Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use
your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the
loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
ShaanSengupta
Talk
08:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
::@
Salekin.sami36 It was archived by a bot first. I just redid it after an unexplained restoration. Second the last comment in that discussion was more than 20 days ago and not 10 days. The issue raised was by an editor who is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. So it is normal to be archived.
ShaanSengupta
Talk
08:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
::::
In this case users have raised multiple issues regarding the article, some of which are edited by you, interestingly.
Well I have edited this page just once as far as I can remember and that was not a change in content but a revert to the edit where sourced content was removed. Anyways it will once again be archived if the discussion doesn't resume.
ShaanSengupta
Talk
10:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::My edit isn't even mentioned in that discussion. Anyways I am not archiving it now until the discussion is over.
ShaanSengupta
Talk
11:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I would request you to kindly start a discussion at
Talk:Bangladesh genocide if you want to change the time for automatic archiving. I agree that it was changed to 90 days at a similar page. But every page holds different significance. Also I have showed you that the same admin also asked the same. Above all these things are done by experienced editors and admins. Please consider this before another revert. I would also request you to read
the discussion which happened for the same page. It had me, Malerisch and an admin involved. You will understand the reason why archiving is good. Remember that the comments are not removed but just archived. You can provide the link to that discussion in the current discussion so that the closing editor will consider that too.
ShaanSengupta
Talk
15:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I would request you to kindly start a discussion at
Talk:Bangladesh genocide if you want to change the time for automatic archiving. I agree that it was changed to 90 days at a similar page. But every page holds different significance. Also I have showed you that the same admin also asked the same. Above all these things are done by experienced editors and admins. Please consider this before another revert. I would also request you to read
the discussion which happened for the same page. It had me, Malerisch and an admin involved. You will understand the reason why archiving is good. Remember that the comments are not removed but just archived. You can provide the link to that discussion in the current discussion so that the closing editor will consider that too.
ShaanSengupta
Talk
15:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
::@
Salekin.sami36 See
Help:Archiving a talk page which says The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 75 KB (or 75,000 bytes), or has multiple resolved or stale discussions. However, when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are subjective decisions that should be adapted to each case. For example, ongoing discussions and nearby sections they reference should generally be kept intact.
There may be circumstances where it would be useful to keep older discussions present on a talk page, to avoid the same issues being repeatedly raised. However, this situation can be better addressed by use of the {{FAQ}} template.
ongoing discussions and nearby sections they reference should generally be kept intact. Sorry to ping you again Robertsky, but would this be a reason to keep WP:RFCBEFORE material from being archived? An RfC is an ongoing discussion, and I directly reference a couple of comments in the previous discussion in my !vote and my replies. Malerisch ( talk) 06:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
::::My only goal is follow the rules and instructions. I see Malerisch made a point and robertsky agrees. We can do something to keep it. Extending archival time to 90 days is accepted. But commenting on the discussion only to save it is not. I am changing the time to 90 days and reverting the comment.
ShaanSengupta
Talk
10:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Hey, wanted to thank you for your constructive edits against the Hindutva vandalism (BJP IT Cell) that's taking place. I am only here to warn you of a couple of players in the Hindutva circle: Nomian, A.Mustakeer, Shaan Sengupta, ludicrousOffer (among many more). They will (and already might have) file cases against you, for editing these articles. You are not the first one to fix these issues, and won't be the last editor who might be banned or blocked. This is just a warning. Good luck!
From Türkiye 🇹🇷 88.239.12.37 ( talk) 07:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I am as Hindu Bangladeshi, let me to add a bit in the beginning, while I have experienced those attacks on us or our people or our temple by some extremists in Bangladesh, as you may know. I would be advocating about the Rights and Justices for Hindu and other minorities in Bangladesh.
However, I would not support actions, where "my country history is being falsified, even painting our people and our then enemy Pakistani government, as trying to Genocide Hindius only." Because this is extremely wrong for all of us, as the 1971 war was mainly because of a disagreements between then Pakistan government and us on the use of our own language. When we peacefully did not agreed with them, lots of Muslims, non muslims, Hindus, Minorities, tribes were with us. People from those groups were killed, harmed, by then Pakistani army. Which is a Genocide on Bangalis, or Bangladeshis.
However, a group of Indian extremists, editors from IT cells, coming to setup their narrative, is super disgusting. Also, they are using Hindusm as a cause to promote their narratives. Which is damaging too. I am assuring you, those people are not represented by our Hindus. We the Hindus in Bangladesh know, whats happening, like attacks on us, but it is not those Indians business, as they are already attacking minorities there too.
Anyways, I hope, all of your Bangladeshi editors win on this Vandalism Fights case. With accurate facts, and statistics.
