User talk:Emdad Tafsir

May 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. regentspark (comment) 16:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jakob Tower moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Jakob Tower, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. TheImaCow (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Hello, I'm Vinegarymass911. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Char Fasson Govt. College seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm Emdad Tafsir. I Would like to share, that the edit you made it was nothing but a domination. I, as a student of this college made changes which was proper and appropriate Written with a view of a third party. It was a translation of bangla wikipedia also. But without proper reason you removed my entryies which was made with a jaundiced eye. Thanks Emdad Tafsir (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your UTRS Account

You have no wikis in which you meet the requirements for UTRS. Your account has been removed and you will be required to reregister once you meet the requirements. If you are blocked on any wiki that UTRS uses, please resolve that before registering agian also. -- DQB (owner / report) 16:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Char Fasson Govt. College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Degree (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hazari Gonj Hamidia Fazil Madrasah

This information is not all in this source: Liberation war Bhola|first=Untold story of|title=Untold story of liberation war Bhola. Please don't add again without third-party sources. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the only source I have more third party source Emdad Tafsir (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hazariganj Union moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Hazariganj Union, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Celestina007 (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article

See this Wikipedia:Good article nominations to learn how to take your article to GA status.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Free basics

I think you need to read Wikipedia:IP block exemption. This is nothing to do with the spam blacklist. Guy (help!) 16:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why free basics is listed as spam? Though I can contribute in Bangla wiki with free basics. Emdad Tafsir (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Emdad Tafsir, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Char Fasson Upazila have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 12

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Bhola Govt. College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Environment and Bangla

Paschim Jinnahgarh Nuria Alim Madrasah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to SSC and HSC

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Solved Emdad Tafsir (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charfassion Karamatia Kamil Madrasah moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Charfassion Karamatia Kamil Madrasah, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	You really deserve it. TripleCBD (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Char Fasson Govt. College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BDT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Shashibhushan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shashibhushan 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/Shashibhushan 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. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Your addition to Charfashion Govt. T. Baret Secondary School has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 20:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aslampur Union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Union Council (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Charfashion Govt. T. Baret Secondary School

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 Charfashion Govt. T. Baret Secondary School requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://index.nearschool.org/school/charfashion-govt-tbaret-secondary-school. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Your recent editing history at Islam shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – ².O.^Boxing 00:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've already breached 3RR, but I haven't reported you as nobody has left you a warning. There's a possibility you may be blocked anyway, but if you revert one more time, you'll definitely be blocked. – ².O.^Boxing 00:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Zakir Naik; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. This has been going on for long and you don't seem to be interested in any collaborative editing at all. If this behavior continues any further then your editing privileges will be revoked. —SpacemanSpiff 02:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now it appears that you're using a sockpuppet/meatpuppet to aid you in an edit war. Either you stop this behavior immediately and start editing in a collaborative manner or your editing privileges will be revoked completely. —SpacemanSpiff 10:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added citations what's wrong with that? Emdad Tafsir (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Islam

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Islam, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. Regards Meganpeltz (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Emdad Tafsir, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. ².O.^Boxing 11:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long term edit warring, using sockpuppets in an edit war, inability to edit collaboratively..

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —SpacemanSpiff 17:08, 29 January 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I reverted the edits on zakir naik with reason that was "Firstly at the top, it was stated that he is a medical physician so no need to repeat that later. Secondly "He has published booklet versions of lectures on Islam and comparative religion" was added in the publications section. Thirdly, no valid reference found that buttress he is promoting Wahabism or Salafi Ideology. Let it clear, suppose you are a public speaker I am alleging that you are promoting terrorism but I have no evidence that exactly where you promoted or by which lecture or part of lecture you promoted terrorism, is it make any sense? Fourthly, his preaching is not banned his tv channel is banned only but it can be accessed through the internet" I am collaborating with them. The account that I was alleged that was not mine. See my IP address please.

About my edit on Islam I edited with reference others were removing referenced info I was protecting that. And about the Sockpuppet that was probably not my account but I admit that the account was one of my friends who is not active in wkiki so I knocked him one his profile and told him about the matter to log in to wiki. Then he logged in and edited with his point of view. He also edited by giving proper reason. So how it would be Sock puppet?

I am admitting that he was my friend but he edited with his conceit I have nothing to do with that please unblock me. And I promising I will not breach any rule furthe

See my IP address and TripleCBD IP address that was not from my phone. I have admitted what the truth is

Decline reason:

I've combined these into one request for convenience. I do believe that you and the other account are different people; checkuser results correspond to your description of the situation. That being said, first of all, you need to take a look at WP:CRONY; you're probably in breach of that. But you'll need to address the other issues of long term edit warring and your inability to edit collaboratively. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:15, 29 January 2021 (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.

I admitting that I was dominant in editing, I wont go in edit war anymore. And I will be collaborative also. And one more request when other users are reverting more than one month old edits which was edited with proper logic but they are reverting without any valid reason what should I do? Emdad Tafsir (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I admitting that I was dominant in editing, I wont go in edit war anymore. And I will be collaborative also. And one more request when other users are reverting more than one month old edits which was edited with proper logic but they are reverting without any valid reason what should I do?

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I admitting that I was dominant in editing, I wont go in edit war anymore. And I will be collaborative also. And one more request when other users are reverting more than one month old edits which was edited with proper logic but they are reverting without any valid reason what should I do? |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I admitting that I was dominant in editing, I wont go in edit war anymore. And I will be collaborative also. And one more request when other users are reverting more than one month old edits which was edited with proper logic but they are reverting without any valid reason what should I do? |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I admitting that I was dominant in editing, I wont go in edit war anymore. And I will be collaborative also. And one more request when other users are reverting more than one month old edits which was edited with proper logic but they are reverting without any valid reason what should I do? |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Emdad Tafsir (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

see the recent edit one Zakir Naik I never sockpuppeted on that page. Now they are restoring my valid edits with proper summary without any reason. Is it fare?

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=see the recent edit one [[Zakir Naik]] I never sockpuppeted on that page. Now they are restoring my valid edits with proper summary without any reason. Is it fare? |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=see the recent edit one [[Zakir Naik]] I never sockpuppeted on that page. Now they are restoring my valid edits with proper summary without any reason. Is it fare? |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=see the recent edit one [[Zakir Naik]] I never sockpuppeted on that page. Now they are restoring my valid edits with proper summary without any reason. Is it fare? |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Emdad Tafsir (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]