User talk:Kawrno Baba

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Kawrno Baba, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! —Paleo Neonate – 13:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnaism[edit]

Hello Kawrno. Krishnaism used to be its own article (see Special:Permalink/713959531). There was a merge discussion (Talk:Vaishnavism#Merger_proposal:_Krishnaism_into_Vaishnavism) resulting in the merge and redirect of Krishnaism to Vaishnavism. If you believe that this was unjustified, please open a new discussion at Vaishnavism while providing a reliable source that confirms your claims that both should have their separate article. However, on Wikipedia in general, if a particular denomination/sect claims to still be of a particular religious branch, we usually don't contest that unless scholarly sources do. For instance, the Jehovah's Witnesses are nontrinitarian Christians, although various other Christians consider them non-Christian because they do not worship Jesus (only his father, Jehovah/Yahweh). For Wikipedia they are still Christians. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 13:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing guidelines[edit]

I've noticed that a lot of the content you're adding is either unsourced, or sourced to social media sites such as quora or other self published material such as blogs. These sources don't meet the standards used on Wikipedia, which you can read about at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please use higher quality sources from now on, such as peer reviewed journal articles or books from major publishers. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Alag, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have watched and compared the said two movies and the resemblance in uncanny. To see that resemblance, one just need to watch and compare two movies by oneself, no peer reviewed publication is required. To see that 2+2 = 4, one has to only count apples (or any other objects) and he will get to know the proof of it, no peer reviewed research publication is required. This particular case is not abstract, nor the knowledge is troublesome to find. Hence it is not shifting the burden of proof. Also in the added section I said 'similar movies', I did not say one is a copy from another. To point out there is a similarity is not an allegation. Kawrno Baba (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you're describing is the very definition of original research. If you disagree, you're welcome to discuss the matter at the article's Talk page. DonIago (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024[edit]

Your edit to Cheraman Juma Mosque has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 18:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which one was that copyrighted material? Was that the photo? That photo was present before, I just re-positioned it! Kawrno Baba (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seawolf35 The removed text has been summarized using my own words. I hope there are no further issues now. Kawrno Baba (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Ali Sina (activist) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 10:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

//when you have seen that other editors disagree//

There is only one who disagrees. Then why use plural? Besides, I don't see this same message on his talk page. Kawrno Baba (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kawrno Baba: Please remember that other editors have this page on their watch list. By posting the above message, Doug Weller was not only advising you that you needed to use the article talk page urgently, but he was also telling other editors that their help with this issue would be appreciated. That kind of message may encourage other editors to take action, which is what happened.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Asif Adnan[edit]

If this is the first article that you have 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.

A tag has been placed on Asif Adnan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly 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 criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. AusLondonder (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page[edit]

Please take a look at User:Kawrno Baba. Try clicking the "verify" button on the "this user has extended confirmed rights" box. You will not like what you find. You might want to delete {{User wikipedia/Extended confirmed}}. If you want to know what user rights users have, there is a button for this

Do you see the difference between these three users?-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have noticed that as well. I deleted it. This mistake was done as I copied user box from another user not paying much attention to it. Thank you though. Kawrno Baba (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some advices[edit]

Hi, Kawrno Baba. I appreciate your enthusiasm for editing Wikipedia, but edits like this are original research (see WP:OR), which is your own analysis of what is stated in the primary source, not what that source directly state. Please understand that on Wikipedia we only closely report what independent reliable sources say, while striving not to infringe on the copyright of those sources (see WP:COPYVIO). And in the case of historical topics, modern secular academic sources such as books published by university presses or academic publishers such as De Gruyter are much preferred here. If you have further questions, you may ask them at WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:HELPDESK. And if you have some disputes about the sources being used or NPOV, you can bring it to WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN, respectively. Or you can also go to RfC to ask the community. Also note that NPOV on Wikipedia "means neutral editing, not neutral content. It means "neutrally reflecting what the sources say. It does not mean that the article has to be 'neutral'." (see WP:YESBIAS) 🙂 — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 12:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaalakaa That's an excellent explanation covering several important points. I hope you don't mind if I steal it. :)

Kawmo Baba, please follow this advice. I'm sorry to have to say that if you don't, eventually an WP:Administrator, possibly me, is likely to block you. But that should NOT be necessary if you follow this advice. One other point, if an edit of yours is reverted, don't restore it, go to the article's talk page to discuss it, and if no one does, use one of the sources above, probably the TEAHOUSE of the HELPDESK Doug Weller talk 14:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind if I steal it. :)

Be my guest, Doug. 😃 — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 17:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rv[edit]

Please do not restore text added by a LTA (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lazy-restless). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted a lot of content added by me as well. Please use the talk page of that article to gain consensus first. I spent days to organise that article, and I put summaries in all my edits. I do not like it that someone just comes and deletes all that content without giving any proper reason.

As for sockpuppetry, please do what needs to be done without harming my edits. Please undo your revert. And then deal with sockpuppets differently. Kawrno Baba (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I restored text added by you. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]