This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Za-ari-masen! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rohingya people. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Worldbruce, I am trying to make a compromise but the other user is not willing to have a resolution. He has already violated the 3RR rule in this article. He has been reverting other editors as well. Za-ari-masen (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Eastern Nagari script
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I'm editing according to what the sources dictate. Please feel free to change with citations from reliable sources. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, it appears that you are making a lot of changes in this regard without discussing and seeking consensus with other users on a notice-board or the talk page of the articles you've been editing. I request you to stop right away and seek consensus. I have also put up a notice on WT:INB for further discussion and review by the community. — Nearly Headless Nick{c} 19:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Block Highpeaks35
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"User:Highpeaks35 has been replacing Bangladesh with Indian Subcontinent on a whole sale in a number of articles without any discussion. He has been removing all the Bangladeshi sources citing them unreliable which even includes publications like Banglapedia." as quoted by yourself, Za-ari-masen. UserNumber (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Jamalpur City
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
@Great Hero32:, I actually tried to move Jamalpur, Bangladesh (which was titled "Jamalpur City" at that time) to Jamalpur but it looks like my move has been reverted by an admin who turned Jamalpur into a disambiguation page and Jamalpur City became a redirect to that page in the process. Please feel free to redirect it to the appropriate page. Also, I have seen several of your newly created useful articles on different Bangladeshi cities and Bangladeshi cuisine. Please continue your valuable contributions and do let me know if I can help in any way. Cheers. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
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 2019 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) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Bengali-Assamese languages
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have reverted your edits on Bengali-Assamese languages. If you have issues with the name of the script then please discuss them in the Bengali-Assamese script talk page. The name was determined after a discussion there and the page Bengali-Assamese languages is simply following the convention in the rest of Wikipedia: the name of the script as well as in distinguishing scripts and alphabets. Chaipau (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Please follow the sources. The discussion on a title of a page doesn't really determine the content of other articles. Za-ari-masen (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
February 2020
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Your recent editing history at Bangladesh Liberation War shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring.
Continuous deceptive edit summaries, personal attacks (calling people a 'nationalist' without reason) and falsification of sources will result in a topic ban. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 04:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
This appears to be a Public Domain image as the photo must have been taken in 1926 or 1928 when Nazrul visited Sylhet. I will upload it to the commons in a while. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
@El C:, I was just reverting obvious vandalism, would it be considered a disruptive edit? Za-ari-masen (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It was not obvious vandalism and you had no consensus established. Yamla (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Please don't refer to good faith edits as "obvious vandalism" — that is a personal attack. El_C 15:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, you just blocked me again from this article but I just reverted one obvious vandalism. Would it be considered a disruptive edit? If you take a look at the history the IPs are again making unsourced edits against the consensus reached at the talkpage. Za-ari-masen (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Please read what vandalism is not closely. You seem to be operating under a misconception. El_C 16:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
@El C:, I was just reverting obvious vandalism, would it be considered a disruptive edit? Za-ari-masen (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It was not obvious vandalism and you had no consensus established. Yamla (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Please don't refer to good faith edits as "obvious vandalism" — that is a personal attack. El_C 15:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, you just blocked me again from this article but I just reverted one obvious vandalism. Would it be considered a disruptive edit? If you take a look at the history the IPs are again making unsourced edits against the consensus reached at the talkpage. Za-ari-masen (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Please read what vandalism is not closely. You seem to be operating under a misconception. El_C 16:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
@El C:, please take a look at this SPI. It appears to be a block evasion by Highpeaks35 as the IPs are from the same range and the article also belongs to the same topic area. This is why I couldn't assume good faith for those edits by the IPs. Za-ari-masen (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not seeing confirmation that this IP is a likely match for Highpeaks35. El_C 23:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@El C: The investigating admin declared the IPs belonging to the "2600:1001:B000::/42" range as duck. The IPs at Bakarkhani fall in the same range and have the same editing pattern described in the SPI, diff, which make them socks of Highpeaks35. Bakarkhani is also part of the topic area where Highpeaks35 was interested in and had a history of editing. @Abecedare: could you please confirm if I'm correct or not if you are available? Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Since I was pinged...the edits you were reverting were indeed by a topic-banned editor who was editing logged out. But your revert was not based on that and the edits you reverted were not "obvious vandalism"; rather they were an example of the usual nationalistic POV pushing common in this whole area. And the Highpeaks35 IP is hardly alone. The current article lede with its oxymoronic "originated in modern-day Bangladesh during the Mughal period" wording exhibits the same problem.
