User talk:Aminul802 - Knowledge (XXG)

2171:

own reasons--her research interests are usually different from mine, but we share some research interests. This is reflected in what she edits. We don't edit exactly the same things, though there is overlap. She hasn't been able to join properly before now, as she's been busy with studies, but she did some work during a holiday, before having to focus on exams. Overall, I think we've both contributed to improving wiki, although according to meatpuppetry regulations, we appear to have not been completely in line with rules in a couple of areas, which is why my wife stopped editing in my area after we learnt that, and has not been active in my area since nearly a month ago. Due to exams, so she's also stopped editing in other areas of her interest, but hopes to get back into it soon.We were not familiar with the policy on 'meatpuppetry' when she joined, and on reading the section, we realized that it may be advisable to clarify our relationship. We hadn't worked out how to do that, and since she stopped editing in my area, we thought we'd be fine. We decided to consider our identities to be a single one when we consider issues of voting and edit warring. We weren't aware of the rules that applied to these areas, and her early wiki work reflected this. Since we have become aware of the rules, we now treat our two identities as one for the purpose of voting and 'edit warring'. Hence I request an unblock of both identities. As for Tariqmia, never seen him before, though he seems reasonable to me.

203:

D'Costa more generally, and the rest of his investigative journalism and scholarly analysis lends credence to the fact that he has not simply invented the figure. Hence the number should be kept in the article as the published work of of an expert in analyst in the area, and should only be removed if there are convincing reasons to think that he is erroneous. The fact that it doesn't match up with one of the co-authored works of the same author elsewhere does not cast doubt on his quoting her as saying the figure is "too high". This quote isn't in this article, so there is presumably another source for Bergman's citation. You should verify that it is an error with either Bergman or D'Costa before you remove the figure. If we were to delete all the statements that weren't backed up with unassailable facts, we would need to delete the 3 million figure and the 200,000 figure, since both are simply "official" figures without convincing empirical evidence.

2317:

who I surmised was User:GOALWAY, given his editing interests--which are completely different from my own--and it turns out that he is indeed GOALWAY. I wasn't aware that he was a wiki user, but now it makes sense why this has had the admins somewhat confused. I think the unique identity of GOALWAY can be discerned from the fact that we've both been editing today, and live in different cities. My wife and I, of course, visit my brother-in-law frequently, and we have both edited Knowledge (XXG) at his house. You will also notice that my brother-in-law GOALWAY has probably never edited anything that I have edited, so

1128:

any copyright permission to upload to youtube. While youtube does enforce copyrights when a violation is brought to their attention, if no one complained about the conversations, youtube may not realize they are a violation. While it is probably reasonable to assume generally that content uploaded to youtube isn't a copyright violation, in this case that we know the hack occurred means we must assume the upload to youtube was a copyright violation. If youtube hosting it is a copyright violation, then we must not link to it per

1140:

source directly doesn't provide that extra verification. We have no way to know if the primary source is authentic. It should also be noted that you can get around the linkvio issue from bullet one, by using a reliable source that discusses the conversations, rather then by going directly to them. While linkvio prohibits linking to a copyright infringement, a reliable source that includes small excerpts of the work is probably not violating copyright, and thus

1024:. In this link, if you click "What will happen if you upload infringing content?" you will learn that YouTube removes any copyright infringing material at the first opportunity. Until I see some evidence presented that wiki disallows the use of hacked material now in the public domain, like wikileaks material which is extensively discussed and documented in the relevant wikipedia pages, I will consider this vandalism and undo it. For wikileaks pages, see this 225:

From interviews of those involved in the abortion and the adoption programme that took place in Bangladesh after the war, she considers that ’25,000 forced pregnancies is correct’, though she accepted this may be a ‘rather conservative estimate.’ It is even less likely that we will ever have an accurate figure of the number of women raped in 1971. But even assuming D'Costa's estimate is correct, 25,000 rapes is a huge number.

