Revision as of 15:15, 5 December 2012 editTheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers135,756 edits →WP:COATRACK: :::<small>note: oops in the initial posting i left out the very important "NOT" which I have just added. ~~~~</small>← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:45, 5 December 2012 edit undo82.73.35.159 (talk) →Article Subject to Vandalism DrivesNext edit → | ||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
This is becoming somewhat depressing that this article keeps on being subject to acts of vandalism despite a number of administrators got involved and a number of users/IPs have been banned subsequently. As a Wikipedian this might be some point to get upset that the means of contribution in here is not only being to add information, but also to engage in commotions because some just want to remove properly cited information abruptly. The question usually occurs to me that why the users do not support their thoughts on the issue with added referenced information instead of removing existing referenced information. I have this article in my watch-list so any undue change would be notified to me at once. In that case instead of bothering administrators who remain busy with more serious stuff I believe, I would keep reverting if any edit in the article is consistence with ]. --] (] · ]) 13:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | This is becoming somewhat depressing that this article keeps on being subject to acts of vandalism despite a number of administrators got involved and a number of users/IPs have been banned subsequently. As a Wikipedian this might be some point to get upset that the means of contribution in here is not only being to add information, but also to engage in commotions because some just want to remove properly cited information abruptly. The question usually occurs to me that why the users do not support their thoughts on the issue with added referenced information instead of removing existing referenced information. I have this article in my watch-list so any undue change would be notified to me at once. In that case instead of bothering administrators who remain busy with more serious stuff I believe, I would keep reverting if any edit in the article is consistence with ]. --] (] · ]) 13:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
:before you edit war revert, you will need to justify why detailed content about the son's activities are relevant to the article of the father.] / ] -- ] 13:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | :before you edit war revert, you will need to justify why detailed content about the son's activities are relevant to the article of the father.] / ] -- ] 13:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
*Please ban ] as he is directly related to the subject in question. He is the son of the opponent of a highly respected politician who is being defamed here. I have checked his linkedin profile and alerted the law enforcement agencies in Bangladesh of his ongoing cyber criminal activities. Misplaced Pages should not be abused to settle personal political scores that cannot be settled elsewhere in the real world. Thanks] (]) 15:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:45, 5 December 2012
Biography: Politics and Government Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
Bangladesh Start‑class | |||||||||||||||
|
Stop Bbb23 from vindictive edit warring
We want to see how long Bbb23 and his Misplaced Pages goons can go on edit warring with us from multiple sites worldwide. Let's see who wins. We will continue to revert posts and we will continue to create new accounts and revert your edits from many locations around the world. Let's see who wins before a decision is taken to delete the page itself.82.73.35.159 (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- you need to stop making accusations against other editors right now. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:COATRACK
This article is about Chowdhury Tanbir Ahmed Siddiky. Excessive details about the improper activities of his son are NOT suitable for this article - his son did something bad, he did not react appropriately, he got dumped from the party. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- note: oops in the initial posting i left out the very important "NOT" which I have just added. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- With respect, off course details about acts of one's son does not fit into his biography. But when the person is a politician and acts of the son has been the direct reason of a significant event (expulsion from the subject political party) in his political career, which has been properly cited with news sources from highly circulated media outlets of the subject country, how does that information becomes simply excessive and becomes subject to removal without any discussion? --M. Tawsif Salam (talk · contrib) 14:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Red Pen is correct. The reason for the expulsion clearly needs to be given - but beyond that, what the son did is unnecessary detail. The section appears to be properly sourced, and if it is to be revised, further published reliable sources will need to be provided to justify any changes. Edit-warring will achieve nothing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Going through the already published reliable sources again, the request to add ‘additional’ sources does not seem to make any sense. I request to all involved editors to go through the already provided reliable sources. And as I have explained earlier, son’s particular act that had direct impact on politician father’s political career, is indeed not an excessive information for father’s biographical article. I would explain more if someone still has problem in understanding that. --M. Tawsif Salam (talk · contrib) 14:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- the details of the son serve only to enhance a guilt by association completely inappropriate in an article about a living person. Revert yourself now. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- It appears not to be a problem of 'understanding' - it is instead a question regarding the extent that the actions of an individual not the subject of the article need to be reported here, with due regard to WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed ‘actions of an individual not the subject of the article need’ is not to be added in an article at the first place. But the news sources used for citation in here, if anyone talking in here has ever gone through them, clearly mentions that expulsion of the subject person from his career political party happened due to a chain of events, where the son, not just a son but the one appearing to have planned to enter politics through that party, had a significant that he played. The son’s act at the circumstance very clearly calls for being added in here as supporting information. Appeals and actions of other users here are seeming to be more focused at removing the son’s acts rather than purifying the information in the article. --M. Tawsif Salam (talk · contrib) 14:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- "its in the source" is the minimal criteria for content. however it is most certainly NOT a guarantee that the content is included in an article. WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT and WP:COATRACK require that the content also be appropriate for the particular article it is being added to. You yourself have stated several times that the content is not about the actual subject of this article and therefor your reliance on "but its in the papers" is NOT sufficient for it to be included in this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for making clear your reasons for attempting to turn this article into a coatrack attack on the son - why else would him intending to enter politics be relevant here? Since you have made your disregard for Misplaced Pages BLP policy clear, I suggest you self-revert your edits before sanctions are taken against you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- I believe if there is a biographical article about a politician who has been expelled from his career party because of the acts of his son, the article must include what act was done by the son. The act that had direct impact is important in here, not the relation whether who is father who is son. This is what I think and there has been no reason to change that thinking. So certainly I am not going to self-revert. Misplaced Pages:3RR allows me to have 24-hour break from this as it is not allowed to make more than three reverts in 24 hours as I understand. I am coming back after that time and I probably will not stop bothering about this issue until you convince me why a son’s act that laterally ended the subject person’s political career (since he tried to get back party posts, was refused and remains inactive without an announcement of retirement from politics) seems irrelevant to you. Thank you. --M. Tawsif Salam (talk · contrib) 14:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Given your declaration above that you intend to continue edit-warring over this, rather than discuss the matter in the appropriate way, combined with the fact that the relevant passage was first added by you - in unenencyclopaedic and hyperbolic language ("an enraged Irad Siddiky", "ripping Tanbir Siddiky off all party posts", "Tanbir remains without any political allegiance since then") - It would seem to me that perhaps a topic ban might be in order. I suggest you calm down, take another look at WP:BLP policy, and then consider whether you might be better off leaving decisions regarding the issue to contributors less emotionally involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Article Subject to Vandalism Drives
This is becoming somewhat depressing that this article keeps on being subject to acts of vandalism despite a number of administrators got involved and a number of users/IPs have been banned subsequently. As a Wikipedian this might be some point to get upset that the means of contribution in here is not only being to add information, but also to engage in commotions because some just want to remove properly cited information abruptly. The question usually occurs to me that why the users do not support their thoughts on the issue with added referenced information instead of removing existing referenced information. I have this article in my watch-list so any undue change would be notified to me at once. In that case instead of bothering administrators who remain busy with more serious stuff I believe, I would keep reverting if any edit in the article is consistence with Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. --M. Tawsif Salam (talk · contrib) 13:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- before you edit war revert, you will need to justify why detailed content about the son's activities are relevant to the article of the father.WP:COATRACK / WP:BLP -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please ban M. Tawsif Salam as he is directly related to the subject in question. He is the son of the opponent of a highly respected politician who is being defamed here. I have checked his linkedin profile and alerted the law enforcement agencies in Bangladesh of his ongoing cyber criminal activities. Misplaced Pages should not be abused to settle personal political scores that cannot be settled elsewhere in the real world. Thanks82.73.35.159 (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Start-Class biography articles
- Start-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class Bangladesh articles
- Unknown-importance Bangladesh articles
- WikiProject Bangladesh articles