User talk:M.parvage

Information Editing.

Dear Concern, I hope you are doing well, most of the information here in this article is not right and it is vandalizing the reputation of this page. Regards Ucbassetmanagement (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipeidia follows sources. Do not use for promotion M.parvage (talk) 09:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back, i hope you are having an wonderful day.

Information's that were provided can be vandalizing for any organization.

I hope you understand

Regards. Ucbassetmanagement (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for promotional. Stay away from contubuting as you have a close connection with United Commercial Bank (Bangladesh).

Read: WP:SOAPBOX & WP:REMOVAL M.parvage (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for spreading false / forged information, Stay away from contributing if you have malicious intent. Ucbassetmanagement (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion raised on the talk page, follow the process. Unless you may lose your contribution access. M.parvage (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Cast Member Asur

Suzanne Bernert is a verified cast member with news article and IMDB...what more you need ?? https://www.outlookindia.com/art-entertainment/suzanne-bernert-on-shooting-barun-sobti-arshad-warsi-s-asur-2-ott-is-more-like-shooting-a-movie-no-stress-of-day-to-day-telecast-news-293417/amp 103.174.159.191 (talk) 05:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I encourage you to add but not to break the table.

Thanks for understanding M.parvage (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Your conduct @ Alim Industries AfD

Hi. I'm writing about your comments at the articles for deletion discussion entry for Alim Industries.

In general, on Wikipedia, we try to keep things civil and not level personal attacks at other editors. If your goal was to discredit my comments, I suggest this was neither a polite nor effective way to do it. The goal is to reach WP:CONSENSUS, not to win arguments.

I apologize if I offended you by suggesting that you consider WP:BEFORE. Before doing so I also noted your nomination of Khulna Shipyard which appears to be the subject of even more in-depth coverage (I may get to that later). I tried to keep my comments polite, and your responses were disproportionate to anything I did.

If there's something else you have to say to me, I suggest you say it here. Otherwise, I hope you can reflect on this for the future. Oblivy (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

According to your suggestion on WP:BEFORE, I replied very politely, not any for attacking. I encourage you to read again here.

But As you edited mysteriously, and definitely confusingly, I raised 🙌 my concern.

In terms of Khulna Shipyard, If you have any concern Reply on the deletion page.

Hope you understand M.parvage (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

This[1] links to my WP:BEFORE comments. Are you saying this is a civil response? Oblivy (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

As I said before, be familiar with Wiki and saying again.

Please find my reply for your WP:BEFORE here.

Your mentioned link was for your editing a deletion page and obviously for afd notice removal.

Thanks for your positive understanding. M.parvage (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Asur

The source you added [2] clearly says "The acclaimed Hindi-language crime thriller web series, will premier on 1st June." "Mythology, mystery, thrill with dash of horror" are some elements used in series not the Genre. Sid95Q (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

according to the link: The first season which aired in 2020 was full of mystery, mythology, and thrill with a dash of horror had fans at the edge of their seats when it ended on a cliffhanger. M.parvage (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Those are elements not genre. Like if you see Psychological thriller, it says "Psychological thrillers often incorporate elements of mystery, drama, action, and paranoia....". Most source either call it the series a psychological thriller or a crime thriller. Sid95Q (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Adding material not supported by sources

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Could you please provide me with the specific article or source that you are referring to? M.parvage (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Abdul Monem Limited

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Abdul Monem Limited, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 10:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Slow down

I believe the first page you created was Draft:Sharif Zahir, about a business executive. It was speedily deleted on 18 February 2023 as unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company or person. A month later a second draft was moved to Sharif Zahar by an Articles for Creation reviewer. It was nominated for deletion and deleted on 21 May. The article on Zahir's company, Ananta Group, was nominated for deletion and deleted on 3 June. When it was recreated, it was speedily deleted on 6 June.

Behavioral guideline Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point cautions, if someone nominates one of your favorite articles for deletion, against reflexively nominating another article for deletion for the same reason. But that's what you did, nominating eight companies and two real estate projects in Bangladesh for deletion between 10 and 14 June (as well as proposing deletion of two additional companies in Bangladesh). You aren't wrong that many articles need to be deleted, but you have been too hasty and failed to first determine whether the articles could be improved. (Khulna Shipyard, for example).