In any case, the article content is best discused on the article talkpage (as I see is now happening). I'll leave it to El_C to decide on the block, since they are more familiar with your and the article editing history. Abecedare (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
@Abecedare:, thank you so much for your response. The issue with me is that I couldn't assume good faith in those edits by the IPs because I always knew they were socks of Highpeaks35 as I am very familiar with his history of nationalist POV pushing and editing pattern. If you take a look the archive of the SPI, it was me who first brought the range of IPs into notice, however, perhaps, because of my lack of effort in gathering the evidence, the SPI was rejected. I, though, refrained from labeling the IPs as topic-ban evasion/socks because it was yet to be proven. However, I do note that it was not "obvious vandalism" rather "POV pushing" would have been a better wording. I wholeheartedly agree with you over the poor condition of the article and if given an opportunity I do hope to improve it in future. As part of my dedication to improve the article, I have started an Rfc to seek a dispute resolution as you can see in the talkpage. I thank you again and do appreciate for taking the time to respond to my request. Za-ari-masen (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
@El C:, I was just reverting obvious vandalism, would it be considered a disruptive edit? Za-ari-masen (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It was not obvious vandalism and you had no consensus established. Yamla (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Please don't refer to good faith edits as "obvious vandalism" — that is a personal attack. El_C 15:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, you just blocked me again from this article but I just reverted one obvious vandalism. Would it be considered a disruptive edit? If you take a look at the history the IPs are again making unsourced edits against the consensus reached at the talkpage. Za-ari-masen (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Please read what vandalism is not closely. You seem to be operating under a misconception. El_C 16:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
@El C:, please take a look at this SPI. It appears to be a block evasion by Highpeaks35 as the IPs are from the same range and the article also belongs to the same topic area. This is why I couldn't assume good faith for those edits by the IPs. Za-ari-masen (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not seeing confirmation that this IP is a likely match for Highpeaks35. El_C 23:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@El C: The investigating admin declared the IPs belonging to the "2600:1001:B000::/42" range as duck. The IPs at Bakarkhani fall in the same range and have the same editing pattern described in the SPI, diff, which make them socks of Highpeaks35. Bakarkhani is also part of the topic area where Highpeaks35 was interested in and had a history of editing. @Abecedare: could you please confirm if I'm correct or not if you are available? Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Since I was pinged...the edits you were reverting were indeed by a topic-banned editor who was editing logged out. But your revert was not based on that and the edits you reverted were not "obvious vandalism"; rather they were an example of the usual nationalistic POV pushing common in this whole area. And the Highpeaks35 IP is hardly alone. The current article lede with its oxymoronic "originated in modern-day Bangladesh during the Mughal period" wording exhibits the same problem.
In any case, the article content is best discused on the article talkpage (as I see is now happening). I'll leave it to El_C to decide on the block, since they are more familiar with your and the article editing history. Abecedare (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
@Abecedare:, thank you so much for your response. The issue with me is that I couldn't assume good faith in those edits by the IPs because I always knew they were socks of Highpeaks35 as I am very familiar with his history of nationalist POV pushing and editing pattern. If you take a look the archive of the SPI, it was me who first brought the range of IPs into notice, however, perhaps, because of my lack of effort in gathering the evidence, the SPI was rejected. I, though, refrained from labeling the IPs as topic-ban evasion/socks because it was yet to be proven. However, I do note that it was not "obvious vandalism" rather "POV pushing" would have been a better wording. I wholeheartedly agree with you over the poor condition of the article and if given an opportunity I do hope to improve it in future. As part of my dedication to improve the article, I have started an Rfc to seek a dispute resolution as you can see in the talkpage. I thank you again and do appreciate for taking the time to respond to my request. Za-ari-masen (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
El_C, the investigating admin Abecedare has already confirmed on 13th March that the IPs were indeed sock evasion by Highpeaks35. I have also tried to have dispute resolution. Can you accept the unblock request now? Za-ari-masen (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Done. Sure, as long as you keep in mind that the next partial block is likely to be indefinite. Please don't edit war — use WP:SPI and other resources to report and confirm violations, instead. El_C 20:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
El_C, am I allowed to revert the block evasions like these IPs we are talking about? Za-ari-masen (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
It's better to use RfPP and/or SPI. I can't speak for Abecedare, but you are also welcome to contact me personally. Please don't hesitate. El_C 21:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
El_C, Actually, in the SPI, Abecedare suggested to revert the IPs from that range editing in this topic area for the time being as protecting the articles or blocking all the IPs may not be feasible. Anyway, thank you so much for your help, could you please also update the request for unblock template here to accepted? Za-ari-masen (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, I still think you'll get a better result from employing those resources rather than reverting aimlessly. If we have to protect lots of articles, then that's what we'll do. I can't update the unblock request because it was already closed. You are free to not have it displaying anymore, however. El_C 21:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, perhaps it's better for me to stay away from the article for the time being. Za-ari-masen (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Your editing
Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
Your consistent POV pushing which often seems nationalistic is unacceptable and beyond the pale. Your constant edit warring on Bakarkhani resulted in two blocks [1] by El C, now you are edit warring in Mishti doi, as seen here, here, and here, again a blatant violation of WP:EW. Utcursch have infromed you here "not in source; the book is titled Bangladesh and mentions mishti doi; one can find several books about cuisine of Kolkata / West Bengal which mention mishti doi" as seen in multiple refs here, here, and here. But, you still edit warred with both Utcursch and Gotitbro. You again changed Bengali dishes to "Bangladeshi" in Mughlai paratha, Chotpoti and Jhalmuri. I strongly suggest you revert these edits already and try a broader dispute resolution which will address your ideological dispute with the terms more approparitely than unilateral changes to long standing versions. Otherwise the area is covered by discretionary sanctions and I won't hesitate to report you. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 05:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Aman.kumar.goel, it's rather the other way round, Gotitbro has been restoring the nationalist POV changes made by User:Highpeaks35 and his sock IPs in these articles, essentially replacing Bangladesh with Indian subcontinent as the origin, quite akin to WP:PROXYING, just like what happened on Bakarkhani (I have already told El C about this pattern). All I did was add sources to these unsourced articles and made changes according to the sources. On Mishti Doi, after Utcurch expressed his concern, I added few more sources and again, made changes according to the sources. [2], [3], [4]. All these edits were reverted by Gotitbro, claiming Utcursch endorsed his revert.[5] The claim was proven false when I asked Utcursch if he really endorsed that revert[6], which he denied saying "I have not made any similar edits, so I'm not sure why my name is being used. I don't endorse those edits."[7] This falsely claiming an admin's endorsement to revert another editor is a blatant violation of the guidance for editors listed in WP:ACDS. Gotitbro again removed those sourced content, claiming The Daily Star (Bangladesh) is a "problematic ref".[8]. I opened a discussion at the talk page requesting to explain there before removing the sources.[9] It's been 13 days and no response has been given. Mughlai Paratha had also been affected by sock IPs of Highpeaks35. I checked the sources and there were plenty of source misrepresentations which I removed (my edit summaries there already explain this). I went through the history of the article and restored the better sourced version. Same story with Jhalmuri and Chotpoti, I added sources and made changes per the sources. If you have doubts over these edits, start discussions in those talk pages and I will explain in detail which source supports which edits along with full quotes. Now let's shed a light on your behaviour. It does appear that you have been following my edits. Earlier you reverted my edits at Pala Empire, [10] and Nazrul Geeti, [11] without any discussion. And now, you are falsely accusing me of nationalist edit warring on articles where Gotitbro has been constantly restoring unsourced POV content. I wouldn't be surprised if I find you tag teaming with Gotitbro to revert my changes without gaining a consensus. In fact, if I go through your contributions, you just appear to be moving from one dispute to another, reverting other editors, assuming bad faith and threatning others to report. Your behavior clearly shows a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASS, enough to receive a sanction. El C, I hope you are following the discussion. Za-ari-masen (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I can tell that your reply has failed to address the concerns I was raising. Using User:Highpeaks35 and his block as a cover for your own unilateral modifications involving "Bengali" to "Bangladeshi" and removing any mention of India or Indian cuisine from the infobox as you have done here, here, here, here, is simply enough. If a person has taken responsibility of edits made by a blocked user then you should challenge the edit on the basis that are seperate from irrelevant socking issues. All these dishes are consumed in both nations, India and Bangladesh. The use of The Daily Star (Bangladesh) is self-explanatory, it is not a peer reviewed academic article, furthermore, it is a Bangladeshi newspaper, with probable bias, other references for Misti doi clearly stated it is a Bengali dish, not just Bangladeshi. As for Pala Empire, you inserted "Bangladeshi art and Sculpture of Bangladesh" in there. Bangladesh was founded in 1971, long after the Pala Empire. The Palas spoke proto-Bengali, not even modern Bengali[12]. NavjotSR explained this on the talk page of Bakarkhani. You are also removing any mention of "Indian" from articles, as seen in Nazrul Geeti and Surya Sen. Fylindfotberserk warned you before about pushing nationalism there as well[13]. Most importantly, you edit warring in Misti doi shows you have learned little from your previous blocks, as seen here, here, and here, again a blatant violation of WP:EW. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 18:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Aman.kumar.goel, please don't make up your own rules here. Highpeaks35's sock IPs have several times contacted Gotitbro (either on his user talkpage or elsewhere by tagging him) asking him to restore the changes and he obliged, this is clearly WP:PROXYING. And the evidences are not just limited to these articles alone but go well beyond. As I said, I have already explained it to El C. As stated earlier, my edits are all supported by reliable sources, just labeling them "nationalist" is not a valid justification to challenge them. Content that fails WP:V will be removed and the onus to cite them is on the users who add those unsourced content. Here are the issues explained article by article:
Mishti Doi: "it is a Bangladeshi newspaper, with probable bias", that's a baseless statement without any evidence, so should we also reject all the Indian newspapers with an Indian bias? The The Daily Star (Bangladesh) is an obvious WP:RS and is frequently cited by South Asia-related articles on Wikipedia, including featured articles like Dhaka, Satyajit Ray, Bengali Language Movement etc. There is no guideline or policy that says sources outside peer-reviewed academic articles cannot be used. Of course academic articles are more acceptable but I didn't find any statement in any academic sources that contradicts what the article from The Daily Star has stated. There is a detailed description about the origin of Mishti Doi that shouldn't leave any doubt about its origins. I have already started a discussion on the talkpage on this issue which is yet to receive any response.
Pala Empire: I merely reverted the same nationalist and unsourced POV changes[14] made by a sock IP of Highpeaks35. The version I restored[15] stated, "They advanced the achievements of previous Bengali civilisations and created outstanding works of arts, most notably in the sculpture and architectural spheres", no mention about Bangladesh. Articles like Bangladeshi art and Sculpture of Bangladesh were linked probably because unlike Architecture of Bengal, there were no Bengal equivalent articles available for arts and sculpture. Culture of Pala Empire categorically associates with Bengal/Bangladesh more than wider Indian subcontinent and the scope of those articles goes beyond the history of modern Bangladeshi state which justifies the edit.
Surya Sen: Fylindfotberserk didn't "warn" me about any "nationalism". He only stated his points in a civil manner on the talkpage and I stated mine. Your allegation that I removed any mention of Indian is false since my edited revision[16] clearly included Indian Independence movement in the infobox. As for nationality, pre-47 people cannot be described as "Indian" nationals as India came into being in 1947.
Nazrul Geeti: Again appears to be a false accusation. I only removed[17]WP:UNDUE mentions about Indian Independence Movement and Bangladesh Liberation War as the article is about the music genre. My latest revision[18] stated "Nazrul wrote and composed nearly 4,000 songs (including gramophone records), which are widely popular in Bangladesh and India.", so your allegation that I removed any mention of "Indian" is false. You reverted my edits without any discussion.
Bakarkhani: There were enough editors other than me who disagreed with NavjotSR on the talkpage, I'm not sure why you consider his opinion as authoritative unless you share his POV. As a matter of fact, the sock IPs of Highpeaks35 have also previously tagged NavjotSR and you, along with Gotitbro in campaigning against me[19]. It's rather shady that you are tagging the same set of editors here.
Your intentions are quite visible. You are clearly WP:Canvassing here by sending notifications to other editors that share your ideological POV in a hope that they will revert my edits in those articles as well as assist you in your report against me. You also attempted to mislead by falsely claiming[20] an edit of Utcursch as me edit warring on Mishti Doi. Your behaviour has clearly violated WP:Civility, WP:HARASS and WP:BATTLEGROUND in this discussion alone. Za-ari-masen (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Seems that you did not even bother to have a look on what I'm trying to elaborate. Case of blocked users is not going to help you to back your content dispute in anyway as those versions have existed there before disruptions. Most RS & published books include those cuisines as a part of Bengali and Indian subcontinent (in case origin is disputed/inherited/diverse). It doesn't need repetitive mentions in lead and news articles being lower quality sources, using colloquial terms can't be used to make a case here. So is The Daily Star. Given that state of Bangladesh is a relatively new nation state and the influence of cuisine is spread to a wider region, stating it as "originator" is best avoided. And given that you yet went ahead on a mission pushing it and replacing Indian subcontinent, there was most certainly nothing wrong in labeling your edits as nationalist PoV. It was not even tough to interpret, for what attempts were being made for.
Your intentions are... It would be a bit better if you are familiar with my editing history. I even barely have collaborations on articles and disputes mostly, leave alone canvassing. It's not unusual for me/other editors to have disputes on India related articles and those all are just involved editors in ongoing dispute. They would know they have been mentioned. Further, given that you are not being warned for first time for your PoV push, you can't use WP:Civility or WP:AGF and accuse people of harassing you to defend your case. Stay on content. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 08:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Za-ari-masen, claiming that certain foods and architecture were invented in Bangladesh, a country that wasn't founded until 1971, is anachronistic and problematic. Surely, you know that the Bengal region is shared between Bangladesh and India so don't you think the previous revisions characterizing these as being "Bengali" of from the "Bengal region" of South Asia are better? I think this is a clear case of nationalistic POV pushing and if you don't revert yourself, I may take this to ANI, where a topic ban may be in order. Eliko007 (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Aman.kumar.goel, those versions have existed there before disruptions - clearly you have no idea about the history of disputes in these articles. The boilerplate "originating from Bengal region in the Indian Subcontinent" has been invented and mass-added to these articles by Highpeaks35 and this is exactly why he was topic-banned, changing Bangladesh/Pakistan to Indian Subcontinent. Modern Bangladesh was formed in 1971 that doesn't mean cuisine that originated here should avoid being called Bangladeshi, this is a nationalist POV. It was also discussed in the RfC on the Bakarkhani talkpage, see Kmzayeem's comment there specifically. Also take a look at the featured article Gumbo that shows United States as the place of origin even when the origin of the soup predates the foundation of the United States, the convention also supports my stance. Same with Maple Syrup. Again, The Daily Star is a proven WP:RS, if you have doubts, start a discussion at the RS noticeboard. As stated above, news articles are frequently cited in featured articles and I don't see any reason why these articles shouldn't cite them.
A check on your user talk page reveals you have been previously blocked for edit warring[21] on 13 February. Yet you edit warred on Bangladesh Liberation War against me and if I go through the history of this article, you have kept on reverting other editors. Your contributions also suggests you have made reverts in several other articles as well. Here, instead of discussing the concerns about the content disputes in article talkpages, you have started a discussion in my user talkpage in an extremely bad faith with allegations like nationalist editing and pinged editors who share your POV to notify about this discussion, this is clearly WP:Canvassing. This and the other evidences above are enough to start a case against you.
Here is the thing, you have expressed your concern about the contents, fine. Discuss in the article talkpages, show where I'm wrong, bring reliable sources to support your statements. I will try to address these concerns, if I'm proven wrong I will self-revert and make changes according to the sources. Again, call it POV, nationalist or whatever, the edits I have made are completely sourced while earlier the articles were largely unsourced. You have mainly focused on my editing behavior than the actual contents in this discussion here. I'm pinging you and other editors at the talkpage of Mishti Doi and let's see we could solve the dispute or not. Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Modern Bangladesh was formed in 1971 that doesn't mean cuisine that originated here should avoid being called Bangladeshi, this is a nationalist POV. Essentially, foundation of modern Bangladeshi state can't be misrepresented against a wider geographical region when the existing state is not even called successor of older colloquially. Same has been taken care of in a tonne of articles, especially good and featured ones. The problem if exists elsewhere has to fixed as well.
Again, The Daily Star is a proven WP:RSWP:CONTEXTMATTERS You can't push any unstressed line from a generally written news article in a contentious topic. You cannot even cite BBC or CNN in this context against peer reviewed publications. Learn to use WP:RS. Further, Daily Star (Bangladesh) doesn't hold any place on WP:RSP. If not unreliable, it is just a fine source which has not attracted objections most of time, not a widely used source though. All the content dispute is going to be addressed on article talk pages anyway.
canvassing.. Clearly I'm not undertaking an RfC or any arbitration against you here either. A check on your user talk page reveals you have been previously blocked.. You could further read that I was blocked for only 2 reverts after jumping in an inflamed topic and was unblocked after a short while, only block I had. It's quite different from being a disruption (for which you suffered long blocks and finally got my message for your problematic behaviour on your talk page). Given administrators can see our block logs, we don't need to mention that.
Your misinterpretation of sources and Wikipedia guidelines has made it quite difficult and cumbersome to guide you anyway. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 21:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Aman.kumar.goel, Essentially, foundation of modern Bangladeshi state can't be... This is essentially your own POV, if not, do point me to any guideline that supports your interpretation. You have stated this before and editors have disagreed, recirculating it at different pages wouldn't make your case any stronger. Places like Bogra District or Old Dhaka are parts of Bangladesh, so are the heritage associated with these places. You don't need an official declaration stating Bangladesh as the official successor state of the former entities that included those places. The featured article Gumbo should have clear the doubts, I don't see any mention about United States being official successor state of the former entity where the soup originated. Yet, United States is listed as the place of origin as Louisiana is a part of this country. If WP:MOS is insufficient to address an issue, it's only fair to follow the editing style of related featured articles as the convention.
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS You can't push any unstressed line from a generally written news article in a contentious topic. You can bring WP:CONTEXTMATTERS when you have multiple sources with conflicting facts. For instance, in the case of Mishti Doi, you need to first show me a WP:RS that explicitly contradicts what The Daily Star article stated, that the dessert has its origin in a place other than Bogra District. If a source calls Mishti Doi a 'Bengali dessert' that doesn't necessarily contradict the statement since Bengali/Bangladeshi is often used interchangeably. Mishti Doi was literally an unsourced stub with some boilerplate content which I have expanded with citations from a WP:RS. Quoting WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and telling to restore the unsourced version of the article is pretty much Wikipedia:Gaming the system on your part.
Clearly I'm not undertaking an RfC or any arbitration against you here either Let me quote a line from your first message, Otherwise the area is covered by discretionary sanctions and I won't hesitate to report you. You were/are obviously planning on reporting me. A similar message was conveyed by the strange guest who just appeared here. Sending notification (by pinging) of a non-neutral discussion to editors who share your POV is campaigning and a clear case of WP:Canvassing.
You could further read that I was blocked for only 2 reverts... Yours was a full block and mine was a partial one specifically for Bakarkhani. And my reverts on Bakarkhani against the IPs were proven to be against block/topic ban evasions, I don't see how my edits are a disruption. Moreover, you have continued to edit war even after your block which points to the fact that your allegation "you have learned little from your previous blocks" applies to you more than me.
Your misinterpretation of sources.. Be specific which source I have misinterpreted and provide diffs. Making false allegations without evidence is a WP:ASPERSIONS, you have done this several times in this discussion. Za-ari-masen (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Can you take the dispute there? This needs a community enforcement. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
@Aditya Kabir: It appears DRN won't accept disputes that are already under RfC. It wouldn't have worked anyway as we are facing some serious user conduct issues. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm... make a solution more difficult then. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 17
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shukto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kalinga. 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) 08:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Removing comments on talk pages
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have been back to the Wikipedia for a few months now, and I have already seen you in four administrative cases and one very large dispute. Being around those have not been good for my time or energy, even if I ignore how upsetting all these are and how it is runining my reputation. I would probably take your or anybody's side if I find you or them being wronged, though not necessarily with success. But I believe staying away from conflicts is generally good for health (can't provide a MEDRS though). Having patience also helps (no MEDRS again).
Closing the RfC was a sign of impatience, and the fight over Bengali-Assamese (better, Assamese-Bengali) script was somewhat unnecessary. The script indeed is a script shared by at least a dozen languages. It is totally alright to include the name of two largest languages among them (way larger than languages like Chakma) to indentify the script, especially when many in the acamedic circuits are doing so (I can also see it identified as Eastern Nagari, which is awesome). If someone can't share a script then what happens to the spirit of sharing and globalism?
Let it go. Say something at the ANI and the dispute that clears the bad blood (I think I need to do that too, have already posted some rather unkind words at the new ANI, and I regret them). Distance yourself from the conflicts and disputes. I am generally energized by a discussion, but a conflict is very upsetting. That is why I work on bringing academic approach to rather risque topics like Bikinis and Cleavages. Voyeurs get their risque subjects, academics get their justification. Generally very low conflict most of them. At that, I have found that listening to the dispute trying to ammend or discuss to get an advise from the very disputing editor works better.
Let go. You have a lot to do here. I checked and found that you are one of a handful of active members of WP:BND. That makes you responsible for thousands of articles that need attention - cites, updates, copyedit, expansion, typos, images, categories, article quality evaluation... there is so much to do, so little time. May be we can start a drive at BND with other interested editors.
I am sorry that I can't digest hostility (may be I am growing too old for the battlefield WP is turning into). The disputes and conflicts I found around you were pretty hostile, and you couldn't stay friendly either (maybe it's the whole tone of those disputes). All this is perfectly unnecessary. Step back from the hostilities, you don't deserve to endure that, and you don't need to fight fire with fire. Either the fire will burn out or the firemakers will burn. If it keeps burning the house, maybe it was meant to be so.
noborderTL;DR: Peace, brother, and a Y cup of tea... that is all it takes to win, though it often doesn't look like victory. Just let it go and see what I mean.
I'm sorry for the troubles you have been through. Thanks for your note and all your efforts. I'll try to contribute my best to the projects of WP:BND. Za-ari-masen (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Za-ari, brother, it's not about me. It's about you. I have seen you enduring enough trouble. I believe you deserve some peace, and only you can make sure that you get that peace. By staying away from heated conflicts, especially when the other editor actually is more correct than you are. Aditya(talk • contribs) 19:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Aditya Kabir, I only tried to explain myself in that discussion. If WP:CIR means I'm not even allowed to explain my edits when accusations are thrown against me in a discussion about a proposal to ban me, then cool, I'll refrain from commenting further and watch the drama from outside. Za-ari-masen (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I am still on your side, but you need to listen, brother. You need to tell that you will learn to listen to the community and will learn the policies better, be sorry for any tourble that you may have caused, and promise to stay away from conflicts... not to me, but at the ANI. Trust me, this is not going the good way. WP has become a much more tougher place, and survival isn't as easy anymore. Please, don't fight or try to prove that others are wrong. That will not be good. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
DYK for University Press Limited
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello can you help me resolve an issue and maintain npov on Alta ? Tithi.sarkar (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Tithi.sarkar, I don't see any NPOV at the moment, let me know specifically which part you are referring to. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Bad idea
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The revert on Bengali-Assamese script was very unwise. I was not fighting the revert made by Chaipau, who followed BRD perfectly. You need to learn to respect editors who do not agree to you (maybe they have a more valid point, how would you know if you are fighting them all the time?). BTW, I actually agree to Chaipau's revert, and not your re-revert. Do not turn an article into a battlefield. I am reading on the subject, and so should you... instead of constantly fighting others. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Aditya Kabir, could you please clarify which policy I have violated? Keep your post short and concise. Za-ari-masen (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I tried to help. But if you don't want that, then, of course, I will not. Aditya(talk • contribs) 00:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For trying to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes, I hereby award you with this barnstar. Keep up the good work! UserNumber (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
UserNumber, Thanks for awarding me my first barnstar. I try as much as I can. :) Za-ari-masen (talk) 08:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Sylheti
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It appears that the Sylheti language page has become biased again, removing Vangiya and variety from the lead and outright calling it an independent language again. I think another discussion is required on the Talk page. What do you think? UserNumber (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
RfC notice
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Nafsadh. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Bangladeshis, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 
শুভ নববর্ষ ১৪২২Bengali new year | nafSadh did say 13:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Za-ari-masen reported by User:Gotitbro (Result: ). Thank you. Gotitbro (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Done. Sure, as long as you keep in mind that the next partial block is likely to be indefinite. Please don't edit war — use WP:SPI and other resources to report and confirm violations, instead. El_C 20:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chaipau (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
cup of tea... that is all it takes to win, though it often doesn't look like victory. Just let it go and see what I mean.
