User talk:Ragib/Archive 1

Ragib bhai,

Some anon recently mass deleted topics out of Bangladesh-related articles. This is frustrating. Most of what he put was full of POV's. Over a month of hard work flushed down the drain! Do you know how to revert back to an older edit?

Urnonav

Nevermind, figured it out.

I checked out his other edits. Apparently, the anon was on a editing spree on any Bangladeshi Independence war related docs. --Ragib 16:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be working with Bengal/Bangladesh related articles. You might want to participate in the nomenclature of article voting. -- Urnonav 17:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I apologize for removing the question marks from Calcutta. I was using a Mac with the latest operating system 10.3.8 and the latest version of Netscape 7.2. The marks appear as a series of questions marks. I just assumed there was some dispute going on! ;-) I'm sorry. SlimVirgin 07:49, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ragib bhai,

My Bengali spelling is a "little" bad. If you get free time, could you please check recent edit to Artcell. If you don't feel like fixing them, put a note on my user page, I'll do it! Thanks! -- Urnonav 09:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Isn't Jhing-ga the right spelling? It's the like the vegetable (starts with Jha) I thought. Or does it start with a 'Za'? -- Urnonav 18:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

testing testing

hi.. first day on this thing.. hope to communicate more..

I'd like to know why you voted to delete, rather than improve, Saleel. Can you tell me why exactly you don't think the Saleel network, which numbers in the thousands of members deserves even a mention? or is it that you dislike the layout, in which case I'd ask what do you believe could be done to improve it ? --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:26, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any point in "improving" a vanity page. --Ragib 17:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear Ragib - I have just seen your new addition to the stub categories - Bangladesh-stub. If you plan to create any more stub templates and categories, please keep in mind that stub categories should only be created after a week-long debate at Wikipedia: WikiProject Stub sorting. A prime requisite for their creation is a guaranteed minimum number of articles in the category - at least 60, and preferably over 100. In theory, your new stub should be put up for deletion, since it was not cleared by WP:WSS and is unlikely at present to reach 60 articles, but given the large number of potential articles on Bangladesh which may be stubs, I'm just going to list it on WP:WSS as a "discovered, non-cleared stub'. Grutness|^hello? 05:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. I am sorry I haven't read the whole of the stub creation process. Actually, many of the articles on Bangladesh I have started are getting erroneously marked as India stub. This happened 4 times to an article in last 3 days. So, I created the stub related to Bangladesh. I again am very sorry for not following proper procedure in this, and I hope not to make the same mistake in future. I also hope the newly created Bangladesh stub would be kept, as many articles related to Bangladesh are now in stub stage. Thanks again for the constant watch for the benefit of wikipedia. --Ragib 06:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