2688: 2576: 1953: 1410: 351: 295: 2231: 2085: 1865: 1456: 784: 663: 2170:

I've been blocked for sockpuppetry--apparently I'm Umayma1 too. The reality is that Umayma1 is my wife, and reading the wiki policy on meatpuppetry, neither of us has done anything wrong intentionally. I did not recruit her to join my cause. She had been interested in joining wiki for a while for her

1167:

for explaining where we stand. To summarize, WikiLeaks may be used. Articles referring to the Bangladesh tribunal leaks may be used. But thus far, you both feel that citing YouTube's recordings of the judges private, if legally questionable, conversations is not acceptable, even if it's in the public

1127:

The you tube links are not permissible. By default any recording of a conversation is copyrighted, and the participants have a copyright interest in the substance of what they said. Because we know that the conversation only got on youtube as a result of the hack, we can conclude that there was never

1020:

As I've commented similarly elsewhere: please point out how there is any copyright violation involved in posting what is now in the public domain? What exactly is copyrighted as intellectual property here? The linkvio page doesn't say anything about the kind of youtube links posted, namely those that

977:

I would love to. I'm away for a week or so, with limited internet access. I'd love to hear your suggestions. I think Bergman is immensely important, and is not recognised as such only because the country he investigates is not geopolitically interesting to the international media. This is despite the

1470:. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as 1312:

Certainly--BDINN does a lot of coverage of the Tribunal, and I follow it avidly, hence I must have thought this was relevant to the article as soon as it came on. I only saw it a few minutes before I put it on the article. This is a current issue. New things are coming to light frequently, and I try

1198:

How much you can use as an excerpt and still claim fair use is a massive gray area of the law. I would urge avoiding the need to cite directly to a truncated version in favor of citing secondary sources, which would keep us safely outside that gray area, but I don't think there is a bright line rule

1135:

The links to US diplomatic cables are different. While they to were stolen, the works of the US Government employees created in the course of their duties are in the public domain by operation of law, as such, when the cables were stolen, what was being stolen was public domain works. The illegality

2316:

Thank you for taking the trouble to look at this situation. I must say, I'm surprised, and find this situation somewhat surreal. Everything I've said is true. User:Umayma1 is my wife. I'm not sure what technical evidence suggests that a third person is involved, but I just called my brother in law,

1908:

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can

1782:

I have not deleted large chunks of material, I removed material which is duplicated in the body, why do you not move that content to the relevant sections were it belongs? And given you unilaterally change that article all the time without discussion you really have to right to whine just because I

1671:

I don't think doing this unilaterally is helpful. I'd much prefer we work on the last article, and improve on that. You're asking me to redo a huge amount of work. This is unreasonable. I'm going to ask the arbitrators to comment. Instead of a complete rewrite, you could add whatever is new in your

202:

Bergman's reliability probably cannot be judged by someone of your intellectual capacities. For you to charactarise him as getting a simple fact wrong, without trying to look for an explanation reconfirms your evident biases on this entire issue. He does not refer to this particular article, but to

187:

I am going to post this here and not the article talk page. You have misunderstood what Bina D'Costa has written, 25000 is not how many were raped, it is how many were impregnated. Her estimate for rape victims is 200,000. And if that reporter got such a simple fact wrong he is not very reliable at

172:

Regarding the deletion of your reference, this was inadvertant, as I was undoing it based in part on the edit summary, which was about adding a rs tag to Bergman's blog, and I didn't realise that you had not disclosed the addition of a reference to refugees. Please state all the changes in the edit

1139:

Particularly when it comes to BLP content, we should avoid relying directly on primary sources when possible. When a reliable source uses a leaked document as the basis of a story, we count on them to have taken appropriate steps to verify the authenticity of the leaked material. For us to use the

156:

Darkness Shines, it reflects a lack of a NPOV on your part that makes you consider this "a blatant misrepresentation of the source". For one, there are several sources that I am referencing, and the fact that they give differing numbers is one indication that there is dispute regarding the matter.

224:

Much less has been written about the issue of rapes in Bangladesh but I think it is fair to see there is doubt about the accuracy of this figure. The Australian based academic, Bina D'Costa, who is amongst the few who has researched this area in some detail, thinks that this number is ‘too high’.

537:

tag from the page, writing that there are sources showing that Ziauddin was notable before the scandal - so happy editing! (I suggest you ask Phil Bridger what those sources are, so that you can add them to the article, so Ziauddin's independent notability should be obvious. Also, I think if you

1655:

I have rewritten the article, I hope you will help expand the hacking and reception sections. I have done the refs in a different way so do not worry if you get ref errors, I will fix them. I think if we work together then this article can be brought up to GA status. See you on the talk page.