Somewhere, I don't remember where, there's a guideline or essay about not flooding AfD with nominations. I think it's particularly about not nominating lots of one editor's articles at the same time, but the principle also applies to not overwhelming any deletion sorting category. A limited number of volunteers participate in these discussions, and it's courteous to spread out nominations so that everyone has time to do their own research (particularly when it needs to be done in Bengali as well as English) and give each topic due consideration. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Statement from m.parvage: Thank you for your concern regarding my contributions in wikipedia. It hurts me, but I want to address the issue you raised. Firstly, I encourage you to approach this with a positive mindset. "Sharif Zahir" was my first contribution to Wikipedia, and although it was deleted, I gained valuable experience from the process. I did a through research on it. As a result I found many information on Ananta Group, UCB, BEZA etc and added those as well. Since then, I have made numerous contributions, including pages on UCB, Asur, MGI, Abdul Monem, and many more. None of those are promotional writing. I have also nominated articles for deletion (AFD) in accordance with the guidelines and principles of Wikipedia, with consideration WP:BEFORE. I firmly believe that all of my contributions have done by neutral point of view. Regarding your indication on "guideline or essay about not flooding AfD with nominations" I have not come across such information. I consider my nominations as a contribution to the community. Your another indication is Khulna Shipyard, Before nominating it for AFD, I conducted thorough research and assessment. While you may believe that the article can be improved or should be retained, I appreciate your input on the matter. One question occurs in mind that, Are you attempting to prevent me from contributing or engaging in any other activities?
  @Worldbruce, @Scope creep, @Vinegarymass911 I encourage you to focus my congtributions more and keep me updated if I have done anything wrong. I am happy to learn thing from you as you are probably much experienced in wikipedia than me. Let us remember that a positive and helpful mindset is crucial in fostering a better community and a better world. Thanks

M.parvage (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy pings: (Alivardi—Aszx5000—bonadea—Carpimaps—CastJared—Curb Safe Charmer—Eastmain—HighKing—JML1148—Oaktree b) Worldbruce (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
(Oblivy—ParadaJulio—Pharaoh of the Wizards—Phil Bridger—Red-tailed hawk—Scope creep—SportingFlyer—Timothy—Vinegarymass911—আফতাবুজ্জামান) Worldbruce (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I've been checked M.parvage's edits for about 4 days and keep coming back here about four or five times a day to check what is going on. It is quite a lot of posted Afd, more than I would sugest is normal. A lot of these articles are very poor, but M.parvage has barely done any content creation. That conversation above is giving me problems, the more I look at it, at Information Editing. scope_creep^Talk 17:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment-The other article that M.Parvage has contributed to is United Commercial Bank PLC which is related to Ananta Group. The founder of the group was the chairman of the bank, who was murdered. Information you have been prevented COI editors from removing. While there is ample evidence of a COI with Ananta Group, it was never conclusively addressed. The editing pattern does feel like you are proving a point; I am not sure what that point is.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  United Commercial Bank PLC is one of my research, and after searching ananta group I found it. Is there anything wrong about my contribution? Did I added any promotional content anywhere?. or nominationg AFD is not my right?

  I can't expect such message from this community. M.parvage (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

What? Why? What was the reason? CastJared (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Please consider all from a neutral point of view. I am literally shocked and hurt by the above message. M.parvage (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• @M.parvage a number of very experienced editors are saying your behavior is not consistent with what we usually see from well-intentioned editors. I suggest you consider what's being said, and either address the behavior that's causing it or try to answer those concerns directly. Deflecting, finger-pointing, name-calling, claiming you are hurt and shocked by the comments, doesn't tend to reassure anyone you are embarked on a well-intentioned effort to improve Wikipedia.

Let's take the example of Khulna Shipyard. According to WP:BEFORE the "minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects". Had you done these you would have seen dozens of high quality results. You could have improved Wikipedia by making edits yourself, or you could have put a comment on the article talk page. Even if after all that you still didn't think it was a worthy article, you could have highlighted the issues you identified in your AfD nomination comments. Instead you wrote nothing more than "Fails WP:ORG; Deletion recommended". And a lot of editor time has been consumed in the discussion, rather than improving the article (which other editors have now done). And the same will go for other articles you've nominated. Is that a good outcome?

Thanks, @Worldbruce for taking the initiative to call this out, and also especially @Vinegarymass911 for your suggestion that the pattern of editing seems to indicate something, but that something remains unclear.Oblivy (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Oblivy, I transparently said about my contributions earlier. I don't understand what answers you are looking for. You might miss those. Again for you, Not only Khulna Shipyard, but I also nominated many more articles for AFD, Ex- 1. Agamee Prakashani: 3 sources, (1 dead and others are not notable), 2. Bangladesh Machine Tools Factory: Many sources are used but don't meet WP:ORGCRITE, 3. The Financial Express (Bangladesh): NO significant coverage, 4: Bangladesh Pratidin: NO significant coverage. These are just my part of contributions. If you have any more ques, feel free to ask.:M.parvage (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

M.parvage, you have responded to Oblivy's message above by posting a list of other cases where you have made the same mistake, and you seem to think that is an answer to Oblivy's concerns, whereas instead it confirms those concerns. That suggests that you may have not understood what Oblivy said. Unfortunately, you have repeatedly responded to messages from editors trying to help you with one or more of incomprehension, resentment, and belligerence. I offer you the following pieces of advice, in the hope that one or more of them may be helpful to you.