it's all right :) As I said, I didn't propose this one for deletion, since it does look like a useful category, and it doesn't cover ground already covered by other categories. Bangladesh does seem a big enough subject to warrant its own stub category (let's face it, with 100 million people there should be a lot of things to write about!). Grutness|^hello? 06:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand the scope of this stub. Should it for example be applied to the article on Surya Sen? What is more specific: south asian geographic region stub or Bangladesh stub? I would actually say that the Bangladesh stub, if only used for historical articles, would be fairly useless. If everything related to Bangladesh directly were to be classified under Bangladesh-stub, then it would make sense. Any ideas on this? -- Urnonav 00:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, this stub is just the beginning, or more accurately, super-category which would include many specialized stubs. For example, Surya Sen would be included in Bangladesh-bio-stub, a city or location would be included in Bangladeh-geo-stub. This sort of specialization has been done in case of India and many other countries. Also, there would be cultural stubs and other stubs. --Ragib 02:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The usual system for other countries which have a general stub but no geo stub (e.g., Belarus, Israel) is to give two stubs - in this case bangladesh-stub and asia-geo-stub - to any geo-stubs from Bangladesh. Similarly, for Bangladeshi people (for example) bangladesh-stub and bio-stub should be given. If there become enough Asia-geo-stubs relaing to Bangladesh, then a bangladesh-geo-stub will very probably be made. At the moment there are several countries within regional geo-stub categories like this which have nearly enough stubs for their own category. Is there a Bangladesh wiki-project? if so, then there would be more reason for a separate geo-stub/bio-stubb/whatever. My advice is to stick with just one bangladesh stub for now, and wait until there are definitely a large enough number to start splitting the category into specialist subcategories. Grutness|^hello? 04:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• There IS indeed a WikiProject Bangladesh[1] and we have produced more than 100 article on Bangladesh and its people/culture/geography etc. So, sub categories would definitely be useful. There are now about 24-30 articles on Bangladeshi people, some of which are in the stub state. There are articles on at least 15-20 Bangladeshi cities/areas and 5-10 of them are in Stub state. We also have 10+ articles on Bangladeshi history and culture. --Ragib 05:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll use {{Bangladesh-stub}} with any new stub I create or any old one I come across. I am fairly unsure of what should be a stub. Wikipedia guidelines don't seem to say that stubs must have under a certain number of lines, yet the general perception is any article with a couple of paragraphs is a stub. From what I understand Bangladesh Liberation War is a definite stub because it lacks most of the topics under the matter. However, it is a fairly long article even in its incomplete state. So, does a stub tag go there or not? -- Urnonav 16:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is a partially complete guideline posted at the WikiProject Bengal. This was agreed upon after a little bit of debate that you'd also find on the same page. If you disagree on something, you are welcome to contribute to the debate. In fact, we need some opinion on transliteration of স, ষ and শ. We contemplated use of s in conjunction with either sh, ş or ś, but we couldn't reach a decision. We are hoping to eventually put this up in a nice place and use a template to refer users to the scheme wherever we use it. For now though, at least two of us are actively using this. You are right about the Bangla Academy scheme though! HTH. -- Urnonav 16:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article does mention that the company is not a recognised one . Gathering facts about the campany is difficult since it never discloses its assests or officialy declare its very existance . Just because the company isn't legalised doesn't mean it doesnt exist . Siting in Bangladesh one cant figure out the events happening in Mumbai . user:Guptadeepak - HAPPY !!

Please provide any of the following: 1. Street Address of the company 2. A list of executives 3. A list of contact numbers, websites and other information. To claim a group to be a company would be totally meaningless without that information. I did find a lot of info about the criminal activities of the person you link to, but claiming that to be a company is clearly speculation. It can be organized crime, but definitely not a company.

Also, in the information age, one doesn't have to be present anywhere to get information on anything. Google has taken over that task for me. Besides, I am not even in Bangladesh, or anywhere near Mumbai, I am on the other side of the globe. Luckily, Google isn't limited to national boundaries. Thanks. --Ragib 15:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I guess you are right in saying that it shoudn't be put in the category of corporate company .. Definitely not . But an organisation which carries out such mammoth operations from drugs and arms dealings to hawala affecting so many lives across the globe definitely deserves a mention . If you think that by doing a google search one can gather verifiable information about it ... think again . Even the Indian Authorities dont have basic concrete information about him and his organisation ,let alone its street address . Well , I dont want to spend so much time and brain on this topic . It would be better if D-Company is put in the category of organisations running illegal activities rather than not to mention it at all . Guptadeepak

Deepak, thanks for your reply. Well, I only want to say that at the current state of the article, it simply looks like a satirical attempt, because it claims D-Company to be the world's largest company with 50 billion dollars of business, while saying its whereabouts are unknown. An encyclopedia cannot contain any speculation or unverifiable information. I do not deny the crime-connection, I only want to say that you should rewrite the article and state facts clearly, such as this is an organized crime group etc etc. Even in the US, mob is a problem, but there is no article on Mob-Company in the wikipedia. By calling D-company a company would confuse a neutral reader, and that is NOT the objective of wikipedia. --Ragib 19:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

PS- please sign your messages with --~~~~, because your signatures are not linking properly and have no timestamp now.

I've blocked him/her. utcursch | talk 08:04, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, s/he started acting totally crazy after I reverted the vandalism. Thanks for looking out for vandalisms. --Ragib 08:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Please feel free to consider the below proposal on its merits and demerits. Criticism and suggestions welcome.