899:

Please point out how there is any copyright violation involved in posting what is now in the public domain? The linkvio page doesn't say anything about the kind of youtube links posted, namely those that have been posted of Nizamul Huq and Ahmed Ziauddin's conversations. If they entailed any

1704:

DS, I think you should self-revert. My closure of the report at ANEW was based on an understanding that the article would be left alone by both of you. If you want to move your rewrite to part of your user space and then ask Aminul to discuss it, that's fine, but what you've done is

2065:, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system. 1063:

I'll certainly ask her, and the material should not be removed until this is verified. If this is indeed the case, it should be made plain on the relevant wikipedia page on copyrights too. Perhaps you could help with that, and also explain the situation with respect to

228:

He quotes her figures of "25,000 forced pregnancies is correct" then goes on to write "25,000 rapes is a huge number" Were exactly in that text does it say there were only 25000 rapes? Absolutely nowhere, as I said the low end estimate for rape victims is 200000.

2712:

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.

1348:

I have nothing to do with that site. What are you trying to suggest? This campaigning website will obviously publish anything that appears online and is useful to their work. They presumably have taken the photo from BDINN too. What is unusual about that?

1068:

documents like those of wikileaks, which I address above, which are treated in great detail, including the contents of private communication, on wikipedia. Incidentally, you didn't only remove what you accuse of being a linkvio, but also articles by the

1767:

You're the one who has to explain. You're the one who changed unilaterally the page after Dreambeaver said the page should not be changed without discussion. Deleting large chunks of reliably sourced material counts as vandalism, for your information.

2602:

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.

1979:

1436:

377:

321:

1921: 1897:, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the 2378:

So you and your wife edited Wiki at your brother in laws house frequently, but did not know he edited Wiki? Seems strange he did not mention as you and your missus used his computer to edit that he did not make mention that he also edits?

1915:

to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with

2050:. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the " 546:

hacking scandal to its own page it would still be of great benefit, because, after all, most of the coverage in the references provided now describes this incident primarily, so it is certainly notable in its own right.)

2429:

So do most of the people I know, though for the record, I use a different browser to my wife on most occasions. My brother in law is obviously aware of the sock puppetry accusation by now, since I spoke to him about it.

1751:

Call me a vandal one more time and I will report you to ANI. Stop reverting BLP violations into the article. Please explain your objections to my changes on the article talk page, I have already started a section there.

2324:. That my Umayma1 is my wife, and that once we understood meatpuppetry rules, nearly a month ago, we stopped breaking any wiki rules, which before then may have been contravened unintentionally on a handful of days. 1983:

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 template from the top of the article.

1440:

1168:

interest. As far as the public interest is concerned, that is for journals like Foreign Policy and the Economist to address, and we may cite their citation of the leaked material. In light of this, I'll reinstate my

381:

325:

2335:

A checkuser did not find your explanation credible, and I do not find your explanation credible. You may return to editing in one month from one account, provided new versions of you do not appear in the meantime.

2716:

2606:

1136:

of releasing them had nothing to do with copyright. And once out, they are fair game. As such, it is not a copyright violation for anyone to host the cables, and therefor not a linkvio for us to link to the host.

2642:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 2599: 596: 34: 1600:

Hi one of your desired additions is the subject of a report at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, please join in the discussion there and don't replace the content without discussion and

592: 30: 2321:

cannot be claimed, and he should not be penalized for my edits. His account was also made the year before mine. Hence, I revert back to my initial reason for requesting an unblock, mentioned above

684: 318: 2709: 1976: 2058: 2023: 163:. Bergman also discusses the rape figure, citing the lower figure of 25,000 based on an academic based in Australia, Bina D'Costa, whose article is available on this peer-reviewed journal 1474:, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Knowledge (XXG) takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators 707: 374: 1027:

wiki article and those linked within it. I will undo your edits until you can present a convincing case that this constitutes a linkvio. That will require more than merely invoking

1629: 1594: 1180:

grounds, as noted by Moonriddengirl, but I won't link full citations of YouTube conversations. One question that remains is this: can I cite truncated versions of Youtube clips on

166:. He also notes that these are still high numbers, even if they are lower than the 'official' figures which he considers to also be exaggerations. Hence they are still objectively 2051: 2186:

and reviewing the technical evidence at hand, I don't see how this could be your "wife" especially with a third account involved. I've also extended the block to a month. --

1534: 1502:

If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article

1433: 2183: 1120:

In response to the AN/I discussion linked to below, I took a look at the situation here, and wanted to share my conclusions (largely similar to my comments at AN/I).

1510: 1503: 1496: 2062: 2370:

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.