1. As you have already been advised by Worldbruce, slow down. Stick to minor and simple improvements to details in articles until you have much more experience. You have rushed into trying to do more advanced things, such as starting deletion discussions and creating new articles, which require more experience of how Wikipedia works if they are to be done properly, and that has led you into difficulties.
2. When an editor with more experience than you posts a message to you suggesting a change in how you edit, try reading it in a spirit of "What useful lesson can I learn from this advice which has been offered to help me to do better?" rather than in a spirit of "How can I oppose this attack on what I am doing?"
3. If you don't understand what someone says to you, then ask for clarification.

Please do consider this advice seriously, and also reconsider the other advice which you have been given by various editors. If you continue in the same ways as you have been going, there is a danger that the impression will build up that the main effect of your contributing to Wikipedia is to take up the time of other editors, who could have spent that time more usefully on other tasks. If that impression becomes established, then there is a serious danger that before long an administrator will decide that your presence here is doing more harm than good, and block you from editing. I hope that won't happen, and I am offering this advice in the hope of helping you to avoid that happening. JBW (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Nominating multiple articles for deletion in a day may be the "guideline or essay about not flooding AfD with nominations" that Worldbruce mentioned above, or they may have another one in mind. Worldbruce will be able to tell you whether it is the right one. JBW (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Familiarity?

There is something odd about seeing someone who has had an account for 4 months, and made 359 edits, claiming that someone who has had an account for 17 years old, and made 1,594 edits, is "not familiar" with Wikipedia, and does "not know how to contribute". JBW (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I would like to see that guideline, what you are talking about. It will be a learning for me. Unfortunately I am not familier with your statement.

Please also add the source about your calim. M.parvage (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Guideline? I didn't say anything about a guideline. I just expressed an opinion, based on an observation, that's all. JBW (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

If you look there, you will see my point with appropriate references.

I appreciate your opinion but please do consider those references also before observing.

Thanks M.parvage (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

JBW's remark is about a comment you made in an AFD discussion about another editor, who has much more experience than you, not knowing how Wikipedia works. I wish I could remember which AFD it was but maybe you can consider this the "reference" you are looking for.

You have received a lot of feedback on your talk page this month. But consider this, I've been editing Wikipedia for almost 10 years, I have made over 500,000 edits and I still have editors come to my talk page to tell me that I made a mistake or asking me why I did some administrative action...and this is on a regular basis. The only way you can edit on Wikipedia and not be subject to other editors' observations and comments is to find some, small, obscure area of the project and work on gradually improving the articles in that field. If you are going to dive into administrative areas like deletion discussions or deletion taggings or, above all, noticeboard participation, then other editors will develop some opinion, good or bad, about the editing you do. It's really up to you to decide how you spend your time on this project but if you are going to continue to participate in high visibility areas then expect to receive feedback from editors who take issue with your editing decisions. Hopefully, this will be balanced out by editors who appreciate the work you do but feedback is something that is really not under your control.

You are going to make mistakes, we ALL make mistakes, and the best approach is to listen to criticism, consider whether it is accurate or not, if it is, apologize and say that you will do better, if you feel it is unfair, then politely explain to the editor why you disagree. And when things just start driving you crazy, take a break rather than getting angry and lashing out. I think WikiBreaks are essential to maintaining good mental health and have taken them several times. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shwapno (June 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by HitroMilanese was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Shwapno and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hitro talk 09:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello Hitro, As you declined the submission by showing the reason that, This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. But all the sources and references are pointing to these. Also, negative news was founded and added.

This article is entirely written from a neutral point of view, and sources met WP:GNG. M.parvage (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, M.parvage! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Hitro talk 09:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shwapno has been accepted

Shwapno, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi M.parvage! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 10:16, Saturday, June 24, 2023 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi M.parvage! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 10:18, Saturday, June 24, 2023 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Thanks so much for your friendly welcome User:WillKomen. I can't wait to start editing!PARVAGE ^talk! 10:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Real estate in Bangladesh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gulshan. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Web series

Please post your views here. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia seeks to present information from a neutral point of view

I know you have already been warned about promotional editing, but both some of your talk page messages and some of your article edits suggest that you may not fully grasp what that means. A Wikipedia article should never contain language such as "Shwapno provides an extensive assortment of products and services, aiming to meet the diverse requirements of customers". That is marketing language, pure and simple. If you continue to post stuff such as that you are likely be blocked from editing before long. Please think about it, and be careful. JBW (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357153059_Customers'_Perception_of_Superstore_Retail_Organization_A_Descriptive_Study_on_Shwapno

