User talk:Siddiqsazzad001/Archive 5

Reverting my edit on Simon Dominic

Hello, you reverted my edit on Simon Dominic’s article, despite the fact I explained my edit and stated that it is backed up by sources. Please check edits being made and the sources noted before you revert edits. Alexanderlee (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Alexanderlee: Re this. This name is like offensive. But I believe you that this edit was not vandalism. But Wikipedia believes in reliable source. That's why I reverted. Can you please show me the reliable source about this information? Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 16:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

It’s his name, how is that offensive? There’s a lot worse on Wikipedia that isn’t considered offensive; see the article talk page. The sources are already in the article, right after his name. There is even a hidden notice right after his name that you can see in edit mode. Alexanderlee (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Alexanderlee: Do you think this is a reliable source? Even the soundcloud profile is not verifed or have you seen the description. And this source is out from lang. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 16:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I had founded few sources in eng: [1] [2], where I notice that Y Seok or Suk, notN suck - Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 16:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

As per korean name Jang Keun-suk Y - Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 16:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Both sources you just stated are unreliable. The first, Aminoapps, is clearly original research. The second is pretty much like Wikipedia which we all know cannot be used as a source. The Korean sources listed in the article include a picture of a legal document. If his passport states his name to be Ki-suck, then that is what should be used in accordance with WP:NCKO which states that “there is no personal preference, and no established English spelling, hyphenate the syllables, with only the first syllable capitalized (e.g., Hong Gil-dong).” As stated previously in an edit summary on the article, Ki-suck is clearly the preference if it is what is on his passport. Regardless, the issue is closed since an administrator has protected the article after the name was changed again. Alexanderlee (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Confused

Hello @Siddiqsazzadoo1, I recently noticed I have got multiple messages about violating the Wikipedia rules, I believe I'm not fully on my account as I have not done anything that I've been told I've been doing, pleas help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBoyDuddes (talk • contribs) 20:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@TheBoyDuddes: See this [3]. Your all revisions are vandalized. - Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 20:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Shadowhunters (Season 1)

Hello! You commented on my Shadowhunters draft, thank you for your interest in the article, but your comment left me a little confused. Yes, I did copy the episode summaries from the Shadowhunters article because whenever a season of a show gets an article it has episode summaries, meaning that those summaries would belong on my new article devoted to Shadowhunters Season 1. Is there a problem with suggesting that, if my article should be published, the summaries for that season be moved to the season one article? Thanks again!Melissa Hastings (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Melissa Hastings: See this. That's are already exist in List of Shadowhunters episodes. So please remove this section or add main article wikilink like this: {{main|List of Shadowhunters episodes}} in episodes section. And what about sources because most of the sources are not reliable. Please add more reliable source. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 22:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Salted titles

Hi, I noticed on this draft you said that due to the salted title that the name needed to be changed. Please do not recommend this to users at AfC or elsewhere and instead, if you find that the draft should be accepted, request the title be unsalted by the admin who did it or ask here if they are inactive or non-responsive. Encouraging protection evasion defeats the purpose of protection. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: Thank you. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 14:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

CVUA final exam

Hello, Siddiqsazzad001. I have completed my review of your CVUA final exam, and you can read my feedback at User:Mz7/CVUA/Siddiqsazzad001#Final Exam. This is the end of the course. Please let me know if you have any remaining questions about my feedback or counter-vandalism. If you have no further questions, let me know and I will graduate you. Mz7 (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mz7: Nope. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 02:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy: Graduation

	CVU Academy Graduate
	Congratulations from both myself and all of the instructors at the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy on your successful completion of my CVUA instruction. You completed your final exam with 91.8%; well done and congratulations again. Further information on your progress through the academy can be found at your Academy page. Mz7 (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

• From the editor: Another issue meets the deadline

• Op-ed: Has the wind gone out of the AdminShip's sails?

• Opinion: Integrating my many lives on Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Portals

• Discussion report: User rights, infoboxes, and more discussion on portals

• Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

• Arbitration report: Managing difficult topics

• News and notes: Lots of Wikimedia

• In the media: Wikipedia in Turkish politics; COI politics in Wikipedia; most cited work

• Traffic report: We love our superheroes

• Technology report: A trove of contributor and developer goodies

• Blog: Why I write about women on Wikipedia

• Recent research: Why people don't contribute to Wikipedia; using Wikipedia to teach statistics, technical writing, and controversial issues

• Humour: Play with your food

• Gallery: Wine not?

• From the archives: The Signpost scoops The Signpost

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 29

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed - Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 09:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting vandalism here and keeping the articles clean. I know you just graduated from CVU Academy, so I gave this to encourage you to keep up your good work. Congratulations! Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 12:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Clerking at PERM

Hi Siddiqsazzad001. Although there is no rule against it, adding uninvolved comments to requests at WP:PERM is typically unnecessary if you are not an administrator. Unless the issue you have is something unusual or obscure, administrators are generally competent enough to locate all of the issues you are finding. For that reason, I think your time would be better spent somewhere else besides WP:PERM. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I was about to say basically the same thing. Admins have to review every request for themselves regardless of your comments, so they don’t really do anything. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I was about to say basically the same thing. Admins have few more tools than normal users to aid them in the background check, admins can do it a lot better than we can. Unless it is something unusual which might be unnoticeable (similar to vague WP:COI issue), admins can spot most of the advantages/problems with candidate. And if our comment is not something special, admins usually overlook it to remain unbiased in their decision, so the comments don't really do anything. See you around :) —usernamekiran(talk) 21:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mz7, @Beeblebrox and @Usernamekiran: Thanks for infrom about this issues. I am just wanted to helping admins to review quickly. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 22:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Requesting your feedback

Hello and thank you for reviewing the article submission at Draft:DOC (website).

I made every effort to draft a neutral article, supported by appropriate 3rd party news sources in notable outlets and to simply relay the facts as documented in those sources.

Can you please provide any specific feedback on aspects of this article that you found to be promotional rather than factual and appropriately referenced so that I can best address your concerns?

Thank you and best regards. Derek at DOC (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Derek at DOC: You are being to promote your website by this draft. We need significant information and reliable sources to approve a draft. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 22:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, I have founded only three reliable sources. That is not enough. Please rewrite the draft with significantly. An article should be per WP:NPOV. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 22:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Could you please suggest what specific sentences you find promotional so that I can edit them? I made every effort to relay basic facts in a neutral manner but I want to incorporate your feedback.

Regarding the sources, it is my understanding that WP:CORP requires "multiple" sources ("1. significant coverage in, 2. multiple, 3. independent, 4. reliable, 5. secondary sources") and that we meet that criteria for notability through the sources in CNN Money, STAT (published by the Boston Globe) and others.

I believe I complied with WP:COIEDIT by disclosing my interest and followed the guidance that "you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly."

Thank you again for your time and feedback. Derek at DOC (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Derek at DOC: Article information is looking gather to me so that's why this submission appears to read more like an advertisement. Please add or divide into few section ex. History and Finances. And another question that how should I confirm that you are the CEO of this website? And if you really that's mean you are a paid user. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 22:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

If you would like me to create sections I would be glad to -- I suggest two sections following the first sentence. First a section called Membership covering the remainder of the first paragraph and Second a section called History which would cover the current second paragraph. Does that work for you? Do you have any other specific requests for edits?

As per my disclosure in the Comment above the article, I am the co-founder of DOC. As such I clearly have a financial interest. This is why I followed the WP:COIEDIT guidance as noted in my prior comment above. If you want to verify that I have an official role at DOC I would be glad to email you (and CC info-en-q@wikimedia.org) from my DOC email which is d3@docjobs.com. If you would like me to do this please provide an email I can send verification to. Derek at DOC (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

 Confirmed that You are a paid editor. Per WP:COI, I putted the paid note on your user page. I accepted your draft and disclose at talk page. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 09:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I have a doubt

Hi, i have a doubt about this user Special:Contributions/NOTLYRICS, without WP:NOTLYRICS, these are dubious deletions. Tomybrz Bip Bip 15:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tomybrz: Without explanation removal edit was reverted. Please see [4]. So don't worry. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 16:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

My Belarusy

According to WP:NOT: "An article about a song should provide information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, and so on. Quotations from a song should be kept to a reasonable length relative to the rest of the article, and used to facilitate discussion, or to illustrate the style; the full text can be put on Wikisource and linked to from the article. Most song lyrics published after 1922 are protected by copyright; any quotation of them must be kept to a minimum, and used for direct commentary or to illustrate some aspect of style. Never link to the lyrics of copyrighted songs unless the linked-to site clearly has the right to distribute the work. See Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources for full discussion." Wikipedia is not a database of lyrics, nor a translation site. I'm only operating on good faith. NOTLYRICS (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@NOTLYRICS: I agree with you but I don't know about the national anthem song articles policies. I think you should discuss about this issue at the article talk page. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 16:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

My opinion is a lyrics should be an external link. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 16:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

They should be on Wikisource and/or WP:COMMONS. NOTLYRICS (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Tagging socks

Hi, please don’t tag a sockpuppet userpage unless you are an administrator, SPI clerk, or CU. I’ve deleted the page you created as it is unclear if it was based on CheckUser evidence, and the admin who blocked decided not to tag. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Oh, So that is the matter. Only admin, SPI clerk can put this tag. Thanks for apprise me. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 22:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Do not come at me with dishonest tags

This edit to my talk page is unwelcome attention and misuse of admin tags. --Gotanda (talk) 10:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Siddiqsazzad001 . Yes: an editor invoking the username policy and tagging userpages as a result has to have a degree of accountability for doing so. The username in question certainly appears—at first glance, and with no knowledge of any cultural implications—to be harmless; but even if it is not, it is your responsibility to state your reasoning and justify your actions. Just FYI. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Gotanda: Gotanda is name of district in the Shinagawa ward of Tokyo. Am I right? - Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 13:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

So—per our article—their username means "a (rice) paddy of half-hectare's size"...? Pretty specialist, but not particularly POV or PROMO  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room}

@Serial Number 54129: What about the Google search? - Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 14:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Gotanda: This template is not an unwelcome or attention and misuse of admin tags. Per Template policy, This template is not for blatant violations of the username policy, it is only for edge cases or questionable usernames. Report blatant violations to WP:UAA. - Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 14:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

RE: Inappropriate Revert

Hi. Can you check this edition please? I did the revert because I found that. Greetings.--Tajotep (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tajotep:  Reverted because that is also an inappropriate revert. Don't follow the other editors because they could mistake even I also. Always use your common sense. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 13:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Userpage

Hello Siddiqsazzad001!

How to create an userpage like you? I like your userpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aiden30 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Aiden30: Well, Every userpage is locate at User:Username. So your userpage is locate at User:Aiden30. But remember that promotional content, including CVs or resumes, on user pages may be deleted. Please see WP:USERNAME. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 15:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Swarm ♠ 20:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)