This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cerium4B. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Boga Lake (Bangladesh), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
⚠️ Warning Regarding Personal Attacks and Uncivil Behavior
@Cerium4B,
I am addressing your recent comments, both on my talk page and in other discussions. Critiquing my English skills and accusing me of using AI without evidence constitute personal attacks, which violate Wikipedia’s guidelines on civility (WP:CIVIL) and no personal attacks (WP:NPA). Wikipedia discussions should remain focused on content and sources, not contributors.
Your behavior, including these unnecessary comments and dismissive tone, is disruptive and unproductive. Personal attacks have no place in collaborative editing and will not be tolerated. If you disagree with my edits, please address them constructively on the article's talk page with proper evidence and reasoning, as per WP:CONSENSUS.
Further violations of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA may result in reporting your behavior to administrators under WP:ANI for review and possible sanctions. I strongly encourage you to focus on respectful, policy-based discussions moving forward.
@Jesuspaul32 there is no point explaining this ignorant chap. I rather suggest to make an ANI report against them. They are nothing but an imbecile whom has nothing better to do but do WP:BATTLEGROUND with literally everyone 76.68.24.171 (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Netrokona District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Durgapur Upazila.
Just wanted to give you a heads up. You seem to be inexperienced editor (account created on sept. 2024) who adds little to no value to this article besides spamming some images, and is constantly reverting most of my edits.
I can see that you are trying to disrupt my improvements to the article. Look if you yourself cannot do anything of use then how about you don't poke your nose in others affairs? You are also the sole editor that is reverting my edits, which clearly tells that no one else seems to mind my edits and/or sees it as an improvement. Which they obviously are.
Now, in this edit you removed an image of two madrasah students claiming they're "irrelevant". I'm trying to know how you think that is an irrelevant picture. I also added an established source mentioning that 7% of the population took religious education in 2021. That is verified information that you just removed. Or in other words, clear-cut vandalism.
Swoonfed, i suggest you take a look at what you have written above, and edit it to strike some of it ~ there are definitely parts which do not assume good faith, and calling the actions of a good-faith editor vandalism is both wrong and, likely, a personal attack, which is, of course, forbidden. In addition, whatever Cerium4B may be doing, you are definitely edit warring on Bangladesh (as they may be, too), and that needs to stop. Please rethink your method of interaction with other editors ~ LindsayHello11:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
LindsayH Hello. I have no malicious intent. Whether for Cerium4B or for the article of Bangladesh. If you check the edit history, you can notice that I have simply tried to improve this article. However, this editor is trying to revert verified information, as done here, and here. He has removed sourced information from journals or newspapers with vague explanations two times as of now. This is indeed vandalism. I do not see the WP:GOODFAITH here.
Since I am not edit-warring or vandalising, him constantly spying on this article to spot my edits and revert most of it needs to stop. Which I why, instead of going down the WP:EDITWAR path, I tried to communicate with him via his talk page. I hope you understand. I might have been a little rude, but I apologize for that kind of behavior. Swoonfed (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Funny! User with less than 400 edits calling me inexperienced!😆
Two children are standing infront of an ancient mosque. Can u clarify how this image is related to the education section?
Most of your edits are disruptive and irrelevant. I thought about reverting all of them, but I didn’t. Instead, I tried to help you fix the errors.
These images 1, 2 were added by you in January 2024, and now you are saying that there is an excessive image 3 and edit warring on it.
You removed the bar chart from the religion section and edit warred on it by giving two exceptional examples. You should know that things like infoboxes, bar charts, and pie charts are used for better readability. They help readers understand the content more easily. If you think the text in the article covers everything, then Wikipedia wouldn’t even use infoboxes.
Then you removed some images from the religion section saying that they are spam 4, why? How were those images spam?
You are continuously removing valuable references and informations. Why?
You linked the tourism article to the economy section 5, why?
you added the image of padma bridge in the economy section, why? How is this related to economy section? Also, you mainly said the "Padma river" name as "Ganges" instead of its original name. Why? Don’t you think Wikipedia is a global site? Is it an Indian site, as you are implying by calling it the Ganges?
Cerium4B That's incredible. Your account was created almost 4 months after mine was. I only have about 350 some edits because I do not spend my time adding mass unsourced materials and spam images on stub articles such as Rangpur Division. The material I add to articles is mostly text, and I need to find verified sources to back them first, and then summarize it before I can add it to articles. And that takes time and patience. Unlike your work. Almost the entirety of the content added by you in the article Rangpur Division is unsourced. No sources at all. And that's your experience? That is technically vandalism too since there's no verified sources to your claims on that article. Its basically a form of WP:PROMOTION or WP:PUFFERY.