I am wondering if it is possible to agree on a systemic categorization of all Bengal/Bangladesh related articles in a nice Directory page (say for example akin to the Google Directory system). This has several advantages:

- it will be comprehensive

- it can give us compilers a very useful idea of knowing exactly WHERE to classify and categorize new articles. Currently it is so very random, (although I realize this IS the Wikipedia style), but still looking at the complete arbitrariness of the Category system is a bit depressing.

- most importantly, there are very few people who are updating on Bengali topics, even after a number of appeals that I sent out online. What this says is that for the foreseeable future, the job of updating articles, even on important historical events and people, depends on us. At present, we are doing this of course, but in a somewhat random, haphazard way. If we could establish a structure to the Bangladesh pages, and set out priorities (for example, a batch of 100 history and politics articles first, then a batch of 100 cultural articles, etc etc), then our progress could be much more systematic and smooth. We could divide responsibility for articles among each other, and try for a minimum each per week (say 3 or 4 articles per week) with a minimum length as well (say one or two monitor pageview lengths)**. We could also correct each other's work as we go along.

Of course, all members of the Wikiproject are free to voice their opinion on this proposed approach. Please let me know what you think.

PS I am trying to make recent entries of mine a bit more substantial, instead of creating a forest of stubs, by stretching them to fill up at least the front page view.

Thanks for your idea. This is good. I have also been trying to persuade more people into working on Wikipedia's Bangladesh/Bangla related articles, with almost no success. After my initial posts, I even had to revert a spate of vandalism from some people, who created a mess. Anyway, I like the idea of a directory, and I think the best way to organize things would be to use the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh page. We can list articles there, and also have a to-do section of articles, requested articles etc. I think there are now 3-4 people regularly writing articles on Bangladesh, so co-ordinating should not be a big problem. This being summer, I can and regularly do devote a lot of time to wikipedia, and I can do 3-5 articles per week. Let's have the list of Bangladesh related articles in the wikiproject page first, I'll add what I find there, then we can sort, categorize etc. Thanks once again for participating in wikipedia. --Ragib 11:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Left a suggested category structure for the BD directory on the WikiProject page.. lemme know what you think.

Yes, most of the history section is full of POV. I also never managed to finish the article on the Bangladesh Liberation War. Start your endeavour; I'll try to continue providing some sort of support as and when I get free time. -- Urnonav

I didn't remove that info because I disputed it. I removed it because in five years, or two years, or one year, it may no longer be true. Information going into a Wiki article should have some kind of staying power - Wikipedia isn't a current affairs magazine. I hope that makes sense. Denni☯ 02:47, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

I agree. But the same argument applies to every sort of article, when the person is holding any sort of office. For example, Sergey Brin lists that he is the president of Google. Isn't that a similar kind of information, which may not be true in a few years? Similar location information is present in many other articles, if you seek a precedent. So, I would prefer keeping the information there. Thanks. --Ragib 02:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

US is NOT a secular state. It doesn't claim to be. It is a Christian state. SusanPowL0 01:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please get your facts right. See First Amendment to the United States Constitution which prohibits the state sponsorship of any religion or any prohibition of religious beliefs. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights. Textually, it prevents the U.S. Congress from infringing on six rights. These guarantees were that the Congress would not:

• Establish a state religion or prefer certain religion (the "Establishment Clause of the First Amendment")
• Prohibit the freedom of religion (the "free exercise of religion")