This research has the information, where I was collected from. If it is not I encourage you to remove it. But I undo my last edit there, cause low income people was removed. As you saying, this is a marketing word, you can raise your point to the article talk page. Not to warn me like that. By the way. Thanks. Think. PARVAGE ^talk! 11:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ghulam Sumdany Don (July 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by BuySomeApples were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ghulam Sumdany Don and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

BuySomeApples (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I can't agree with the reason of lacking reliable sources. While the article has many reliable sources, like popular newspaper, worldbank blog and many more. I resubmitted the article for review. PARVAGE ^talk! 05:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Real estate in Bangladesh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Founder.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Abass Ibrahim

Hello M.parvage. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Abass Ibrahim, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. BangJan1999 22:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@BangJan1999: Thanks for sharing your openion. I agree that speedy deletion was not a good step as it is a old page and also nominated for deletion once before, but your statement of assertion of importance or significance is not actually right , see WP:CCSI#SINGER. I read WP:MUSIC and nominated for deletion.

Also, I have gone through the previous discussion of first AfD. But 1, 2 and 3 sources doesn't met the criteria of WP:CCSI#SINGER. PARVAGE ^talk! 06:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Aatish Bhalaik

Hello M.parvage. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Aatish Bhalaik, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. BangJan1999 22:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@BangJan1999: Thanks, I agree that as the article meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance, A7 is not right. But I also proposed for deletion the article as it is npt meeting the criteria of WP:NCRIC. PARVAGE ^talk! 06:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion (PROD) is only for uncontroversial deletions, that is to say for deletions to which nobody has any objection at all. In this case two different editors had already contested speedy deletion nominations, so it can't possibly be considered as uncontroversial. JBW (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @JBW, But I believed that the article doesn't pass WP:NCRIC. I am requesting your guidance about this matter. PARVAGE ^talk! 10:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

If you mean guidance on whether the article should be deleted, I have no opinion on the matter. I don't know enough about this cricketer, about cricketers in general, or about the guideline you linked to above, to form any idea at all as to whether he is notable. If you mean guidance on how to proceed with your attempt to get the article deleted, then the answer is that you can take it to AfD if you like. If, however, you want my personal advice, it is to stop making any deletion nominations of any kind until you have significantly more relevant experience. Some of your deletion nominations have been reasonable, but the substantial majority have failed, including a number which obviously had no chance at all of succeeding. Considering the messages that you have received expressing concerns about your various deletion nominations, if you continue in the same way there is a danger that your activity in the area may come to be regarded as so disruptive as to lead to your being blocked from editing, or at least banned from deletion related activities. For example, carefully read and think about the comments below about your deletion nomination of User:Jimbo Wales. The fact that after an administrator had warned you, two other administrators thought it worth adding their weight to the warning, should indicate to you that there are serious concerns. Not all of your deletion nominations are unreasonable, but the ratio of bad nominations to good ones is far too high for comfort, and I strongly recommend concentrating on other ways of contributing to Wikipedia. JBW (talk) 08:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tags

Please do not re-add speedy deletion tags. Once they have been removed, use other methods of deletion such as proposed deletion or articles for deletion. Thank you. BangJan1999 22:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I appriciate your suggestion. I undid it because I couldn't see any writing in the summary. However, I'll be aware of it next time. PARVAGE ^talk! 06:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Jimbo_Wales_(7th_nomination)

I have no idea what you were doing here, but please don't do it again. Black Kite (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, no more nominating extremely high traffic pages for deletion using a rationale that isn't a policy or guideline please. This is extremely outside of community norms and is disruptive. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I am likewise concerned. I would recommend you consider reading the deletion policy. Your recent edits in this arena appear to be disruptive. BusterD (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ghulam Sumdany Don (July 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DaxServer were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ghulam Sumdany Don and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 18:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

New message from Narutolovehinata5

Hello, M.parvage. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Shwapno.
Message added 10:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of IDB Bhaban

If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

The page IDB Bhaban has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seemed to be unambiguous advertising which only promoted a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to have been fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for adding promotional content after previous warnings, as you did at IDB Bhaban.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

