ground. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

What is OTRS?[edit]

Please make it clear right at the beginning – i.e. the top – of this article what "OTRS" means. It is mentioned five times before it is explained. Thank you. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The second sentence reads, "The team uses Open-source Ticket Request System ("OTRS") software to organize and process the e-mail that it receives." There is a link to the article about the software, and the second paragraph explains what it does as well. I think it's quite clear here. Or are you referring to another page? Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Instant decline?[edit]

Hi! I was just wondering - I'm currently in contact with the film director Izzy Lee, who is willing to donate an image of herself to Wikipedia for her article. She said that she received an almost instant decline - do you know what could have caused this? Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Editing by OTRS[edit]

A talk page discussion in main article space was recently disrupted by an OTRS team member. What concerns me is that the reason for the disruption could not be disclosed or sensibly discussed, but it seemed likely that an aggrieved fringe editor was trying to get round the normal discussion/editing process which had just rejected their views. Pseudoscience can sometimes be presented in convincing tones and no doubt such pleas are often accompanied by critiques of the experienced Wikipedians involved. An OTRS member may not be aware they are being had for a mug. Could I ask that, wherever there is any doubt about the authenticity of such backdoor editing, the OTRS member take time to contact one or two of the main contributors and/or SMEs before disrupting anything? I appreciate that you OTRS folks do a valuable job, so please treat this merely as a suggestion for going one better and not in any way a criticism of your efforts. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

An article I created is not showing up in Google[edit]

I created an article stub Zubair Torwali over a week ago and it still has not shown up in Google while a new category did. What might be causing this and what can be done to rectify it? ThanksRichardBond (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

ভুল নিবন্ধ[edit]

একটি ভুল নিবন্ধ পাতা কিভাবে মিছে দেয়া যায়? Hridoy K Dey (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)