2222:

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.

763:

Please point out which links have copyrighted material. Please don't remove other links that have nothing to do with what you consider a copyright violation.

2699: 2588: 1965: 1828: 1422: 580: 363: 307: 44: 1509:

If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article

1463: 795: 588: 22: 1818: 1021:

have been posted of Nizamul Huq and Ahmed Ziauddin's conversations. If they entailed any copyright violation, they would have been removed from YouTube

412: 1854: 1814: 620: 2271: 2125: 2355: 2207: 1176:

citation that was deleted earlier today by DS. I'll also add articles by journalists on the tribunal leaks, even ones that quote the leaks on

1824: 576: 40: 616: 2667: 948:

I saw the discussion about your article. This is salvageable. Would you like to bring it up to a point where you can win over the others?

1045:

They are private conversations, stolen. The content of emails or private conversations fall under linkvio. If you do not believe me ask

680: 569:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

2415:

And naturally you all have the same OS & browser choice, why have you not told your brother in law he has been blocked as a sock?

1251:. I called them and asked if I may use the photo. They said yes, so I uploaded it. I'm emailing them now to get written confirmation. 524: 173:

summary when you have the space, as you did in this case, and such inadvertant undoings will not occur. I will now undo the deletion.

2015: 698: 1081:. Please check what your deleting. Indiscriminate deleting is becoming a trend. I've already warned you about this yet you persist. 835: 694: 2663: 2266: 2120: 158: 1874: 1821:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1184:

grounds? If so, what percentage of the original clip do that have to be? If not, why not? Many thanks for your contributions.

847: 803: 37:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 669: 573:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 270:

is a serious breach of policy. Read the relevant policy's I have linked to above before such errors happen again. Thank you.

851: 446: 397: 554: 503: 493: 436: 423: 1911: 1132:. That the content was acquired by hacking isn't the direct reason we can't link, but does lead us to the reason we can't. 2047: 1917: 1519:

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead.

160:, which discusses in detail the extent of the dispute, and which mentions the figure 58,000 citing it from Necrometrics 2703: 2654:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

2592: 2244: 2098: 1969: 1477: 1426: 857: 367: 311: 2659: 1078: 2238: 2092: 2019: 1881: 799: 570: 416: 978:

fact that Bangladesh is one of the worlds largest countries by population, and is a democracy that is under threat.

91:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Ghulam_Azam#Warning_to_Aminul802_and_a_response_concerning_the_biases_of_the_Daily_Star

2243:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

2097:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

1805:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1726: 1025: 942: 302: 286: 1082: 2612: 2553: 2518: 2438: 2420: 2384: 1989: 1933: 1788: 1757: 1691: 1661: 1641: 1578: 1564: 1542: 1524: 1446: 1368: 1335: 1303: 1270: 1238: 1054: 1010: 932: 866: 753: 460:, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted: 387: 331: 275: 234: 193: 132: 2039: 1925: 1633: 843: 815: 791: 2694: 2678: 1960: 1944: 1890: 1858: 730: 548: 497: 430: 1686:

The last article was a pigs ear. You can look in the article history to retrieve content you wish to restore.

2285: 2139: 2038:. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the 1902: 1467: 1613: 518: 2655: 2489:

Wow! Seems like thriller movie! Yesterday spoiled my whole day by edit warring and false reporting. :@ --

2043: 1601: 839: 807: 2341: 1595:

Knowledge (XXG):Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#International_Crimes_Tribunal_.28Bangladesh.29

79: 142:

Thank you for specifying this. Please give me a few hours, after which I will be available to respond.

2510: 1628:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at

697:, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to 2608: 2549: 2514: 2434: 2416: 2380: 1985: 1929: 1784: 1753: 1687: 1657: 1637: 1574: 1560: 1538: 1520: 1442: 1364: 1331: 1299: 1266: 1234: 1050: 1006: 928: 862: 749: 383: 358: 342: 327: 271: 230: 189: 128: 2631: 2622: 2535: 2475: 2450: 2398: 2249: 2103: 1769: 1728: 1673: 1383: 1350: 1328: 1314: 1296: 1280: 1252: 1185: 1141: 1129: 1106: 1084: 1032: 1028: 996: 979: 901: 881: 764: 745: 204: 174: 143: 94: 2192: 1265:

On the licence you said it was your own work. I have nominate it for speedy deletion as a copyvio.