M.parvage (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I wrote an article on IDB bhaban yesterday night. My intention was to work on this topic to improve the article as it is a high rise building in Bangladesh. I believe that it was my wrong to publish content before finishing. I should write it at my sandbox. But as you saying about my promotional writing warning, I would like to request you to review that, it was about my writing regarding neutrality not for promotion related. I also encourage you to see my edits. I am trying to fix the promotional writing in Wikipedia articles. Again I want to say that I will work for new articles in my sandbox. The activity I did for IDB will never happen again. Thanks @Tamzin:.--PARVAGE ^talk! 11:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There are several reasons why unblocking you would be unlikely to benefit the project. However, even if we just consider the issue of promotional editing, which Tamzin gave as the reason for the block, you have unambiguously been editing for promotional purposes, and nothing you have said indicates that you are unlikely to do so again. See also comments below concerning the nature of your editing. JBW (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have no evidence other than my familiarity with the editing patterns of paid editors and so-called SEO "experts". Your editing looks very like someone who is being paid for their contributions. The repeated creation of promotional content along with some of your other editing habits suggests that you are here to earn money. Care to comment? MarcGarver (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @MarcGarver: I understand your concerns, but I can assure you that I am not being paid for my contributions or engaging in any unethical editing practices. I apologize if my editing patterns may have given you the impression otherwise. I have made numerous edits across various articles, and I am not sure that on which articles are you talking about.

I also want to take attention of user:Tamzin and want to say about some of my editing.

1. Regarding United Commercial Bank PLC: I have edited it to provide balanced and accurate information, based on reliable sources. A few users from UCB tried to pretend me from providing these information and those must not reflect any paid editing activity on my part.
2. As for the Shwapno: It was my first and only article that passed the Articles for Creation process. I edited it passionately because I discovered that it is one of the oldest and largest retail companies in Bangladesh. This was purely driven by my interest in contributing to diverse topics on Wikipedia and not by any financial motivations.
3. Similarly, my contributions to the Real estate in Bangladesh: This article was in a bad shape, I found the importance of the business sector in Bangladesh. I did not receive any funding or incentives from the finance ministry or any other party to edit that article. It was purely voluntary.
4. Regarding Draft:Ghulam Sumdany Don, It was a submission for Biography of Living Person. My experience says that writing a biography of a living person requires strong citations and is subject to strict approval processes. It was a personal challenge for me, not related to any financial gain. I worked on it to familiarize myself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

But I acknowledge and believed that I made a mistake with the IDB Bhaban article. I attempted to create an article about the topic using Google Bard (see my bard activity screenshot for your reference) and later tried to found additional sources to shape it and also submitted it before completion. I realize that this approach was incorrect, and I apologize for my error. I assure you that such a mistake will not happen again in the future.

I hope this clarifies any misconceptions and assures you that my intentions are genuine. If you have any further questions or concerns, please let me know. Thank you.--PARVAGE ^talk! 17:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Will I be able to unblock soon? or will it take a long? or is there another process to do?--PARVAGE ^talk! 04:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

A question about possible other accounts

• Had you used another account before this one? If so, what other account or accounts? JBW (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  This is my first account and that's why I did a lot of mistake. PARVAGE ^talk! 03:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  As I often do when someone appeals a block I made, I have looked further into your editing, and now I have a question as well: Do you have any conflict of interest with Ananta Group? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Hello @Tamzin, I want to be completely transparent and honest in my response. I have no conflict of interest with Ananta Group or any other organization I have edited articles about. Previously I have clarified the matter and now want to say something about the matter.

  When I initially started editing, my first topic was Sharif Zahir. During my research, I came across Ananta Group. As I continued my chain of reading and exploration, I discovered further topics, including the United Commercial Bank (UCB).

  However, I realize that my involvement in editing these topics raised questions about potential conflicts of interest. I've decided not to add any information related to Ananta Group or its subjects in the past month, and I won't do it in the future either.

  Please let me know if there are any specific issues or concerns you would like me to address. Thanks for understanding. PARVAGE ^talk! 06:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Sigh. I hope you reconsider the life choices that led you to the point of lying to volunteer administrators on an online encyclopedia so you could return to spamming for a real estate company.

  @Any reviewing admin, while the reason for my block did not depend on any off-wiki evidence, I'll be emailing what I've found post-block to the paid editing queue, so I would suggest consulting with a checkuser before considering an unblock. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't understand the thing you saying, ''led you to the point of lying to volunteer administrators''. PARVAGE ^talk! 06:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  I am calling you a liar. Because you are lying. Local policy forbids me from presenting the evidence here, as it would reveal your full name, but I have sent it in to the team that works with private information of paid editing. I hope that resolves your confusion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Tamzin; Without any kind of evidence, you have no right to call me a liar.

  I do not wish to engage in discussions about whether I am a liar or not, but I must emphasize that you do not have the right to make such accusations without proper evidence. Also you may aware that my naming details are already in my profile. PARVAGE ^talk! 07:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  If you carefully re-read what Tamzin wrote, you will see that she did not "make such accusations without proper evidence"; she stated that she has evidence, and is willing to provide it to relevant people, but that Wikipedia policy does not allow her to post it on this page. That is not at all the same as not having "proper evidence". You may also be interested to learn that when I asked you above about previous accounts, I was not randomly fishing. I knew of another account which was used probably by you, but if not then by someone else whose work you have taken over. I asked the question not in order to find the answer, but in order to see whether you were willing to be honest about the matter, because if so then I was willing to consider encouraging Tamzin to consider lifting the block. However, both in response to my question and in response to Tamzin's, given the choice of being honest, you chose not to take it, so in my opinion unblocking is now out of the question. JBW (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

   Checkuser note: Upon review of the private evidence sent to the paid queue, I have taken over this block in my capacity as a functionary. --Blablubbs (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  @JBW: I will repeatedly saying that I had no other account. And I never edited a single line without this account in wikipedia. PARVAGE ^talk! 04:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

That may be so, but in that case you have taken over work for clients who previously used another editor. JBW (talk) 08:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Reblocked

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:

• Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
• State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
• Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

--Blablubbs (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

M.parvage (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I want to be completely transparent and honest with you - I have never engaged in any paid editing on this platform. I understand that my previous edit may have appeared promotional, but I can assure you it was not paid for. Also, I have never operated any other accounts or didn't perform any edits in the past except this account. I sincerely request the administrators reconsider the block placed on my account, and I assure you that from this point onward, I will refrain from any behavior that may raise concerns. If I make any future edits, I will fully accept any consequences that come my way. --PARVAGE ^talk! 04:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Even without seeing the information sent to the paid editing queue, I have seen evidence which persuades me beyond any reasonable doubt that you have been editing for pay. JBW (talk) 08:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

M.parvage (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello JBW: I find myself in a difficult situation as I am unable to prove that I have not engaged in any paid activities. I am also uncertain about the appropriate things to do in the next phase of this process.

However, I acknowledge that my previous activities appeared to be conflicts of interest and accept responsibility for that. At this point, I assure you that I am fully committed to having my future activities monitored closely, and I am willing to accept any consequences that may arise from my actions. Apart from these, I have no further comments or explanations to say. --PARVAGE ^talk! 10:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There is no pathway forward until you acknowledge that you are a paid editor- which I have found for myself without even asking anyone for it. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I believe your point 331dot. I confess and regret for my previous activities. I have submitted another request.--PARVAGE ^talk! 10:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• Request: As for my wrongdoing, I was punished and I confessed it. But I request my unblocking to the admin community as it passed long and I am excited to contribute in the right way. -PARVAGE ^talk! 07:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• Note to any administrator reviewing this unblock request: If you want an indication of just some of the evidence for this, you may like to email me or Tamzin. JBW (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• I stand by what I said when I declined your last unblock request. However, if any administrator reviewing your current request doesn't share my confidence, they can consult Blablubbs about what evidence he is aware of. JBW (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

In fact emailing either me or Tamzin is a better option. JBW (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• What is the way to being unblocked? need assistance.--PARVAGE ^talk! 06:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, for a start, you can be honest. I have often wondered why so many paid editors prefer to lie about being paid, and be blocked, rather than openly declare their paid status and be allowed to carry on editing. Maybe it's just because people who earn their living by producing spam and "SEO" and so on become used to working in an atmosphere where they try to hide the nature of what they are doing, so that they do it instinctively. Or maybe it's because they can't grasp that the problem is not paid editing, but undisclosed paid editing. Or some other reason. Anyway, whatever the reason, none of the Wikipedia administrators who review unblock requests are so incompetent that they won't be able to see that you are lying, whether by looking for themselves or by getting pointers to the relevant information from other administrators who have already looked for it. That being so, your unblock request isn't going to be reviewed by anyone who can't see that you are not being altogether truthful, and as long as you aren't, you won't be unblocked. JBW (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@JBW: I must confess that many of my actions in the past were influenced by conflicts of interest, as I am a real estate guy. But I want to emphasize that I never received any form of payment for my contributions. I sincerely assure the administrators that I have learned from my mistakes, and I am committed to never repeating such behaviors.

I am unsure about the evidence that led you to the conclusion of my paid editing. However, If admitting to false actions is the condition for being unblocked, then I prefer to remain blocked. Thanks. PARVAGE ^talk! 04:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, despite the strong terms in which I expressed myself above, I am willing to consider the possibility that I may be wrong. I am making enquiries to determine exactly what evidence other editors have, and when I've got answers I'll review the situation. JBW (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Right, I have completed my further investigations. The main outcome of doing so is that I feel completely pissed off by the fact that you have wasted yet more of my time by taking advantage of my willingness to extend benefit of the doubt, by lying yet again and then sitting back and allowing me to put yet more of my time and effort in checking to see if there was a case for thinking you might be telling the truth, when you knew damned well that you weren't. Both further evidence I have found in my recent searches and information provided to me in emails from other editors leave absolutely no doubt whatsoever. You have been editing Wikipedia to further the interests of a business for which you work, and by which you are paid. That is to say that you have been editing in contravention of the guideline on conflict of interest and of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use relating to paid editing. If in the first instance you had been honest and straightforward when asked about your editing, you would not have been blocked from editing, but merely required to comply with those two requirements in future. Instead, you chose to lie and be blocked. If at that stage you had decided to be honest, you might have persuaded an administrator to unblock you; it would have taken some work, and would have been more difficult than avoiding being blocked in the first place, but there's a reasonable likelihood you could have done it. Instead, you decided to lie again, and lie again. I very much doubt that any administrator aware of the full facts would consider unblocking you now. You potentially could learn something from this by thinking about the fact that it has been your own choices which led to this, but probably you won't, will you? JBW (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I fully acknowledge that I have made mistakes, and I deeply regret the dishonesty in my responses.

I want to reiterate that I had conflicts of interest, but I want to be clear that I have not received any form of payment for my actions. My edits were motivated by my working organization, which led to the conflict of interest. I admit that I should have been forthright about it from the beginning, and I regret my initial lack of transparency.

You are right in pointing out that had I been honest from the beginning, the situation could have been handled differently. While I cannot change the past, I want to assure you that I have learned a valuable lesson from this experience. I now understand the importance of transparency, integrity, and adhering to the community's guidelines. If given another chance, I promise to abide by all rules and act ethically in my contributions to the platform. PARVAGE ^talk! 09:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

You "have not received any form of payment"? You were editing on behalf of the business which employs you and pays you for the work you do for it. Your editing was part of your job, part of your paid work. Perhaps you are making a rather strange (it seems to me) mistake that appears to be made by a remarkably large proportion of editors who come here to promote their employers, namely thinking that "paid editing" applies only if there is a separate payment specifically designated as being for editing Wikipedia, and not if it's part of one's general paid work. I doubt that any of these people would think it made sense for a bus driver to say "I'm not paid to drive this bus, it's just part of my work." JBW (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your perspective, but I still believe there is a distinction in my case. While I understand your analogy with the bus driver, let me clarify that my role at the business primarily involves tasks unrelated to Wikipedia editing. Editing Wikipedia was not part of my official job description or responsibilities. My involvement in editing Wikipedia was a personal choice I made, driven by my connection to the business. Thank you for your patience and understanding. PARVAGE ^talk! 10:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I can't comment on your personal situation, but let's consider a situation which could possibly arise. Let's suppose that a person whose own description of themselves contains expressions such as "brand marketer" comes along to Wikipedia and starts posting material which looks to most other people like marketing copy. Let's suppose, more specifically, that some or all of their editing looks like marketing material and is about the business they work for. I think you would be hard put to find any Wikipedia administrator who would give the slightest consideration to the idea that it wasn't paid editing. And let's suppose that this person says, as you have done, that they did the promotional editing on their own initiative. Well, I would think it's pretty common for people in the sort of situation I've described to use their own initiative in deciding what marketing platforms to use for their task of publicising their business. It may be that such a person would receive precise instructions from a boss as to exactly where to put their promotional work, but I would think it more likely that using their own initiative would be an integral part of their paid work. Of course I can't say how relevant all this is to your situation, but I hope it's enough to make it clear that nothing you have said is going to persuade any Wikipedia administrator to the view that what you did was not paid editing within Wikipedia's use of the term. I'm not entirely sure why I have taken the trouble to write such a long and detailed explanation to you; I've never done so before for editors in similar situations. Maybe I just got tired of reading the same old stuff over and over again, and felt like giving a fairly full answer at least this once. Anyway, unless something new happens to make me change my mind this will be my last message to you. I don't think there's anything I can convey to you that I haven't by now already said clearly enough for you to get the picture. JBW (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your detailed explanation and respect your perspective on this matter. However, it is disheartening that despite my efforts to clarify the situation, I haven't been able to change your opinion. Regardless, I don't have any new information to present at this point, and I won't attempt to change your mind any further. My previous statements stand as an accurate representation of my intentions and actions. If someone finds my explanations acceptable and believes in my sincerity, they may consider unblocking me. Thanks. PARVAGE ^talk! 04:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

M.parvage (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I apologize for my previous actions. I acknowledge that my involvement with Ananta Group and related activities was financially motivated in a passive way. I now pledge to refrain from engaging in such matters and particularly tasks of this nature in the future. I kindly request the administrators to take this into consideration. --PARVAGE ^talk! 10:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

So what are you going to edit if we unblock you? Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I have not decided to edit anything yet, that I can tell you. But one thing is sure, I will input the latest information that I find in renowned newspapers. Also, write new articles on notable things, but must be through AFC. --PARVAGE ^talk! 10:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Do I need to select a topic to edit before getting unblocked?--PARVAGE ^talk! 07:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Daniel Case, 331dot --PARVAGE ^talk! 03:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It's usually more helpful, yes. Daniel Case (talk) 07:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you should- if you have no edits you want to make, there is no need to unblock you since blocks only prevent editing. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. Now I have decided to edit existing articles to add new updates as I read the newspaper daily. And I will be sincere about news authenticity.--PARVAGE ^talk! 05:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Inquiry: Processing Time for Unblock Requests

As a result of my previous actions for Conflict of interest, I have been blocked and now realize how important it is to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Although I have little experience, I am eager to learn and contribute to the community in a positive way.

As a blocked contributor who has requested unblocking, my curiosity has led me to wonder how long it takes to accept or decline unblock requests. I am aware that Wikipedia administrators are volunteers with their own commitments, and their availability might affect the processing time. However, I am curious to know more about the general timeframe for reviewing unblock requests. If any experienced editor or administrator could kindly shed some light on this matter, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.--PARVAGE ^talk! 07:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Blablubbs, Tamzin --PARVAGE ^talk! 03:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

An unblock request after an initial decline usually takes 1 to 3 months to be reviewed. Which isn't ideal, but this is a volunteer service, and only a few admins choose to spend our time working unblocks, especially during the Northern summer. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you-- PARVAGE ^talk! 07:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive but preventive. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Ghulam Sumdany Don

Hello, M.parvage. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ghulam Sumdany Don, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Draft:Ghulam Sumdany Don

If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

The page Draft:Ghulam Sumdany Don has been deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. As the page met any of these strictly-defined criteria, it was deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been deleted are:

• It appeared to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghulam Sumdany Don. (See section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
• It seemed to be unambiguous advertising which only promoted a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to have been fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

M.parvage (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I accept my fault and I made a huge mistake in Wikipedia, where I have included PR articles as sources and also added write-ups related to the real estate industry where I work. However, I should refrain from doing this since I work in this industry as well as Ananta group. I also raised deletion requests for a few pages intentionally. The punishment I received was necessary. However, I would like to ask once again for my unblocking. Moreover, I assure you that I won't do anything like that in the future. --PARVAGE talk! 8:10 am, 6 March 2024, Wednesday (12 days ago) (UTC−5)

Accept reason:

Per discussion. Please heed WP:PAID as required. Welcome back. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Unblock discussion

Noting @Blablubbs: block log entry. "(uw-upeblock) taking over block per Ticket:2023071510002208," which of course I cannot see. Unsure of the ins and outs, so leaving the ticket untranscluded and assuming it needs a check user(?) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Yeah, it's a block as described by Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Special Circumstances Blocks – though you can consider the private evidence aspect of the block lifted. Feel free to action the request as you see fit. I'm not sure what you mean by "transclusion" of the ticket? --Blablubbs (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Blablubbs: Thanks. ({{{uw-upeblock}}}) @M.parvage: What constructive edits would you make? Any admin who gets to this before I do should feel free to action it with out me. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Deepfriedokra. I will add reliable sources to expand Wikipedia articles by maintaining neutrality. As I read daily newspapers and business journals, I may expand and add articles related to business, but I will avoid real estate. Also, I am eager to read books from the Wikipedia library. I would love to creat historical articles & expand previous articles from the books. Inspite of these, I may work for expand notable articles which are in a bad shape. PARVAGE ^talk! 04:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I will return -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Welcome back

For the past 1 hour or so I've spent time on your case. I gotta say it was fun reading all the discussions and checking some of your actions. Especially tagging the Wikipedia's founder's user page for deletion, had me going.[no pun intended] I hope you've learned from your mistakes and will contribute to this project out of volunteer zeals instead of personal gain. As a friendly advice, please refrain from using AI chatbots while editing (articles, as well as discussions). I noticed and could tell you generated a lot of your responses in this very talk page and other noticeboard discussions with AI bots, further evident by your Google BARD screenshot. Note that AI tools can/should be used only to fine-tune the text you've written, but they can't be used solely as they tend to generate made-up jargon at times and incoherent/twisted facts that you might not intend.

With hindsight, I hope realize that you could've avoided being blocked by simply being honest and declaring your COIs. Nonetheless, I welcome you back and hope to see heartfelt contributions from you. Regards. X (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Indrajit Prasad for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Indrajit Prasad 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/Indrajit Prasad until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Badbluebus (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Sheikh Hasina, especially if it involves living persons. Your edits have been reverted. Thank you. Sirocco745 (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)