User talk:BangladeshPride

Warning[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Bangladesh Liberation War. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --UplinkAnsh (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps you need to heed your advice as you have continuously been involved in vandalism. simply removing dates for no reason. date of the war is mentioned and date of individual combatants is mentioned. there is no need to remove any dates. also like i said before refrain from unnecessarily using the word "vandalism". vandalism refers to someone who purposefully removes information from an article. BangladeshPride (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalize the page "Bangladesh Liberation War".Sentinel R (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i did not vandalize the page infact in your edits you have kept the dates where as the person in question "uplinkansh" keeps removing the dates and in the process reverts the summary. BangladeshPride (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war[edit]

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Bangladesh Liberation War. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed final warning[edit]

Removed per incorrect use of warning templates. Spitfire19 (Talk) 23:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

uplinkansh you are giving me warnings when you are the one vandalizing the page. i will be giving you a warning soon. plus i have contacted the neutral wikipedia moderators and showed them your continuous vandalism. do not simply try to get people banned so that you can stop people from removing your vandalism. BangladeshPride (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting removal of lock for article[edit]

Hi requesting removal of lock for article bangladesh liberation war. the admin who locked it seems to be away. as per discussion changes need to be made in article. also can you put the article on semi protected status so that only registered users can edit the article thanks. BangladeshPride (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Please check Ragib (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s talk page first, as this user has already requested protection be removed, and I'm not quite sure why they've asked you. The talk page doesn't seem to indicate both parties in the edit war have discussed yet, and it was only protected 2 days ago. Ged UK 07:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might be because i handled 6 or 7 RFPP's in a row last evening, so my name was all over that page which may have lead to this request. As for the protection: i see little to no discussion on the talk page, and as Ged already mentioned - it has only been protected for two days. Wait until there is some agreement on the talk page and request unprotected at WP:RFPP then, or wait three to four more days to make sure everyone had plenty of time to comment on the talk page. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi we have discussed the date issue and i was going to put in the proper format as you can see in the discussion that i compromised with format of uplinkansh. Also the bangladeshi hindu refugee number has to be put no one has any issue with that. the terminology still needs to be discussed for bangladesh we use east pakistan not west pakistan although we want to discuss that issue for some more time that is fine. could you unlock the article so that i can put the bangladeshi hindu refugee number in the summary and also i need to put in the proper date format. ragib has said that he had saved the wrong version so can you unlock the wrong version and put the article on semi protected. so that i can put in the 2 details and then you can put the lock back on. we will discuss the terminology of east or west pakistan for some more time. thanks BangladeshPride (talk) 11:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection is left in place until the dispute is resolved, which has obviously not been done. Neither change seems to be absolutely critical for now, so i am inclined to keep the article in its current form during the dispute, as this will leave a baseline version every party involved can discuss - and i am reluctant to edit trough another admins protection except for vandalism or BLP issues; Especially if that admin has edited less then a day ago. Once the dispute is resolved all changes can be added to the article at the same time. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE ANI discussion involving you[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#2_times_3RR.2C_POV_pushing.2C_Page_lengthening_and_Dicussion_Page_Vandalism_by_BangladeshPride. --UplinkAnsh (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010[edit]

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 48 hours, for disruptive editing, including edit warring, harassment (calling editors vandals when they clearly aren't), and multiple violations of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tan | 39 14:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not modify content in Wikipedia Archive pages as you did with Talk:Bangladesh War of Independence/Archive 2

Spitfire19 (Talk) 15:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i am unsure what you mean? i did not modify anything at all i just archived the section and put it in proper order.

Maintained a proper attitude[edit]

From the beginning i have maintained a proper attitude while user uplinkansh has accused me of everything from vandalism to being dumb and has simply put me off and told me to "go read some war articles". i have explained to user uplinkansh that he keeps pushing his POV. i made a new section in the discussion page to discuss vandalisms in the article. plus it should be noted that user uplinkansh has reverted edits just as many times as me. i have reverted edits because user uplinkansh did the same thing. he has started a discussion about me on the wikipedia page but without giving me a chance to defend myself. he has kept giving me warnings so i gave him a warning asking him not to revert edits especially when they are facts with references. BangladeshPride (talk) 04:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are wrong trying to misinterpret things without fully understanding them.

First I never called you "dumb". I only said you were an a "novice" as you are new to wikipedia and so do not fully know about the format of articles on wikipedia and policies of wikipedia which is true since you started editing wikipedia on 14 April 2010. Being novice is not a bad thing and everyone was a novice at some time when they first started editing. However you must understand no other editor or administrator would teach you the format of articles on wikipedia and policies of wikipedia. You will have to learn it on your own by reading articles and policies.
Secondly your vandalism was reverted by me, editor Drmies and editor Sentinel R and you still kept on pushing your POV.
Thirdly you are wrong again by stating "he has started a discussion about me on the wikipedia page but without giving me a chance to defend myself". I clearly informed you about the dicussion on your talkpage only a couple of minutes after starting disussion.
- 19:10, 20 April 2010
Finally you are again by harassing be with baseless warnings with the excuse "he has kept giving me warnings so i gave him a warning". Wikipedia is not a platform to have revenge. Also while you were giving me warnings even final warning for vandalism even when the page was full protected and there had been no edits.
- 09:47, 19 April 2010
- 10:17, 20 April 2010

