User talk:A.Musketeer

Hello A.Musketeer, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

A.Musketeer, good luck, and have fun. – Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 19:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, I'm Velella. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Illegal immigration, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  Velella  Velella Talk   20:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Reply - I copied them from Indians in Bangladesh and added some from my personal knowledge, how can I provide source?[reply]

The statements made in Indians in Bangladesh appears to be sourced and so should your addition to Illegal immigration. Personal knowledge has absolutely no place here on Wikipedia unless supported by a robust and reliable sourced.  Velella  Velella Talk   20:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Then why did you remove the statements about the illegal Indians? And how can I add sources?

addition of unsourced and biased content.

you seem to be copying text from the page Bangladeshis in India without actually going through the references to verify if the information is correct. you can search the ISBN number of the source you quoted to read through the book on Google books or other similar online library. I have read through the page and have included the information provided on that page to provide an accurate description of the contents of that page. before engaging in a revert war with me please read through the sources before editing.

You also seem to be adding personal opinions and un sourced information to other articles you have contributed to since your account creation, such as the 2001 Indian–Bangladeshi border conflict and Illegal immigration in India pages. This leads me to suspect that you are a WP:Sock engaging in Wikipedia:Vandalism, continuing in this behavior will lead to you being ip blocked. Please follow WP:GUIDELINE before you make any personal or biased statements that are not backed by factual references so that a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view can be maintained. Pvpoodle (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - It looks like it's actually you who is adding pro-India biased statements in 2001 Indian–Bangladeshi border conflict. I have just read that book from google and will edit them shortly.

i have replied on the talk page of 2001 Indian–Bangladeshi border conflict as to the reasons for my edits which are relevant and not biased. you seem to only be interested in presenting your version of events without giving any thought the bigger picture. please discuss the issue on that talk page before reverting edits or i will be forced to report you to an administrator. Pvpoodle (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - the same can be said about you. Why you are adding pro-indian biased statements?


when almost all neutral sources report something that is the same as what indian sources reported, it is generally accepted as what actually happened and not "pro-indian" just because it happens to portray one group in a different light from the other. Pvpoodle (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

dispute resolution.

dude, there is no anti-bangladesh conspiracy or anti-muslim conspiracy going on to make that article biased. i am only trying to accurately document what happened there. if you look at the sources quoted one of them even happens to be Haroon Habib writing an article for frontline india (this does not automatically make it a bengali source). he is a prominent bengali journalist and although the report was carried by frontline it is documenting the bengali perspective. there are other articles also quoted which list bengali journalists on both sides of the border. this forms both the majority and high minority point of views. the 400 figure is a tiny minority opinion expressed by one person which is why it is not valid.

furthermore there is no anti-muslim sentiment being expressed by me or other editors from india. if you want to know the truth, i happen to be from a sufi family. along with more than 40% of muslims we happened to stay in india because we happen to believe that religion and ethinicity are diffrent and that we will be indian no matter what religion we follow. in the area where i live, less than 300 meters from my house (radius), there happens to be a dhargha (where we worship), a shia mosque , a hindu temple , a protestant church and a catholic church. i am not lying about this. i have never been subject to any anti-muslim hatred anywhere during my life and there has never been any religious clashes here. i accept that in some places in north india there are some isolated cases of religious violence that gets out of hand but that is not a litmus to judge all of india. i feel that my ancestors made the right choice in staying here since in most other islamic countries there happens to be a lot inter islaam attacks against sufi, shia, and attacks on Bahá'í and ahamadi (which are both derived significantly from aspects of islam). but this is only my personal opinion and you are free to disagree.