Now, let's come back to your points. Firstly, the image of the two children is indeed related to the education section. As the two children are students of a madrasa, where about 7% of the country's population studies. That was also included in the description of the picture with a verified source from a newspaper, which you removed.
Secondly, you keep talking about "relevance". I am adding verified and sourced information from journals and newspapers about the respective sections. That is very clear from the edit history. If I indeed was not, then I would have been reverted by admins or users with higher privileges (who don't have accounts aged a few months). And you have not helped me even a little bit or anybody for that matter.
Again, you have shown "proof" of me adding images to the cuisine section. That was done by me months before even you registered an account on Wikipedia. What about it? There are two instances where I have added two images to the section. One and two - where's the WP:SANDWICH or "excessive" images here? There was simply one separate picture besides the montage above. Look at what you did here - which led me to remove the images as that is essentially a form of image spam disrupting the section's flow and readability. You are clearly comparing situations which are not the same as each other in any manner, shape or form.
The bar box and the pie-chart are the same thing. It doesn't matter which one is used. The pie-chart looks subjectively better visually. I removed these images as there is a bar box present there as well and they are causing the text in the middle to be WP:SANDWICHED. It seems as if you don't understand what that is since you are new to editing. I hope you understand what I am saying now. Keep in mind that I explained my reason of removal in my summary, none of which you seem to read or grasp apparently. Its not that I think these pictures are "spam". They can remain if the bar box or pie-chart is removed.
I have not removed any valuable information or sources. I have condensed and summarised sections to improve readability and reduce congestion. My plan was to mainly take this article to WP:GAN status. But that does not seem possible as most sub-subsections in the culture section are either excess - such as the sections for museums and libraries, textiles, women, media and cinema - all of these sections are swaths of information almost entirely unsourced with a select few sources from unreliable sites. Almost akin to a vague promotion or bluff of some sorts. You can check articles such as India, Russia, Germany, Malaysia etc. for a better picture or overview on how they deal with kinds of informations or get a better view of a layout of a good article.
Condensing the tourism, infrastructure section to the overview reduced a lot of excess small sub-sections and made the economy section concise and to-the-point for ease of reading. No important information was removed. So the fact that you asked me if "I am apparently here to make an encyclopedia" or not is actually nonsensical and WP:PA.
The Ganges is a river spanning Nepal, India and Bangladesh itself. So the name Ganges is more of a "global" name than "Padma". The Padma is simply the eastern tributary of the Ganges. I don't know why mentioning the Ganges seems to trigger you. If it does then that's WP:POV. You are asking me why I added a picture of the Padma Bridge to the economy section - which is just obscene. This bridge was constructed to boost the GDP and improve the economic situation in the south of the country. That bridge is also the first self-financed infrastructure project in the country's history, which is an economic success.
The images I added here do not cause any text to be sandwiched.
You have blanked important verified and sourced information from the religion section here blatantly with a vague explanation. You removed information about Hindu migrations and genocides throughout the 20th century. You also removed the sourced sentence about the Hindu population being reduce by over 7.5 million in the last 50 years, saying "history" doesn't belong to the religion section and apparently the Hindu population decreasing is mentioned in the history section. That is not mentioned in the history section at all, keep in mind. And you're lecturing me?
Your personal opinions are baseless here. Try to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:policies.
The Rangpur Division article is in the process of being updated.
Account age does not evaluate the expertise of a user. There are many users registered for more than 15 years who are still just normal editors. And, there are some admins who registered less than 5 years ago. In your point of view, would you say that older accounts are more experienced? 😆
I have tried to explain the reasons after reverting or editing on the Bangladesh article. Try to understand them and don’t act like the wp:owner of that article.
Also, try to collaborate with Wikipedians. On your talk page, you have received several warnings, but you haven’t replied. Instead, you blanked them and commented that they are meaningless! — Cerium4B—Talk? •19:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Draft
If you plan to continue working on Draft:Hindu terrorism in Bangladesh, I would appreciate it if you removed the events that have no direct connection to Bangladesh (e.g., the 2007 Samjhauta Express bombing, which happened in the Indian state of Haryana). It would be less confusing to other reviewers (especially editors who are less familiar with India's geography and history). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Dinajpur Medical College, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Boga Lake (Bangladesh), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