So your idea of the US being a "christian state" is totally mistaken. I'm reverting your change. --Ragib 02:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unlike in most of the muslim states, christian countries do have freedom of religion. That does not mean we are not a christian country. 'In God We Trust'. SusanPowL0 02:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't say which God, i.e. God under which religion. Also, it is your POV that only christian countries have "freedom of religion". Please do not judge the world by religious views. --Ragib 03:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Its God with G capital. Its pretty clear. SusanPowL0 03:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No it is not. The word "God" refers to the Supreme being in English language. Muslims, Christians, and all monotheistic religions use that word in English. --Ragib 03:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The U.S. is surely a secular state - it was founded by Christians, sure, and Christianity is the plurality religion, sure, but don't those apply to Pakistan too? I'm sure that Pakistan's founders belonged to some religion, and that there is some majority religion in that country as well. Unless you mean to tell me that every single Pakistani citizen is non-religious... – ugen64 03:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whats your point Ugen? Pakistan is secular? What are you trying to say? Ragib, US IS a christian state though we do not discriminate based on religion. When God is G capital, it usually refers to the God as believed by christians. SusanPowL0 03:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are not talking facts. See God, from which I quote The development of English orthography was dominated by Christian texts. Capitalised "God" was first used to refer to the Judeo-Christian concept, and may now signify any monotheistic conception of God, including the translations of the Arabic Allah and the African Masai Engai.. I am not sure by which logic you are still claiming the US as a christian state, when the US Constitution clearly marks it as secular. Have some logic instead of clinging blindly to your beliefs. --Ragib 03:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So you are saying US is a Judo-christian moslem country? That doesn't amount to 'secular' country. By the way the phrase 'secular' is not considered to be a quality in the US, but it is not the point. The time when US was formed, God did mean christian God. No? So it does mean christian God in this instance. SusanPowL0 03:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, please take your time to read the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Also, I am not suggesting that the US has any official religious affiliation which is what a secular country is supposed to be. The constitution DOES NOT say that. Please read the mentioned articles. Taking a look at Secularism might also help clear out the confusion on the meaning of the issue. Thanks. --Ragib 03:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Condescending. Thanks. We do not discriminate does not mean we are not a christian state. We surely are. I take that you agree with the interpretation of the word God in 'In God we trust' since you have taken back your argument about US being Judo christian moslem state and haven't followed up the argument. SusanPowL0 04:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No I have not taken back the argument. Clearly the word "God" do not belong to "Christianity" alone, it is the English language word to refer to the Supreme being. Also whatever you or any group do doesnt matter in this argument, United States is a secular state by its constitution. Please refer to that. Having God with capital G or small g is not the issue, and whatever name God is called is neither the issue here. The US was definitely founded by people mostly with a Christian religious belief, and mostly of English origin. If the founders spoke some other language without capital/small letter issue, the motto would use the word for God in that language. But my point, which you haven't been able to refute, is that the US constitution clearly mandates that A) there is no state religion B) no prohibition on religion. Clearly, that is Secularism, unless you start changing the meaning of English words. Thanks. --Ragib 04:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When Presidents and other federal officials take their oaths of office, they place their hand on a Bible and conclude their oaths with the words "so help me God." US IS a Christian country. Just that we respect and treat all religions equally