please use the talk page or this page itself to discuss what changes you would like to be made and we can resolve this in a civilized way. Pvpoodle (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Brother, I never said anything regarding religion. As you have stated your religion I would let you know that I'm from a Buddhist family in Chittagong and we are one of the earliest inhabitants of Bangladesh. I never said there's anti-Muslim sentiment in India. But since the topic is about a military conflict, the media reports automatically began to show nationalist view which is quite visible in the Indian sources you presented. I have always used the talk page to explain my concerns, I would also like to resolve the matter in a civilized way. A.Musketeer (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if you feel that the race of bengali and khasi is too inflamatory i am willing to compromise and allow you to remove it completely. i have stated the reason why i included it on the article's talk page as it was sourced content.
The inclusion of indian sources alone does not violate wiki policy of npov as there should be significant minority view expressing an opinion before any contrary claims can be included. furthermore there are also other neutral 3rd party references provided in the interest of preventing bias. and thirdly some of the indian published sources actually are written by bengali / bangladeshi journalists, in some cases working from bangladesh itself, working under contract or freelancing for indian sources. (this is common practice in journalism to sometimes hire local journalists to work for a foreign news paper and some journalists work for multiple media outlets as experienced journalists freelance often) these sources were included to provide a bangladeshi perspective of events which they do in fact document. this is to ensure that the both sides of the story are reported. categorizing all Indian published sources as being biased towards india does a disservice to the bangladeshi journalists who wrote these articles. i understand that sometimes there can be biased reporting, which is why multiple sources were provided , most of whom have impeccable standards.
if you go through several of the articles cited, they were actually highly critical of the bsf intrusion and questioned the sanity behind why the local commander Mondol (i quote this name from memory and i apologise for any typo) decided it was a good idea to go into bangladesh. however since most of the people who intruded were killed no one cannot know what actually happened, which is why i stated the cause is unknown. (this is also referenced by the quoted sources in that sentence which is why i included it, without sources this becomes speculation and original research on my part which is against the guidelines. i hope you are able to understand the difference)
in my personal opinion paramilitary forces (which includes border guards like the bsf) are just glorified policemen with very poor standards of training, and the bsf commander mondol was foolish to think he could capture a village inside another country and that the people there would let him just because he was bengali as well. if this was a blog i would be slamming their unprofessional conduct, however this is wikipedia and without any conclusive sources that say that the attacks were carried out intentionally we cannot list this. this goes for both the initial bdr incursion and subsequent bsf incursion since the reasons behind both cannot be determined, this is also the same reason why none of the provided references speculates why the incident took place and continues to list it as unknown.
the 400 casualties figure is a tiny minority view expressed by one person. the interview itself happened only in dec 2013, if the count was accurate other sources would have picked up on that figure and reported it on both sides and should be accessable easily considering the massive growth in online media in both countries and throughout the world. the lack of other bangladeshi sources to verify that claim only makes it seem even more suspect. even if you were to engage in original research, how could 400 fatalities be covered up for 14 years? some one would have been a whistleblower in the government or the relatives of those killed would have come forward at the time or later, of even further still the monetary compensation paid by the bsf is publically accountable and would have been discovered by media long ago. i understand some sections of bangladeshi population considers the general a hero, but the fact is that he acted beyond his authority and was fired as a result and now gives interviews in which he makes tall claims to curry political favor. i am again not trying to show prejudiced against him or bengal or you personally. to be quite frank this sort of behavior happens quite often everywhere, as a case in point you may want to google maj.gen bakshi (spelling may be different) of the indian army. he unilaterally acted by ordering a massive artillery barrage against a pakistani batallion hq a few years back and was fired as a result. now he gives interviews and posts on facebook claiming that he is a hero and he killed the entire staff of a pak batallion and that gov is against him and other such nonsense about how he is a hero and everyone else are cowards. he was quite active before the recent elections and you should be able to pick up this story easily i think. this is just to show you that people like that who act without orders are dangerous to democracy and stability of their respective country and quite often go around blowing their own trumpet and people should generally not pay too much attention to what they say.
i assumed you were also a muslim due to the fact that you went to faizan for help (since he is not bangladeshi i made the muslim connection) and due to the fact that Buddhists only make up 0.7% of the population of bangladesh. i am glad to meet a Buddhist as i personally feel that following the middle path is something that we all should seek to emulate. i have seen a lot of people accusing anti-islam biased edits on wiki quite often with respect to india-pak or india-bangladesh articles and i may have assumed the same in this case. i apologise for any hasty conclusions on my part. i agree we may have gotten off on the wrong foot as i get very frustrated by vandalism on wikipedia, however i am willing to consider the fact that you may have made the edits out of inexperience in editing and hopefully you will learn more and become a better editor in the future. i am also hopefull that we may be able to cooperate in the future on other articles and that i am willing to help you out if you ever need my help. regards Pvpoodle (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Brother, you may have seen my reply in the article's talk page, I have explained why Bangladeshi view is a minority view and Indian view is the majority view in this topic. But only since Indian sources dominate here you can't ignore the Bangladeshi sources and to present the neutral point of view you have to highlight both the views of Bangladesh and India. I know many Bangladeshi journalists work for Indian newspapers similarly there are many Indian correspondents of Bangladeshi newspapers. I'm not accusing the whole Indian media but as I said this topic is a sensitive one which is why it's natural to get nationalist reporting from media. The reasons behind the intrusion is not unknown, according to the source from India Today it was used as a counter-attack. The reason behind the Padua incident is also explained by various reports.

Brother, I have explained in the article's talk page how the strength figure is unrealistic to me the same way how the figure of 400 deaths looks unrealistic to you. But it looks like the figure of 400 deaths is the most annoying for you that is making you frustrated. Alright then, I will remove this figure but I have found some more Bangladeshi sources on this topic and I will add new strength figure for BSF according to these sources, I hope you will not oppose this addition.

I went to Faizan because in February he had assisted me to add reference in the article. Buddhists now constitute a small population in Bangladesh but once Buddhists were the majority, you may have heard about the Pal dynasty, they were Buddhists from Bangladesh and ruled all over South Asia. The Chittagong Hill Tract region is still dominated by Buddhists, but I live in Chittagong city, there are many Buddhists in Chittagong city also. I'm also willing to cooperate with you and I hope we will be able to enrich Wikipedia's resources on South Asian topics. A.Musketeer (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

when you add links please use the {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help) template. also there are two distinct incidents. the initial attack and the failed counterattack, which i have divided into two sections. the sentence about the early morning counter attack belongs in the second section, however you have added it under the first. please correct this. the first incident was resolved without any bloodshed and the casualties were from the second incident, however the misplaced sentence appears to make it look like there was violence in the first incident also. a bit busy now, will talk more later. thanks and regards Pvpoodle (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to 2018 Bangladesh road safety protests, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Editor General of Wiki (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon 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:A.Musketeer reported by User:Editor General of Wiki (Result: ). Thank you. Editor General of Wiki (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at 2018 Bangladesh road safety protests. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
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 ~~~~}}.  Swarm ♠ 07:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About your edit on Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War

Do not add any religion (like Muslim or Hindu) as the major victim. MSouvik01 (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MSouvik, the Hindus were the main victims, this is why it is considered a genocidal rape because they intended to destroy the Hindu community. You are adding original research to the article. A.Musketeer (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MSouvik01, please do not change the article before you successfully explain it here. The international crimes tribunal in Bangladesh has already given multiple verdicts on these genocidal crimes. A.Musketeer (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is a genocidal rape, and that pakistan targeted mainly Hindus and their intention was to destroy the hindus. But that doesn't mean Hindus were the most victims. Because pakistan assaulted both muslims and hindus calling them so-called "hindus". Their main intention was to supress Bengali people, not hindu or muslim. MSouvik01 (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to show that pakistan only assaulted hindu women, and thus justify their atrocities. Some of your sentences are true and some are biased. Remove the biased sentences claiming hindu the major victims or pakistan only attacked the hindu. Else I will change the article. MSouvik01 (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MSouvik01You are wrong again, it was not only Pakistani Army but also Razakars who committed the crimes, in fact most of these crimes were committed by them. And they knew very well who were Hindus or Muslims. They successfully targeted Hindus and Hindus were the main victims. I have added a source as well which says "The Pakistani occupation army and its local collaborators targeted mostly the Hindu women and girls for rape and sexual violence. Many rape victims were killed in captivity while others migrated to India or committed suicide". If you deny that Hindus were the main victims, you are not only denying the genocidal claims but also doing injustice to the Hindu victims. The verdicts by the international crimes tribunal itself has proven that the Razakars specifically targeted the Hindus who were the main victims, that makes it a genocide. A.Musketeer (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hindus were the main target, but that doesn't mean "most of the victims were hindu women". Because pakistani army and rajakars assaulted both hindu and muslim women. It's true that hindu were the main target, but they assaulted muslim women as well. Don't forget most of bengali people were muslim (80%+). So what I'm saying is that the line "most of the victims were hindu women" should be removed. And what do you mean by "and the others moved to India"---did all the other women who didn't die go to India??? And what does the sentence "Muslim Pakistani men believed the sacrifice of Hindu women was needed to fix the national malaise" have anything to do with this??

So you need to change your edits and make it less-biased. Use neutral sentences. And international crimes tribunal said they targeted hindus and it is a genocide, but they didn't say "most number of the victims were hindu". It's better not to mention any specific religion as the most number of victims. MSouvik01 (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MSouvik01Why are you giving false information? The verdicts of ICT clearly say that victims of the Razakars were mostly Hindus. There were some Muslim casualties but since Hindus were targeted, they were main victims. Those sentences were included to show the existing mindset about Hindus among Pakistani military and it collaborators. All of them are supported by reliable sources. A.Musketeer (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you copy-pasted a whole para from the section "Hindu victims" which already exists in the same article. It has been removed. And I have reorganized the whole lead section using most possible neutral sentences with reliable sources. Do not attempt to add or remove any controversial original research that exclusively claims anything like "Most of the victims were Hindu or Muslim women" or, "Only Hindu women were assaulted". MSouvik01 (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and report. I am also going to report you to the admins. MSouvik01 (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MSouvik01, there was bo original research, check the quote of the source "Islam, M. Rafiqul (2019). National Trials of International Crimes in Bangladesh: Transitional Justice as Reflected in Judgments". There also other sources. While the only thing you're doing is restoring misinterpretation of sources. I already told you that the para from Hindu section is important as that shows what was the existing perception about Hindus among Pakistani military and their collaborators. The lead is also supposed to summarize all the sections of the article so some of the content from the Hindu section should be there. A.Musketeer (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2021 (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) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Hasina

Hi, since you are already aware of the edit warring at Sheikh Hasina can you please help to mediate the dispute in the talk page? LucrativeOffer (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

 You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. 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 and 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. AMomen88 (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon 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. Thank you. AMomen88 (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please give your opinion

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)[reply]

Dispute resolution

Hi, since you are listed as a participant to the dispute, can you give your opinions on the proposed lead in this dispute resolution? LucrativeOffer (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban imposed by the community

Hello. Per the thread @WP:ANI#Editing against consensus at Sheikh Hasina (permalink) you have been topic banned (WP:TBAN) from the subject of Sheikh Hasina (not just article and talk page), broadly construed (WP:BROADLY). This restriction has been logged at WP:RESTRICT. Please see WP:UNBAN for your appeal options. Thank you. El_C 07:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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) 14:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was a little busy last few weeks. A.Musketeer (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Hello @A.Musketeer you recently edited the page of List of wars involving Bangladesh with no proper summary i've added the sources also still, just removed by telling that it was a hoax and source falsification see WP:HISTAR,WP:HISTRH for clarification and next time you might be chances to get a TBan Raged Bengali Wiki (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warning 2

If you want the sources i can mention all the sources, • প্রতাপাদিত্য জীবন চরিত্র by Satya Charan Shastri • প্রতাপাদিত্য by Nikhil Nath Roy • History of Bengal from the first Mohammedan Invasion by S. Charles Cambridge University Press • History of Bengal Mughal Period Archeological Sources - 1. Stone inscription of Muhammad Caligraphy from Hijli to Jessore by Pratapaditya 2. Chausatti Ghat Varanasi was made by Pratapaditya 3. Darbhanga Bihar Shree Baghawati Temple 4. Govinda Dev Temple in Odisha 5. Chanchara Shiva Temple Jessore 6. Jessoreswari Kali Temple Raged Bengali Wiki (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nomian (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Malerisch (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI-notice

<There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Salekin.sami36 (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Hi, hope you're doing well. Can you join the discussion here to fix the ongoing dispute? LucrativeOffer (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Rape during the 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; read about 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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
desmay (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]