1046: 726: 486: 121:

58,000, and number of women raped at 25,000, both of which are themselves objectively high numbers.

2651: 2635: 1495:

If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article

1227: 2494: 2074: 1205: 1150: 889: 810:

rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

539: 1783:

have tried to improve it. Just explain what is so wrong with the edit on the talk page please.

1298:

Seems peculiar that this was posted not two hours after you "got permission" to use the image.

127:

which was sourced to the academic press and a leading author in the field, please self revert.

74:

why are you undoing my edits without any discussion? it is a violation of wikipedia policy? --

2513:

I will copy over anything you wish to say in your defence due to you being currently blocked.

1844: 1806: 1605: 644: 514: 60: 2647: 2639: 917: 2364: 2337: 2216: 75: 2650:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2643: 2318: 1898: 1894: 1489:

violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

1230: 924: 655: 456:

Hello, Aminul802. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started,

407:

Hello, Aminul802. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started,

260: 218: 1710: 1313:

to keep track of them, and update accordingly. I'm not always able to do that, but I try.

1074: 1070: 968: 953: 256: 157:

The epithet "considerable" is entirely appropriate in light of David Bergman's analysis

2583: 2567: 2472: 2187: 1417: 1401: 1173: 715: 627: 603: 457: 450: 408: 401: 1893:

requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge (XXG). This has been done under

164: 2721: 2490: 2070: 1835:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

1200: 1145: 885: 635:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

612: 531: 51:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

2531:

Aminul802 would like this discussion to take cognizance of his own statements here

1840: 1836: 640: 636: 56: 52: 690: 2005: 1005:

in adding links to copyrighted material on youtube. Do not do this again please.

2035: 1810: 1279:

Hopefully I will just as speedily reinstate it once the email gets back to me.

415:

that lacks references. If you don't want Ahmed Ziauddin to be deleted, please

161: 1706: 1165: 1103: 964: 949: 1169: 1022: 825:; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts. 123:? This is a blatant misrepresentation of the source. You also removed Up to 1363:

The writing on that site is very much like yours. But I will AGF for now.

267:

made on a Knowledge (XXG) talk page as a source in a BLP as you did here

2031: 1873:

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read

1181: 1177: 880:

You cannot link to external sites which have copyrighted information per

838:

to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents

744:

You cannot link to external sites which have copyrighted information per

1537:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

125:

10 million refuges fled to India and a further 30 million were displaced

2724: 2671: 2638:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge (XXG)

2616: 2600:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Ahmed Ziauddin (2nd nomination)

2557: 2543: 2532: 2522: 2498: 2483: 2458: 2442: 2424: 2406: 2388: 2345: 2322: 2197: 2078: 1993: 1937: 1848: 1792: 1777: 1761: 1736: 1714: 1695: 1681: 1665: 1645: 1618: 1582: 1568: 1546: 1528: 1471: 1450: 1391: 1372: 1358: 1339: 1322: 1307: 1288: 1274: 1260: 1242: 1212: 1193: 1157: 1114: 1092: 1058: 1040: 1014: 987: 972: 957: 936: 909: 893: 870: 823:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made

772: 757: 734: 648: 558: 507: 440: 391: 335: 279: 238: 212: 197: 182: 151: 136: 102: 83: 64: 2433:

Strange he has not posted an unblock request. Well, up to the admins.

689:

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to

2394: 217:

I think you will find my intellectual capacities are just fine, read

662: 1559:

This is a BLP vio, you were already told this. Please self revert.

714:

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

90: 2027: 26: 672:, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. 319:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/David Bergman (journalist)

485:

you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on

2710:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Matthew White (historian)

2509:

I have filed a request for arbitration enforcement against you

2449:

He seems never to have used his talk page, so not too strange.

1977:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Abdur Razzaq (barrister)

1462:

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to

1249: 900:

2022:

to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at

1632:

regarding a possible violation of Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on

834:

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's

422:

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on

2059:

Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions

2024:

Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions

2474:

have nothing in common aside from an occasional IP overlap.

2229: 2083: 1903:

see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

1863: 1454: 782: 661: 1380: 850:. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary 375:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Mohammed Nizamul Huq

2698:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to

2587:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to

2026:) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to 1964:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to

1421:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to

362:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to

306:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to

2352:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

2204:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

2057:

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at

963:

Do you want to bring the article up to higher standards?

705:

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the

167: 2372:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

2224:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

1630:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

489:. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway. 2692: