Talk:University of Science and Technology Chittagong

Bangladesh Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Bangladesh To-do list:

Add more images to Bangladesh Liberation War and related pages
Clean up Climate change in Bangladesh, it needs a lot of work
Clean up History of Bangladesh after independence, it needs NPOV
Improve Bangladesh back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion)
Improve Bengali language back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion)
Improve Bengalis and related pages
Take a look at the requested articles.
Make a MRT line 3 article.
Extend, add an infobox and a map of New Eskaton to New Eskaton.

Bangladeshi Universities (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladeshi Universities, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Bangladeshi UniversitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Bangladeshi UniversitiesTemplate:WikiProject Bangladeshi UniversitiesBangladeshi Universities articles

Higher education

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The primary source tag

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

User:NAHID is again undoing my edits repeatedly, and refusing to discuss his point. While his user page displays a userbox that says - "This user prefers discussing changes on the talkpage rather than engaging in an edit war" - he keeps removing the Primary Source tag without discussing anything on the talk page on this article as he did with Lou Schuler, Image:Alimullah.jpg, Ian King (writer) and other articles and images (all closely related to me). That amounts to Harassment, trolling, sneaky vandalism and incivility. But, he deliberately keeps using the same tactics, leading to a waste one-third of his own Wiki-time, which in turn wastes my Wiki-time in defending my work against him.

Anyways, this is for him to know that WP:RELY and WP:CITE demands secondary soruces and third-party sources be used as references over and above the primary source, with few exceptions. Therefore this tag was created (see Template talk:Primarysources). It is used to draw attention of editors who are interested to create an authentic encyclopedia, not a collection of articles that serve someone's vanity or ownership. Therefore, it is highly unwise to remove the tag without providing the tagged article with reliable third-party and/or secondary sources. It is even less wise to resort to an edit war instead of building consensus.

Here goes some nice fodder for Wikipedia humor, an may even go down into the annals of history as one of our lamest edit wars:

7 June 2007 NAHID: "since the third party sources are provided the rest of the contents are not challenged"
31 May 2007 Aditya Kabir: "please, discuss your point, edit summaries are not discussion pages"
31 May 2007 NAHID: "A reference was taken from a prominent newspaper.No need to keep the tag..."
30 May 2007 Aditya Kabir: "please, don't start an edit-war. I'm posting my views on the talk page, if you really have a point apart from undoing what I do, explain there"
29 May 2007 NAHID: "removed template.And that source isn't promotional"
29 May 2007 Aditya Kabir: "apart from one tiny little section the rest still takes everything off the promotional website of the university"
28 May 2007 NAHID: "removed template.the sources are provided".

Well, here goes the ratinale:

It doesn't matter if the website was promotional or not, it still remains a primary sources
Any website created by the university that has, on its first page, written in big bold letters - "USTC:The Excellent Center of Learning" - is clearly a promotional site. It would be evident to anyone who takes a visit to the website.
A third party source for only one statement - "USTC has 2000 students and among the students, over 30 percents of foreign students are studying in USTC, including India, Nepal, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Norway, Sudan and Palestine" - can not and should not extend to cover all the information in the rest of the article. The rest of information still comes from a primary promotional site.
Wikipedia is not a police station, and no one is interrogating no one here, therefore the ability to get away unchallenged may not be a suitable capacity at all. To build an authentic encyclopedia we need references, no get-away-unchallenged articles.

I hoped he will not repeat the pattern of behavior he maintained for a long time now - undoing or attempting to undo my work through disruptive editing while leaving not-too-clear views in the summary, and never responding to the talk page. But, again he kept repeating what he was doing, and ignoring the call to discuss on the talk page. I have posted an appeal in this regard to his talk page. I hope he will simply remove it without any further ado, as he keeps doing done for a very long time. All I can do here is to appeal to him - Please, discuss - and wait patiently for reason to trickle back into his mind.

Original post: Aditya Kabir 19:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Post update: Aditya Kabir 15:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Post update: Aditya Kabir 15:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Post update: Aditya Kabir 04:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Add topic