unlike moslem countries. Christian countries CAN treat all religions equally. We don't HAVE to disciminate against other religions in order to be a christian country. SusanPowL0 04:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let us see what the constitution say. Whatever you believe is not my problem, I looked up the US Constitution which is supposed to be the Supreme law in the US. That definitely says that the government will NOT declare any relgion as state religion, also there is religious freedom. By the definition of the word, a secular country is exactly the same. Please stop your mistaken claims about the US being a christian country, just produce a section of the US Constitution that says so. In case of Pakistan and Bangladesh, the constitution of those countries clearly say that those countries are Islamic nations. As for Bible being used, that is because the Presidents have belonged to Christianity so far. Please refrain from your comments about "moslem countries" being "without respect for all religions" and christian countries are not as bad as them etc etc, I regret to see the bigotry behind that attitude. A large part of the population being christian makes the country's population being mostly christian, the country does not become christian by that fact. And finally, unless you cite a section of the US constitution which proclaims the US to be a christian country, please do not bother to waste time by tunnel-visioned comments on merits and demerits of religions. Please respect all religions equally. Thanks. --Ragib 04:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, "In God We Trust". Do you comprehend what it means? It means as I argued above, US believes in God. Secular countries do not say so. These exactly are the signs of a christian state. In secular countries such as china and India, people do NOT place their hands on Bible or whatever. They do NOT HAVE to say they trust in God. Also please don't compare US with the countries above, what they do isn't the benchmark of being secular or not being secular. Muslim countries do say their religion in their constitution. We don't. Most christian countries don't since politics and church are divorced ages ago. Before calling me bigot, please introspect and see what you and your own people really are. It does not matter what you want to make US. In either case, in the 17th century, we certainly WERE a christian country. SusanPowL0 05:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I said, you haven't shown me the part of the constitution that says so. You are free to believe whatever you do, but please show me the constitution that says so. Also, touching the Bible is a tradition not law, and in courts or in public offices, people are free to swear on different documents/books or in case of Quakers, not swear at all, just say "in penalty of Perjury". I agree that most of the people of the US were christians almost all through history, but the state was NOT, and still is NOT. As for your claims for oath taking etc etc, that is a tradition, not a mandatory thing. For example, the US Constitution mandates that the presidential oath is I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.. (Article II, Section 1)There is no "so help me God" in the constitution, but that has been a tradition since Washington. My point is simple and clear, even though most of the people were christians, the state itself was never christian. I find it pointless to put forward the same argument again and again, even if 100% of the US citizens turned christians, the country is secular unless the First amendment is reverted. Please read US Constitution and comment only if you find "US is a christian country" there. And stop judging countries by tagging them as "Christian", "Muslim", "Jewish", "Hindu" etc. Religion has better uses. I "do introspect and see what me and my own people really are", but I take offence in your denigrating comment expressing superiority of one religious belief over others. Reply with the section of US Constitution declaring US as a christian country. Thanks. --Ragib 05:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did you not read my reply? quoteAlso please don't compare US with the countries above, what they do isn't the benchmark of being secular or not being secular. Muslim countries do say their religion in their constitution. We don't. Most christian countries don't since politics and church are divorced ages ago. Before calling me bigot, please introspect and see what you and your own people really are. It does not matter what you want to make US. In either case, in the 17th century, we certainly WERE a christian country. unquote

Christianity is never enforced. The act of making these practices not mandatory but a tradition is consistent with christianity.SusanPowL0 05:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let the US Constitution speak for itself. Read it first. Thanks. --Ragib 05:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Christianity is never enforced. The act of making these practices not mandatory but a tradition is consistent with christianity. SusanPowL0 05:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The traditions followed in the US that I mentioned speak for themselves. SusanPowL0 06:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I said, let the US Constitution speak for itself. I am quite tired of reiterating the same argument which you never refuted/shown the relevant section of the US Constitution. Thanks. --Ragib 06:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, but haven't I already answered this? Whats wrong with you?Christianity is never enforced. The act of making these practices not mandatory but a tradition is consistent with christianity. The traditions followed in the US that I mentioned speak for themselves. SusanPowL0 06:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The thing which is clearly "wrong with me" is that I would like to see it in writing in the US Constitution, the supreme law in the US, and not just somebodys word or hand-waving for it. So far as I know, the constituion supersedes any other law or practices in the US. And sorry, I won't reply to you unless you show me the constitution and not your monologue on "traditions". Let the US Constitution speak for itself. --Ragib 06:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My answer is clearly articulated. We don't stop being christian if we don't force others to follow our practices. "In God we trust" makes us a proud christian state. SusanPowL0 06:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ragib is right Susan, I'm aware that last June there was a US Supreme Court ruling on a high school case on God vs atheism that dealt with this issue. For the US to be a Christain state, it must be explicit, like the "Islamic Republic of Pakistan" is. God here is a supreme being not necessarily the God of Christians to merit saying the US is a Christian state. India's national song Vande Mataram has never gone down favouribly with Muslims; it doesn't mean that India is a Hindu state. And BTW, Christians in India have to swear by the Bible in court as do Muslims do with the Quran. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:02, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, you have reverted a page three times - if you revert four or more times in a 24-hour period, you may be blocked as per the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Reverts with small changes added in do count in the three revert rule. Thanks, – ugen64 03:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am stopping any reverts to the page, but please have someone neutral mediate the issue. --Ragib 03:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I cannot protect, as I am involved in the dispute - but I have requested protection. – ugen64 03:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Rajib, I got your point. I will restrict my wikification to avoid confusion. Please feel free to comment on wikification. --Bhadani 16:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Bhadani, I really appreciate your efforts in doing this. --Ragib 16:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Rajib, I will do whatever I am able to do - I will exapnd more articles, plz give me ideas and some time. In case, you feel that I am not doing justice to the topic, you are most welcome to re-edit. I will never mind - please feel free with me. We all should cooperate to make wikipedia great! And, thanks for the compliments.--Bhadani 19:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that your article comes verbatim from [2]. Did you get permission from the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh to license their work under the GFDL? I await your comment. Sincerely, Ashibaka (tock) 05:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are right about the sources. I usually try to paraphrase, reword and rewrite content taken to start an article, but in this case, I haven't done so, and the issue of copyright you have raised is certainly a genuine concern. However, Banglapedia is the Government sponsored National encyclopedia of Bangladesh, and I assume the licensing scheme would put the text into public domain. I do not have a paper copy of Banglapedia, so cannot make sure of that, and so in the mean time, I will rewrite/reword the sections taken taken from Banglapedia. Or do you want me to remove them and start from scratch? Either way is fine, just do not attach a copyvio tag on that before I can resolve it myself. Let me know which option sounds better with you. Thanks. --Ragib 05:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the proposal you have put there. I am really growing tired of the whole matter, and I would request you to see the whole discussion (previous two sections) in Talk:Pakistan. I think I have definitely said from the beginning that the issue here is not wheter Pakistan has or has not any link with Taliban or 9/11 terrorists, but whether these comments can be or "must be" included at the top paragraph, which User:SamTr014 continuously assert. From the very beginning, I am all for having the article conform to the guidelines placed in Wikipedia:Wikiproject countries. I also maintained that I have no affiliation or connection with Pakistan other than maintaining NPOV in the article, which you can check out from my previous edits on the article. I completely support the notion of removing unnecessary remarks, judgements or disputable facts from the first paragraph of country level articles. However, User:SamTr014 is adamant on the notion of adding those two sentences there. I just hope you understand my position in the debate, and I hope some other users, possibly admins would have the article on their watchlists and relieve me of being the scapegoat everytime I remove some possibly POV element from the article. Thanks a lot again for your initiative. --Ragib 05:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy to do it. I did look at the discussion and the edit history, and I see that at least once you removed both statements and basically put it at the condition I've proposed. Clearly, the dispute just needed someone else to come in and say the same thing in a different way. I'm going to go find an admin to unprotect now. :) Thanks for your help. kmccoy (talk) 05:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I support your proposal, but I have a feeling that the same situation will result after the page is unprotected and user Sam seems pretty concerned that this non-guidelined" information belongs there. Perhaps there should be a way to deal with this matter after that happens? --Anonymous editor 05:44, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

He agreed to cease. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt - the worst that can happen is that he reverts despite the agreement and the page gets protected again. Then we find another way to fix the situation. :) kmccoy (talk) 05:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

His material is being added to another section. It is disputed, highly POV, unverified, unsourced and below encyclopedia standard. He mostly cut and pasted stuff from the Taliban article. I think this issue needs to be discussed before the section is added. See the disputed material here [3]. --Anonymous editor 06:55, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

dear Rajib,

Salam,

I'm requesting not to edit the Rohingya content.

Thanks,

kunyiaFree Rohingya Campaign

Hi, peace be upon you too, but I somewhat disagree with this. I edited the article to clean it up, you can see that I have just renamed the "Rohingya directory" to "External links". Also I removed links to yahoo groups which is not a suitable thing for an encyclopedia. So, I would continue to wikify and cleanup the article. You may notice that I have not put any judgement on the content of the article, rather than the structure. --Ragib 18:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

plz don't change anything on current article . We , Burmese Rohingya have very much concern about this article.We, Free Rohingya Campaign going to write a objection letter to the webmaster since you're not Burmese Rohingya. Btw, Let me clear one thing , we are not bengali people ok!

Regards,

kunyia

Please go ahead and "write" a letter to the webmaster. And try to grasp the wiki idea, anyone can edit articles, and I have removed copyvio text from the article, you are always free to contribute your own. Besides, I do not go for or against your ideology. And finally, could you use edit history to see if I have inserted the link to Bengali people there? Keep the article structured and non-copyvio. Thanks. --Ragib 18:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please realize that OmerFa and King1 and numerous others are all sockpuppets of SamTr014. This is just an attempt to make himself look like he is getting support and different POVs which agree with him. Just thought I'd make you aware. --Anonymous editor 01:52, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding the possibility of sockpuppetry in case of OmerFa and SamTr014 being all the same. --Ragib 02:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I have reported it also. --Anonymous editor 02:08, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds dreadful. Good luck. Sadly I was just day-tripping in from Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax and probably cannot be of much help on this one. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

Just thought I'd make you aware, Sam has been proven a bigot. See evidence here [4]. Notice word choice. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 23:18, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hello. Well done on noticing the error on the image. It shows how naïve I am to Asian languages. I've corrected the image and re-added it to the page. Once again, thanks :-) Craigy (talk) 01:34, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

It's ok, thanks for taking the time to add the flags and enhancing the article. --Ragib 01:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Ragib, I always love to contribute to wikipedia. And, I write drawing from different resources on the net. In case, you find that my edits require re-edits, please do that - that way, we shall contribute to making wikipedia more exact and informative. Have a nice time. Thanks for the compliments. And, I have something more to do on Buddhism in Bangladesh.--Bhadani 18:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am very sure that OmerFa is a sockpuppet but I don't know who's exactly (perhaps Sam's). Regardless, he is indeed a non-Pakistani posing as one in order to support anti-Pakistan POV. Although he makes himself sound like an overstimulated patriot here is a recent edit (to the Kashmir article) where I caught him re-inserting disputed/unfactual/biased info that is anti-Pakistan [5]. Well anyways I think we should proceed with discussion on the talk page of the Pakistan article and see what the outcome is. Just thought I'd make you aware of this incase you need to reference it later, although I am sure that the discussion will get nowhere as Sam will be ready to use King1, SusanP_, and other sockpuppets later. --Anonymous editor 23:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

how do you classify an external link as commercial or noncommercial?i have worked for the official website development for north south university, bangladeshalso worked as project coordinator of pharmaceutical industry portalcurrently studying at university of western sydney, australiaand working on a web portal for bangladeshi community in australiamajor sections of this portal are

- bangladesh high commision, canberra- news- upcoming events- probashi kolyan montronaloy- bangladeshi shomity- professional directory- news archive- bangladesh business directory/yellow pages - migration/visa- photo gallery- external links- students (scholarship, financial aid, university information, admission and visa processing)- jobs- special

all these sections will be related only on those stuffs that affects bangladeshi people living in australia... this site will be launched on march 1, 2006

i am also involved with several other bangladeshi web projects some of which are totally non-commercial

i need to know the policy of bangapedia or wikipedia bangladeshplease send me the related links

thanking youShams Maudood+61 433 333752+61 432 020145shams.maudood@gmail.com

Hi Maudood, thanks for your enthusiasm. However, wikipedia's official policy on External links prohibit linking to somewhat unnecessary resources. For more detailed info on wikipedia's policy on links, see Wikipedia:External links#What should be linked to. Linking to official Government websites is ok, but linking to each and every website claiming to be a portal would leave the article with a vast collection of links, which is not a good thing for an encyclopedia, as Wikipedia's official policy also state Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. I do appreciate your work, but please contribute by editing articles, not adding links to portals, some of which may have commercial links. Thanks --Ragib 05:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for rv vandalism on my user page. The vandal will be reported.--Anonymous editor 16:18, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome message on my user page, and the tip on signing messages! Cheers! -- Jim Butler 28 June 2005 07:18 (UTC)

Would you be interested in discussions on this (Talk:Military of Pakistan) particular page?--PrinceA 00:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The images seem a little messed up. Not sure how they work on Wikipedia. Also a lot of the code is html. I believe there are some fine tools out there for html2wiki. Would you happen to know about these?

