Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dhaka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burger. 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) 06:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Solomon The Magnifico! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Dhaka several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Dhaka, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Worldbruce (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Chittagong, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism.
Be careful to remain civil in your edit summaries and discussions, however strongly you feel about an issue. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. One editor must not accuse another of misbehavior, such as vandalism or sockpuppetry, without evidence. Doing so is a personal attack, and can lead to being blocked. Worldbruce (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Travelogue.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
It is strange that when I am telling to suggest changes for the proposed lead section you don't answer. But when I execute the lead section, you revert my action showing some "reason" (now I am not here to debate the reasons you showed, we can always start new discussion to debate your reason but this is not the time). But I can't keep the present lead section even it is better, because in future edit war will happen for this lead I suspect. So, I want to give to two options to choose one.
So the choice is yours. Instead of ignoring my messages that would be great if you help to do that, but even if you don't want to then we have second option and Dispute resolution seems promising enough. Mehedi Abedin 07:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Economy of Bangladesh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BRAC.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM))
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gulshan Avenue from Gulshan 1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Worldbruce (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 November 30. Thank you. Worldbruce (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Salam Solomon,
You are invited to render your opinion on an ongoing discussion on the Sheikh Hasina talk page. I have argued that there should be positive and negative information in the lead to the article to make it balanced and neutral, but the opposing user wants to insert information which is entirely negative.
Kind regards, AMomen88 (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
A discussion regarding the contentious edits on Sheikh Hasina is ongoing here, you are invited to comment.--AMomen88 (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Salam Solomon,
Please can you comment regarding the proposed lead I have composed for Sheikh Hasina at Dispute Resolution. I would welcome any criticisms or proposals for better sources.-AMomen88 (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bengal, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Shah Shuja and Devapala.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Chronic incivility and disruptive editing by User:Solomon The Magnifico. Thank you. --Worldbruce (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Salam Solomon,
Please can you read my proposed lede for Sheikh Hasina and render your opinions. I have tried to compose a balanced lede which includes achievements and failings of the Hasina administration. Thanks-- AMomen88 (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
A month has passed since your initial analysis, it is now the longest running RfC. Your contribution to the discussion would be important. I have incorporated the components you wanted to be added. You should not be put-off by intimidation. —AMomen88 (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia's editing policy encourages you to be bold, especially when making changes that you believe are uncontroversial. If you are reverted, however, then you can no longer assume your edit is uncontroversial. If you still believe your edit is an improvement, the normal next step is to discuss the matter with the editor who reverted you. This is the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD). Using an edit summary while reverting again is not discussion, it is talking without listening. It is edit warring, and is unhelpful. (There is a bold, revert, revert variation of BRD, but it is not appropriate to use it if you disagree with the reason you were reverted or don't understand it. It is to be used when the first revert was plainly an accident.)
Your edit summary, "the person does not deserve an inline attribution. the citation is sufficient"
, for this edit, indicates that you do not understand the purpose of inline attribution versus citation. Citations are used so that readers can check sources against Wikipedia's text. Inline attribution is part of maintaining a neutral point of view. It alerts readers that something is an opinion, not a fact, and makes it clear whose viewpoint it is. It is not some kind of reward for a deserving scholar. Economist Indrajit Ray's estimate is an opinion. As a matter of policy, Wikipedia must not state his opinion in Wikipedia's voice. Do you understand now why your edit must be reverted?
You have in the past bemoaned a perceived lack of support from editors like me (experienced, I assume you mean). When I see an editor headed the wrong direction, I do my best to steer them back towards improving Wikipedia, which I assume is their goal. Whether you accept that guidance or not is up to you. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Please stop removing Baul image without consensus. Also no where is it claimed that it ios Laoln Shah' it is stated that the Baul is a disciple of Lalon Shah and Baul music is popular in that region. Please stop removing it based on your apparent mnan hating nature and show true equality to both women nd men, WP:EW but you seem to have an aggressive behavior with that issue but I will try to protect the article from you. Seek a proper consensus from other editors if you want to change it and if you cointinue this disruptive editing you will be reported. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bangladesh, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages BRAC and Al-Shams.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Sheikh Mujibur Rahman into Bangladesh. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Solomon The Magnifico!
I noticed that you recently edited the Bangladesh page on Wikipedia. I am writing to seek clarification regarding the removal of my previous edits related to the "1971 Bangladesh genocide"(where I added follow up text to make it more speceifc and comprehensible). While I appreciate the addition of new information that you made, but I would like to understand the reason behind the removal of my edit.
Could you please specify if my previous edit violated any Wikipedia policies or guidelines? As far as I am aware, my edit was based on verifiable sources and aimed at providing more specific and comprehensible information. I also made sure that my edit was not part of any ongoing disputes or controversial issues.
If there were any valid reasons for removing my edits, I would appreciate it if you could share them with me. In case there were no valid reasons and the removal was based on personal preference, If I do not receive a response from you, I plan to re-edit the page and include my information. Although I would not revert your edit.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Thecybergulf (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bengal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Human development.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I have noticed you have removed some information from the article Bangladesh without any adequate reasoning. I reverted it back because your reason was insufficient. Imamul Ifaz (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Imamul Ifaz (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Imamul Ifaz (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the ((Ctopics/aware)) template. Worldbruce (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kolkata, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fort William and Birla Planetarium.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abul Maal Abdul Muhith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of the Treasury.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arakan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Allied forces.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bangladesh–United States relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fort William.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Please undo your latest edit. You are in violation of WP:BRD and you have made a mess of the infobox. Thanks, Number 57 19:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I have some reading which may help you understand why people are referring to you are 'they'. We have the article Singular they which discusses the use of the word. In short, when one does not know the gender of the person one is referring to, one should not assume their gender by saying 'he'. The options available are to use 'he or she', which many people feel is clunky (and which fails to encompass people who are non-binary), or singular 'they'. You have not specified your gender in your preferences, or on your userpage or signature, so nobody can be expected to know what it is; therefore, it would be normal and correct to refer to you as 'they'. We actually have a template, Template:They, which allows people to use the correct pronoun for an account automatically - it will look at a user's preferences, and render as 'he', 'she' or 'they' according to the setting. Here is how it renders when I use it with your username: they. Hope that helps explain things. Girth Summit (blether) 08:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
There was consensus at Special:Permalink/1176281415#Boomerang to indefinitely block you. When you're unblocked, you're also subject to a topic ban on politics in the Indian subcontinent. To appeal this block, you can use ((unblock|reason=your reason here))
. Replace "your reason here" with the reason you should be unblocked, of course. You should read the guide to appealing blocks before you make an unblock request, and you should address the concerns raised at the ANI discussion. You're free to make an unblock whenever you want, but you should keep in mind that appealing blocks directly after a community discussion usually doesn't work. You might want to wait a while for people to calm down before asking for an unblock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Your removal last month of cleanup tags on Provisional Government of Bangladesh, without addressing the problems identified, was incorrect. Saying in your edit summary, without evidence, "these tags were placed out of some sort of bias" is offensive and fails to assume good faith.
Per WP:RSPRIMARY, "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources". Testimony from participants is a primary source, not a secondary one. If they participated in the provisional government, then it is not independent either. They have an incentive to cast themselves in a favorable light. Contrary to your comment, their testimony does not obviously count as reliable. For a historical topic such as this, the bulk of the article should be based on peer reviewed historical scholarship. Far too much of the article comes from non-independent primary sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)