User talk:BangladeshiBoy

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently creating unsuitable articles, ignoring messages about the problems with those articles. For the present, the block is for 31 hours, and you are welcome to return to editing after that. However, when you do return to editing please make sure that you heed the advice you have been given, as otherwise you may well be blocked indefinitely. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since posting the message above I have discovered that in at least one of the articles you have recently re-created you have given a link to the web site of a completely different university than the college that the article is about, but claiming it is that college's web site. Whether that was an honest mistake or a deliberate attempt to cover up the problem I previously mentioned with the links to college web sites I don't know, but in either case if you continue like that you really will be blocked indefinitely. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hathazari Degree College for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hathazari Degree College 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/Hathazari Degree College until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iam now leave BangladeshiBoy (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. 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/BangladeshiBoy, 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.

Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 18:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bad BangladeshiBoy (talk) 05:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iam just creating a page. Iam improving Wikipedia iam so many page creat no one complaint me now whose man complaint and action without any mistake??? Iam just creat page like any other users creat. So what??? Why block why doubt???? Iam just users. Now i don't work in wiki so problem and bad. BangladeshiBoy (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BangladeshiBoy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. GAB^gab 18:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Iam hardly working and anybody block without any thinking about this. Bad BangladeshiBoy (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, you were originally blocked for 31 hours, after which time you would have been free to return to editing if you wished to. However, you chose instead to evade the block by using another account, so the block on your original account was extended to two weeks, after which time you would have been free to return to editing if you wished to. However, you chose instead to evade the block by using yet another account, so the block on your original account has now been made indefinite. Instructions on how to request an unblock are on the talk page of your original account, and unless and until you make an unblock request from that original account and the request is accepted by an administrator you do not have permission to edit Wikipedia. If you continue to evade the block by using other accounts then you may expect all of those accounts to be blocked and all of the editing you do to be reverted, including pages you create being deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]