User talk:Darkedgeblood

Feel free to correct me if I edit or publish anything that isn't suitable for wikipedia's guidelines. Darkedgeblood (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shiro:

Your following information on deceiving IP rights of Pipilika by Ruhul Amin is wrong. You can check the official announcement from the Shahjalal University in this link:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16rLFFXN7Gx4bPSwbTsCPrMZ71t73hBm8/view?usp=drive_link

If you need more information about the development of Pipilika then you can check this report:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16Ulfvz0P3-7Kuyc9DqeriM8S7Wjhc2V2/view?usp=drive_link

This is my humble request that you make all the changes where you accused me of deceiving about the IP rights of Pipilika. If you want to communicate with me then send email to shajib.sust@gmail.

-Ruhul Amin Ruhulsbu (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out. The links provided by you are not credible enough to validate your innocence. The statements of Burhan Uddin and Ahmed Chisty are also not validated; these are just accusations. If this were a legal issue and if the court papers approved you to claim the website as your copyright, only then you would be eligible to request the removal of the alleged copyright claims.

For further info you can read MOS:LEGAL. Darkedgeblood (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think so. Rather than the link shared by me, look into the document written clearly in the pad of CSE SUST department and was signed by the chair. You can reach out to the department as mentioned in the document. As the document was prepared by the executive committee of SUST, there is no reason to involve court as this point. And I do not think you can put your own prejudice based on some medium links. My documents are much more credible then the documents provided by Burhan. I hope you understand the point.

-Ruhul 150.108.64.133 (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, SUST or any other educational organizations are not a legal body. They are not credible or authorized by any government officials to fact-check and disprove accusations. You have to bring court papers to confirm the accusations wrong, and these are just mere accusations. Neither I nor Wikipedia is confirming the accusations; you can bring counter-accusations, which are also valid. Darkedgeblood (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who approved the accusations? Humor me.

-Ruhul Ruhulsbu (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not sure of accusations, then you are promoting misinformation. Moreover, the source you provided from Medium is not verified.

Spreading misinformation is not legal as per standard of Wikipedia.

-Ruhul Ruhulsbu (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear user, you are misinterpreting between misinformation and allegation. It is the person who has been accused to confirm whether their accusations are valid or not, which that person can do through legal proceedings. Accusations are not proof; they can be either true or false. You can check Wikipedia:ARBGUIDE for further clarification. Darkedgeblood (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Jude Bellingham 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. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited PRAN-RFL Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Product. 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) 08:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darkedgeblood. Welcome to Wikipedia. You've been using the word "typo" in your edit summaries for edits that clearly are not small spelling or grammatical mistakes. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Can you explain what it is you mean? --Hipal (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/typo Hope this helps you Darkedgeblood (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HiDarkedgeblood. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to do the obvious, since you are a veteran there is no point for me argue here since you overpower me. I would like to say I did what wikipedia guidelines stands for that's it Darkedgeblood (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]