-- Urnonav 06:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have no idea about the tools. The portal code is totally html, it is quite difficult to control the box heights. Have to do it manually. Also there is a bug, after updating a page (Say the people page), the changes are not reflected in the main portal page...I have tried to empty my cache but didn't work. Had to modify the main portal page so the changes show up there. --Ragib 07:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You keep on reverting the link about Quran-only. Please don't. The link deserves to be there if the sentence deserves to be there because, that's what links are for. However, if you would like to argue that the sentence in invalid than do so. gren 02:07, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the group is even notable, google returns only 700+ results, most of which seem to be bulletin board postings. Also, the links, the sentences seem to come from people associated with the movement. This does raise the suspicion that the link, even the sentence is a promotional item. I would definitely like to know how widespread this is, because, apparently from the Internet, the group hasn't been notable for anything so far. I may be wrong though, but I'd like to see proof of something being notable beyond the belief of a very tiny group of people. Thanks. --Ragib 02:15, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's very hard to tell how many people do believe this but that wasn't my point. If you don't believe the sentence is there that is fine. If the sentence is there then the link (which is internal) deserves to be there because it helps to lead the user to more information that is included in the sentence. Therefore the issue is the sentence and not the link. Do you know what I mean? gren 02:26, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I got your point. I will do some research on this to learn details. --Ragib 02:40, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I look forward to participating in this project. I've found it to be a useful reference source. Perhaps I can contribute to it's development in some small ways. Thanks again Skitz 28 June 2005 16:06 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming me too. KeithD 28 June 2005 16:11 (UTC)

Ragib, I would simply like to thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia via my talk page. At first, I assumed you were a bot, but a visit to your user page proved me wrong. Your welcome message is a great reference and I find myself using it very often since I registered to contribute to this project.

Yours sincerely,

Grumpy Troll 28 June 2005 21:16 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Someone welcomed me when I first joined, so I try to return the favor. Keep up the edits. --Ragib 28 June 2005 21:27 (UTC)

Thank you too! I'm firmiliar with wikis and such, I am a member of the Video game cheats one, the HRWiki, the HR Fanstuff Wiki, Wikispecies and I used to be a member of the Spongebob Wiki and Simpedia. I just am used to doing templates so I would do that, once again; thanks! Homeschool Winner 28 June 2005 21:40 (UTC)

Hey there! Thanks for the warm wikipedia welcome! I hope I can be of some assistance to this project! ^_^ MrD 30 June 2005 23:22 (UTC)

Thanks Ragib for a friendly welcoming message also from me. And also thanks for inviting me to your discussion page, to be able to post this message at all. Yes, in my opinion, Wikipedia is definitely a great community of "spare-time contributors" to the general Common good.

best regards

by Wayfarer-Talk , on July 1, 2005 at 1:56 GMT

I won't repeat what others have said, but I appreciate your welcome and its contents just as much as they. Thankyou.--Bluegreen 6 July 2005 01:18 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm sorry, but you're gonna have to ask someone else about Wikipedia's official policy on fair use. I'm just tagging all images uploaded by User:Awais141 for now because he has labeled almost all of his images that has uploaded as being in the public domain when he doesn't even state the source. Sorry for not being able to help you. --Hottentot

I pretty sure its under PD or fairuse. I posted a reply to you here here. Falphin 30 June 2005 02:08 (UTC)

Hi Ragib, I need the text "Vande Mataram" written in the Bengali script urgently. Thanks =Nichalp «Talk»= June 30, 2005 18:07 (UTC)

বন্দে মাতরম --Ragib 30 June 2005 18:55 (UTC)

Thanks for the script. I needed it for the 1907 flag of India. =Nichalp «Talk»= June 30, 2005 19:08 (UTC)

Hello Ragib, I have taken the liberty to put a barnstar on your user page. I am sure you deserved that long back. Cheers.--Bhadani 30 June 2005 19:31 (UTC)