Talk:Independent University, Bangladesh

message: Frankly, the current state of this wiki page is quite depressing. It sounds like an advertisement whilst containing highly opinionated, comparative(rankings) and statistical statements, which I believe are against the ideals of Wikipedia. Most of the edits have been made by Webmasteriub, an entity with clear COI towards this article.
I'd like to make changes, but not without having some support and advice on how to proceed. AhnafAbdullah27 (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. This is Rajib, Director of Media and Public Relations at Independent University, Bangladesh (IUB). I agree that this page needs to be drastically edited. Most of the information is backdated. If I understand your policy correctly, as a current employee of IUB, I'm discouraged to suggest edits. How can I get the information on this page updated? Rajib Bhowmick (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Overhaul? 

message: Photographs have already been included in the article. NAHID 08:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too many photographs. Is it necessary to showcase all the buildings the university owns? The provide little information of value, and cramped into a short article doesn't look good either (it looks like a poorly designed pamphlet ;)...). Aditya Kabir 21:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I doubt whether the university owns most of the buildings. These look like rented apartment buildings (as usual with most universities in Baridhara, Banani, Gulshan). --Ragib 00:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree there are too many photographs. One image per campus should be enough already. Arman Aziz 06:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many images

message: Please give verifiable links for claims that you make. Links to a news should direct to the newspaper. Esha Karim (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted Advertisement like sentences

message: List/prose debate aside, there are lots of problems with this article. I see a lot of citation needed tags all around the articles, and I doubt those can ever be fixed as those sentences are subjective in many cases. Also, the tone problem is yet not addressed : much of the latter sections still sound like a brochure. I urge the editors to take some time away from the list/prose issue, and solve the tone/cn problem first. Thanks. --Ragib 00:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have shortened the second part of the article to reduce these problems. Someone with access to university publications etc. can help with all the citation requests. Arman Aziz 08:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arman, dear, can I request you to do the necessary? Whatever I do to any of "my friend" (according to you) Nahid's articles usually faces a bit of resistance. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability, Tone issues 

message: *Aditya, don't remove contents and blanket citation with false edit summary (as you did here). It's considered as Vandalism. I suggest you to cool down. Removing them wouldn't be good for you.--NAHID 20:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone provide a year of publication to the Prothom Alo citation? Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Please, don't take Wikipedia policies and guidelines as jokes that you can interpret at you whim. Out of the 20 refs given, only two are third-party. One dealing with a perfectly irrelevant trivia on a government act, the other is about campus location. Not too hot either. With only 5% of refs coming from third-party sources, it shows a sheer ignorance about Wikipedia policies to remove a tag that calls for such refs. It's very unfortunate that an experienced editor was involved, who takes much pride in tagging articles for refs. I am afraid if Wikipedia is increasingly run by this kind, this beautiful project may eventually come to a complete mess. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree as much as you want. But, 11 refs among 28 is still about one third, and that's not too much. A little advise here - try to replace first party refs with third-party cites. That is the acceptable way of doing this. Removing a maintenances tag without valid reason is highly not recommended. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you call a handful of third-party refs against loads of first-party refs appropriately citaed, then you are right, and Wikipedia is wrong. If you claim that asking for third-party references is WP:POINT then you are right, and Wikipedia is wrong. You may even take a look at WP:COI and WP:OWN to find that Wikipedia is not too excited about you editing this page, not at least in a disruptive manner. But, may be you are always right and Wikipedia is consistently wrpng about your actions. Learn some appropriate editing manner from User:Niaz who has added appropriate third-party sources and made you disruptive editing look good. A bullyboy with a big stick reverting others edits and tagging everything that comes, often mindlessly, is not what Wikipedia is about. It is about increasing knowledge. Remember, if people like User:Niaz feels the same way as people like you then you would not have anything to revert or tag. How sad would that be! Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Sure. If it was not you, where would I get the right kind of advise! Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First party refs