Wikipedia:Editor review/Aditya Kabir

Aditya Kabir
Well, I have been here for more than year and have gone through more than 4,000 edits. I had my fair share of disputes, conflicts, confusions and crappy contributions. Now may be a good time to get myself reviewed. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 18:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.


 * View this user's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * Oh, yes. That'd be the Shahbag article. When found it as stub, just one line on it - "Shahbag is a neighborhood in Dhaka" - and tagged for a merger. I removed the merger tag first, and wrote a few lines to expand the stub. Then became an epic journey which eventually took the article to an FA status. And, on that journey I met many wonderful people, all lending their support, advise, help and goodwill. Whenever I'm stuck with something I still reach out for those people, and more often than not I get very positive response. That one article taught more about Wikipedia than anything else.
 * 1) Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * Well, that'd be User:NAHID. I tried reasoning with him, showed my appreciation for his work, at times protested against his ways, and whenever I thought I was not being nice I apologized, then complained about him for pestering, stalking, harassment and sneaky vandalism, sought third party opinion, and finally ignored him. As I see things, Nahid shows good promise to become a very good Wikipedian, if his personal grudge against me doesn't come in the way. So, ignoring him and letting him grow on his own may be the best policy for now... (a couple of months later) Well, I just got into a bit of trouble with him again, my bad luck, and drawn quite a bit of blasts. Worse is, it served no purpose at all. And, though it doesn't really answer the question (i.e. not about edits) I have stepped into quite a bit of bitterness with User:Armanaziz, a highly diligent and relentless worker here. I'd love to have him as a partner, but I don't know how.
 * 1) How do you feel when an editor asks for your help?
 * I have two ways to feel about this. When I actually can help, and do it too, I feel gratified. But, when I can't, for various reasons, I end up feeling very guilty most of the times. No help is ever asked on Wikipedia for just the heck of it, and I feel responding to such requests is one of our core responsibilities. I myself post a lot of help requests myself, and do receive a lot of help from this great community.
 * I have two ways to feel about this. When I actually can help, and do it too, I feel gratified. But, when I can't, for various reasons, I end up feeling very guilty most of the times. No help is ever asked on Wikipedia for just the heck of it, and I feel responding to such requests is one of our core responsibilities. I myself post a lot of help requests myself, and do receive a lot of help from this great community.

Additionals from Dfrg.msc

Borrowed from, I'm sure he wont mind. These should test you editing skills, and show if you have any weaknesses which you can work on. So, just write your answer next to the Question. Good luck.

Speedy Delete or not: 


 * 1) CSD1 Response: If that is all the claim to notability of the subject, then it may be a speedy candidate (see WP:NN and WP:LIVING). The subject may, nonetheless, warrant an entry some time later (i.e. when they have made a better claim to notability, and is not just upcoming anymore).
 * 2) CSD2 Response: Company entries are a huge destination for spam, and if the artcile is not expanded quickly it indeed is speedy material (see WP:SPAM). But, with expansion and refs it may survive.
 * 3) CSD3 Response: If the claims are true, it should not go for speedy. But, the claims still need to be verified (see WP:VERIFY).
 * 4) CSD4 Response: Definitely fodder for speedy delete. This is what we are particularly fighting against and this is what represents the flip side of an open encyclopedia (see WP:NONSENSE).
 * 5) CSD5 Response: AfD may be, but certainly not speedy. Let's have some respect for editors who put in a lot of effort in good faith to make worthy articles.

Vandalism or or not: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_review/Aditya_Kabir&action=submit Editing Wikipedia:Editor review/Aditya Kabir - Preview - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Have fun! Dfrg.msc 07:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1)  Response: On the face it doesn't look like vandalism at all. It rather looks like a failure to understand the policies at the worst.
 * 2)  Response: Yep, that's a dish of vandalism dripping with the sauce of nonsense. WP is not the Uncyclopedia. But, I must appreciate the ingenuity of the edit.
 * 3)  Response: Crude vandalism that is not even funny (may be still better than pushing political or business agendas).
 * 4)  Response: If it was discussed in a civil manner at a proper place, removing this strange edit would rather represent an attempt at fighting vandalism.
 * 5)  Response: Silly, but, on the face, definitely not vandalism (has this person been doing this to a lot of articles, or for a long time to the same article?).
 * 6)  Response: Unreferenced, but can't be taken for vandalism on the basis of what I see on this particular edit.

Response:

1. Good call, Google searching can be good for checking notability.

2. True.

3. True, but exercise caution.

4. 100%

5. Excellent! The important thing to note is that, "all edits are effort" and if you destroy that effort, you'd better have a good reason. _

1. Good! You could ask for sources to help build the article.

2. Correct.

3. Correct.

4. Correct and good demonstration of understanding policy.

5. Correct.

6. Correct, you would need to research.

Very nice work, now, see what tags you would CDS under. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 09:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews  You became hot headed in certain topics.You accaused me as stalker etc. etc. and etc. I tagged some of the fair use images which were uploaded by you.But you took it otherwise.In WP, these type of incidents happened before and it shall happen in future.Remember that, all the contents in WP meant to be free except some acceptable fair use image.Since you have much weakness in image, you considered it as stalking.I think, you might've failed to establish belief on WP guideline issues.You should read WP:FUC and more importantly a statement by Jimbo Wales (Outside view by Jimbo Wales)
 * By

Some of the articles were tagged by defferent template.But you removed them continuously without providing any information.You also labelled changes made to your errors as 'vandalism'.This is not acceptable.An example can be found here. You did these because you were the creator / contributor of those articles.Did/do you OWN all the article? Shouldn't you follow WP:OWN.Agian you failed to accept WP issues.You only revert the articles created by yourself.And most of the time you discussed with your personal thoughts.

You made fake complaint which was declined or failed.Then you apologized.But, soon after you come/came up with hot head/angry mood and engaged in edit war.So I'd considere them as Fake apologizes.

You also tried to take revenge (lack of civility) when I tagged one of your image.(Your statement here starts with..."Anyways I have put a....).All you did these stuffs because of your silly like angry silly anger.

I suggest you to read WP:VANDAL, WP:STALK, WP:HARASSMENT before accausing someone as vandal,stalk etc.And also read WP:FUC, WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL and WP:COOL.

Making flase blame and fake complaint continuously is another kind of harrassment.So be broad minded and try to have some respect for editors than making tons of false blame.--NAHID 08:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia and have asked for my own review, so don't take this as the view of an expert! I think NAHID's comments above are fair in so far as the two of you have interacted. For example, even if you thought this was part of some game-playing, it would have been better to find and insert some in-line citations than simply to remove the tag. Again, when you posted this it was excessive and bound to be deleted (as you correctly predicted.)
 * By

However I'm looking at your contributions from the viewpoint of someone who has never worked with (or against) you. From this position I can say it's very nice to see an editor from outside the usual English-speaking world, and to have so many contributions that broaden Wikipedia from that angle. Your most-edited article is Jazmin which is way out of my area of interest but is more encyclopaedic than many porn star bios, I would guess. The article on History of aviation in Bangladesh is more in my line and is very interesting, but really needs some in-line citations and good references. You don't seem to be involved in any vandal fighting, or watching new pages, or in deletion discussions for example. I have found that it's a good way of learning more about WP policies (usually by making mistakes!) Maybe you could give it a go? Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk to me)  17:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment. My internet availability at the time is at best sketchy, but I hope I can reneder the same service to you soon. Before that, I'd like to draw your attention to two of the pages I created as part of my userspace - User talk:Aditya Kabir/Archive 3, which is an archive of my discussions with other editors including links to some AfDs, IfDs and CfDs, as well as policy discussions, and User:Aditya Kabir/Wikilove/failure, which archives a large part of this user:NAHID fiasco (though it doesn't contain the edit summaries, naturally). I have also been trying to write an essay on the policy I am most interested in - WP:NN. For Vandal fighting, I would love to give it a more serious thought. Thanks again. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 13:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You were the first person (don't want to use the word "editor") on WP who supported me in an article and together we took it to GA, for which I am extremely grateful. From what I saw, you remained civil in your dispute with NAHID and sought outside assistance to try and resolve it.
 * By

You work to a very high standard judging by your comments on the few FAC reviews I've seen you participate in: Shahbag, Bangladesh Language Movement, Portal:Bangladesh.

I would recommend diversifying by doing some vandal fighting with one of the available tools (e.g. WP:TWINKLE) and newpage/shortpage patrolling as well as taking part in AfDs. Also, if you have plans to go for an RfA, it would be worth participating at WP:ANI and WP:AIV. With a bit of experience in these fields, you will make a fine admin. → AA (talk) — 00:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Twinkle I haven't been able to figure out. ANI and AIV I haven't got around to. But, sooner or later I promise to get through to all that. Aditya (talk • contribs) 06:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents - I am not knowledgeable of his disputes with NAHID (being friendly with both of them). However, I have noticed that Aditya Kabir is a very diligent worker helping to promote Bangladesh-related content on Wikipedia. His work on Banglapedia sticks out to me as a great note on a great treasure of knowledge. I believe he is a good person who will continue to bring us great content and good reading. Baka man  03:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * By