User talk:Imamul H. Ifaz

ভাইয়া আমি আপনার সাথে একটু কথা বলতে চাই । — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deep Ronjon Das (talk • contribs) 12:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Stoic Bliss, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless used with permission. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is the teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Hello, I'm Vinegarymass911. I noticed that you recently removed content from PRAN-RFL Group without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to James (musician). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts

Hello, Imamul H. Ifaz, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Imamul Ifaz (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Worldbruce: one possible alternative account of this user is Mahmudur Rahman Mahi (talk · contribs). Until recently, they both had similar disruptive editing patterns.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk) 23:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not continue reverting

Hi Imamul H. Ifaz! 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)[reply]

Discuss on talk page

Your edits are not an improvement to Dhaka and Bangladesh. There is no source when you claim Bangladesh has the largest paramilitary in the world. Plus, your montage of Dhaka has problems. Discuss instead of waging an edit war. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 10:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Global Firepower Index shows that the largest paramilitary troops are within Bangladesh with more than 6.3 million soldiers.[1]Your edits are not an improvement to Dhaka and Bangladesh as well. Your montage shows only the city images of Dhaka and it's neighborhoods.Discuss instead of waging an edit war. Imamul H. Ifaz (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote Bangladesh has the eighth largest military in the world, which is not true. Plus, paramilitary is not mentioned in country article introductions. Look at India, which your source says has the second largest paramilitary. Regarding Dhaka, you are only imposing pictures of South Dhaka and deliberately excluding North Dhaka. Go put your montage in Dhaka South City Corporation maybe? The whole city of Dhaka should reflect both north and south Dhaka. Plus, your montage is not an improvement by any means. The Bangladesh Bank building is no longer a symbol of the city. This is not the 1980s or 1990s. We live in 2022.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have very little knowledge about the military, that's why you are asking for source of every single thing. Use the internet to search for yourself and verify them. And I am not trying to copy India's version of wikipedia here. If you want to copy India then go edit Indian stuff and stay away from Bangladesh's. And I am trying to show the heritage of Dhaka not the cityscapes of Dhaka. Dhaka is not an Alpha-city. You are showing nothing of Dhaka instead of it's buildings and Skyscraper. And what do you mean by "The Bangladesh Bank building is no longer a symbol of the city". Very unprofessional of you saying this. Imamul H. Ifaz (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying its okay to vandalize a city article because its not an alpha world city? Even a town does not deserve your vandalism. Hope you know about WP: no personal attacks.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you know about WP: no personal attacks as well because that's not any personal attack that's my statements about your knowledge in a particular field. You are trying to vandalize the article by repeatedly changing it's montage without any justifiable argument. Imamul H. Ifaz (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and your montage also looks very unclean and unprofessional. The selection of the images are very poor quality and not fitted perfectly. The montage is abominably very cheap. Imamul H. Ifaz (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no image of any moques in the montage even though it's known as "City of Mosques" and Look for the article Architecture of Dhaka. Imamul H. Ifaz (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olive branch to stop edit warring

Okay, this edit warring needs to stop. We can work things out. Let's go for a consensus instead of reverting each other constantly. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i stopped editing. at this point i don't even care about this article. Imamul H. Ifaz (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop in Chittagong as well. You don't WP:OWN the page.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

nor you do Imamul H. Ifaz (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. I put a lot of effort and research into the content. I use reliable sources. If you really want what is best for Chittagong, then don't do it. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

editing montages doesn't need any researches, ur argument is pointless. so reverting again Imamul H. Ifaz (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are also reverting the architecture section, which was based on research. You are not just reverting the montage, you are reverting many other content.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You actually want to destroy the article. What's your agenda here?--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no agenda don't change the montage so that ur so called researched content is not ruined Imamul H. Ifaz (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Building consensus

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 wronged you feel. Editors are expected to assume other editors have good intentions. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. Accusing another editor of being unprofessional or of vandalism does not help achieve consensus.
If you are unable to reach consensus through discussion based on image use policy and image guidelines, various dispute resolution mechanisms are available. Stepping away from an article can be an effective way of de-escalating. But if you're likely to cross paths with an editor again because of shared interests, it may be worth taking the time to reach an agreement you both can live with instead of letting the disagreement fester. Worldbruce (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Tahsan Rahman Khan. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Worldbruce (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]