Also, I did noticed, there are some social media groups, where you can join, and ask fellow editors from all around the world about this issues, I did checked, they are aware about those Indian extremists attacks too.
https://discord.gg/wikipedia Wikipedia:Discord
50.101.179.126 ( talk) 04:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Salekin.sami36 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The edits after the IP block are done from my dorm Wi-Fi, Now as my uni has been shut off, I've a lot of free time in my hand at home, would like to continue working on some of the pages I was editing.
So kindly exempt this account from the IP range block as I havent done anything wrong.Notes:
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I've been IP ranged blocked. My home Wi-Fi ISP unfortunately uses shared IP. I've seen /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/103.106.239.0/24 already, most of them are vandals, but I've no connection to these edits or these ips, also these edits are outside my interest areas. I've never broke any Wikipedia rules, never been warned against anything, never used proxy and will continue to follow wiki rules and policies.
The edits after the IP block are done from my dorm Wi-Fi, Now as my uni has been shut off, I've a lot of free time in my hand at home, would like to continue working on some of the pages I was editing.
So kindly exempt this account from the IP range block as I havent done anything wrong. |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a
default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=I've been IP ranged blocked. My home Wi-Fi ISP unfortunately uses shared IP. I've seen /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/103.106.239.0/24 already, most of them are vandals, but I've no connection to these edits or these ips, also these edits are outside my interest areas. I've never broke any Wikipedia rules, never been warned against anything, never used proxy and will continue to follow wiki rules and policies.
The edits after the IP block are done from my dorm Wi-Fi, Now as my uni has been shut off, I've a lot of free time in my hand at home, would like to continue working on some of the pages I was editing.
So kindly exempt this account from the IP range block as I havent done anything wrong. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I've been IP ranged blocked. My home Wi-Fi ISP unfortunately uses shared IP. I've seen /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/103.106.239.0/24 already, most of them are vandals, but I've no connection to these edits or these ips, also these edits are outside my interest areas. I've never broke any Wikipedia rules, never been warned against anything, never used proxy and will continue to follow wiki rules and policies.
The edits after the IP block are done from my dorm Wi-Fi, Now as my uni has been shut off, I've a lot of free time in my hand at home, would like to continue working on some of the pages I was editing.
So kindly exempt this account from the IP range block as I havent done anything wrong. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
IP Range Block
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use
your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the
loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
ShaanSengupta
Talk
08:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
::@
Salekin.sami36 It was archived by a bot first. I just redid it after an unexplained restoration. Second the last comment in that discussion was more than 20 days ago and not 10 days. The issue raised was by an editor who is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. So it is normal to be archived.
ShaanSengupta
Talk
08:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
::::
In this case users have raised multiple issues regarding the article, some of which are edited by you, interestingly.
Well I have edited this page just once as far as I can remember and that was not a change in content but a revert to the edit where sourced content was removed. Anyways it will once again be archived if the discussion doesn't resume.
ShaanSengupta
Talk
10:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::My edit isn't even mentioned in that discussion. Anyways I am not archiving it now until the discussion is over.
ShaanSengupta
Talk
11:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I would request you to kindly start a discussion at
Talk:Bangladesh genocide if you want to change the time for automatic archiving. I agree that it was changed to 90 days at a similar page. But every page holds different significance. Also I have showed you that the same admin also asked the same. Above all these things are done by experienced editors and admins. Please consider this before another revert. I would also request you to read
the discussion which happened for the same page. It had me, Malerisch and an admin involved. You will understand the reason why archiving is good. Remember that the comments are not removed but just archived. You can provide the link to that discussion in the current discussion so that the closing editor will consider that too.
ShaanSengupta
Talk
15:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I would request you to kindly start a discussion at
Talk:Bangladesh genocide if you want to change the time for automatic archiving. I agree that it was changed to 90 days at a similar page. But every page holds different significance. Also I have showed you that the same admin also asked the same. Above all these things are done by experienced editors and admins. Please consider this before another revert. I would also request you to read
the discussion which happened for the same page. It had me, Malerisch and an admin involved. You will understand the reason why archiving is good. Remember that the comments are not removed but just archived. You can provide the link to that discussion in the current discussion so that the closing editor will consider that too.
ShaanSengupta
Talk
15:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
::@
Salekin.sami36 See
Help:Archiving a talk page which says The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 75 KB (or 75,000 bytes), or has multiple resolved or stale discussions. However, when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are subjective decisions that should be adapted to each case. For example, ongoing discussions and nearby sections they reference should generally be kept intact.
There may be circumstances where it would be useful to keep older discussions present on a talk page, to avoid the same issues being repeatedly raised. However, this situation can be better addressed by use of the {{FAQ}} template.
ongoing discussions and nearby sections they reference should generally be kept intact. Sorry to ping you again Robertsky, but would this be a reason to keep WP:RFCBEFORE material from being archived? An RfC is an ongoing discussion, and I directly reference a couple of comments in the previous discussion in my !vote and my replies. Malerisch ( talk) 06:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
::::My only goal is follow the rules and instructions. I see Malerisch made a point and robertsky agrees. We can do something to keep it. Extending archival time to 90 days is accepted. But commenting on the discussion only to save it is not. I am changing the time to 90 days and reverting the comment.
ShaanSengupta
Talk
10:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Hey, wanted to thank you for your constructive edits against the Hindutva vandalism (BJP IT Cell) that's taking place. I am only here to warn you of a couple of players in the Hindutva circle: Nomian, A.Mustakeer, Shaan Sengupta, ludicrousOffer (among many more). They will (and already might have) file cases against you, for editing these articles. You are not the first one to fix these issues, and won't be the last editor who might be banned or blocked. This is just a warning. Good luck!
From Türkiye 🇹🇷 88.239.12.37 ( talk) 07:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I am as Hindu Bangladeshi, let me to add a bit in the beginning, while I have experienced those attacks on us or our people or our temple by some extremists in Bangladesh, as you may know. I would be advocating about the Rights and Justices for Hindu and other minorities in Bangladesh.
However, I would not support actions, where "my country history is being falsified, even painting our people and our then enemy Pakistani government, as trying to Genocide Hindius only." Because this is extremely wrong for all of us, as the 1971 war was mainly because of a disagreements between then Pakistan government and us on the use of our own language. When we peacefully did not agreed with them, lots of Muslims, non muslims, Hindus, Minorities, tribes were with us. People from those groups were killed, harmed, by then Pakistani army. Which is a Genocide on Bangalis, or Bangladeshis.
However, a group of Indian extremists, editors from IT cells, coming to setup their narrative, is super disgusting. Also, they are using Hindusm as a cause to promote their narratives. Which is damaging too. I am assuring you, those people are not represented by our Hindus. We the Hindus in Bangladesh know, whats happening, like attacks on us, but it is not those Indians business, as they are already attacking minorities there too.
Anyways, I hope, all of your Bangladeshi editors win on this Vandalism Fights case. With accurate facts, and statistics.
Also, I did noticed, there are some social media groups, where you can join, and ask fellow editors from all around the world about this issues, I did checked, they are aware about those Indian extremists attacks too.
https://discord.gg/wikipedia Wikipedia:Discord
50.101.179.126 ( talk) 04:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Salekin.sami36 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The edits after the IP block are done from my dorm Wi-Fi, Now as my uni has been shut off, I've a lot of free time in my hand at home, would like to continue working on some of the pages I was editing.
So kindly exempt this account from the IP range block as I havent done anything wrong.Notes:
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I've been IP ranged blocked. My home Wi-Fi ISP unfortunately uses shared IP. I've seen /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/103.106.239.0/24 already, most of them are vandals, but I've no connection to these edits or these ips, also these edits are outside my interest areas. I've never broke any Wikipedia rules, never been warned against anything, never used proxy and will continue to follow wiki rules and policies.
The edits after the IP block are done from my dorm Wi-Fi, Now as my uni has been shut off, I've a lot of free time in my hand at home, would like to continue working on some of the pages I was editing.
So kindly exempt this account from the IP range block as I havent done anything wrong. |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a
default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=I've been IP ranged blocked. My home Wi-Fi ISP unfortunately uses shared IP. I've seen /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/103.106.239.0/24 already, most of them are vandals, but I've no connection to these edits or these ips, also these edits are outside my interest areas. I've never broke any Wikipedia rules, never been warned against anything, never used proxy and will continue to follow wiki rules and policies.
The edits after the IP block are done from my dorm Wi-Fi, Now as my uni has been shut off, I've a lot of free time in my hand at home, would like to continue working on some of the pages I was editing.
So kindly exempt this account from the IP range block as I havent done anything wrong. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I've been IP ranged blocked. My home Wi-Fi ISP unfortunately uses shared IP. I've seen /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/103.106.239.0/24 already, most of them are vandals, but I've no connection to these edits or these ips, also these edits are outside my interest areas. I've never broke any Wikipedia rules, never been warned against anything, never used proxy and will continue to follow wiki rules and policies.
The edits after the IP block are done from my dorm Wi-Fi, Now as my uni has been shut off, I've a lot of free time in my hand at home, would like to continue working on some of the pages I was editing.
So kindly exempt this account from the IP range block as I havent done anything wrong. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
IP Range Block