--UplinkAnsh (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can say the exact same thing about you that you are misinterpreting me without fully understanding what i am trying to say. i will give a proper reply to all your accusations on the discussion page. All the other editors kept the date you were the only one who kept removing the date. I have already replied to sentinels discussions i dont know who the other user drmies is. Also note wikipedia is based on bringing the proper unbiased view. if another person agrees with you does not mean that they are unbiased. if i do vandalism and another person agrees with me, obviously wikipedia should disagree with it. I did not harass anyone you started giving me warnings just because you disagree with me, on the same note i gave you a warning. its not some sort of revenge, its just baseless to give people warnings simply because you disagree with them.

you have not given a chance for me to defend myself because i am blocked at the moment and unable to answer on the discussion page. if you go back to the discussion page you can clearly see where i have told you not to throw insults towards other editors, infact the very first discussion on my page i have told you to refrain from calling people's edits vandalism without first looking into it properly. respect other editors and they will respect you as well. but if you accuse them of pov because you do not agree with it. then they would start accusing you of POV as well. either way i will present my discussion on the topic page. please move forward amicably without any biases and please be respectful of other editors. BangladeshPride (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

will be coming back to discussion soon. BangladeshPride (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, please, just, stop it. All we really need is contructive critism. Calling anyone dumb, or a novice for that matter, can be considered an insult and should not be used. BangledeshPride, UplinkAsh is correct in that you need to know how war articles are written before making large edits to the article. I would recommend reading World war 2 or Vietnam War to get some background. But UplinkAsh, telling Bangledesh pride that he must read a mandetory 10 articles before making an edit is wholly an inappropriate responce to any edit reverts he had made. Spitfire19 (Talk) 15:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was just a random figure I wrote down once while dicussing. I never insisted a minimum on any mandotary number of articles that should be read before one can edit wiki war articles.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improperly warning an editor[edit]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:UplinkAnsh has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Spitfire19 (Talk) 23:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi spitfire19 as i explained in my discussion above i gave user uplinkansh a warning because he gave me one for no reason other than disagreeing with my arguments. although this matter was done some time ago. BangladeshPride (talk) 11:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Bangladesh Liberation War. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --UplinkAnsh (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No vandalism was committed references were put in for the intro paragraph. Please look at reference before accusing others of vandalism. as for the picture, a mukti bahini picture can be put in intro since this article is dealing with bangladesh war or a simple map of bangladesh is enough. i will put a map pic later.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BangladeshPride (talk • contribs)

Hello. Do not delete the picture without discussion.Sentinel R (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for tendentious and disruptive editing, specifically refusing to discuss your edits and reverts repeatedly after a previous block for similar conduct. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Daniel Case (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

BangladeshPride (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

hi i had given a reason in the history section but before i could put this in the discussion section i was blocked. the picture is a Gross violation of the neutrality of the article. it belongs in the indian section of the war and not in the intro of the bangladesh article if the person wants to put it in the bangladesh article he can put it later in the section talking about indian intervention in the war. the intro should have a Bangladesh mukti bahini picture or simply a map of bangladesh. kindly unblock so that i can put the discussion and put a correct neutral picture.

Decline reason:

You've been warned several times to stop and have already been previously blocked for disruptive editing at the same article, Bangladesh Liberation War. Your unblock reason does not also address the reason for your block. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for trolling, disruption or harassment. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010[edit]

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).

BangladeshPride (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I deeply apologize for the issues that i have caused but was i blocked because i had edited the intro paragraph? I had only edited the intro because the person had edited it first and put an indian picture in the intro. this was the reason that i edited the intro paragraph. I did not edit the intro paragraph after i was unblocked i moved the indian picture to the indian section and put the map picture in the intro. once again i apologize if i have given the incorrect impression.

Decline reason:

This still does not address the reasons you were blocked. Please read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks before making another request.--Chaser (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

December 2010[edit]

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).

BangladeshPride (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I apologize for any misconduct that i have caused. As advised i have read the guide to appealing blocks and i have promised that i would abide by the rules as i have tried to do throughout any discussion. I have been blocked for editing the intro paragraph however after the block was removed i did not edit the intro paragraph. Thus far i have mostly edited the intro which the whole discussion between me and the user uplinkansh was about. another user in violation of the neutrality of wikipedia added an inidan picture, in view of that i had edited the intro paragraph again. however after being informed that the intro paragraph cannot be edited yet and after the block was removed i only replaced the intro picture and placed the indian picture in the indian seciton. I am unsure as to what a few users have commented about there being other reasons. This is the only reason that i am aware of which i was blocked since the whole edit war between me and user uplinkansh was based on the intro and i had edited mostly the intro only looking at my history. Once again i deeply apologize since the only reason i had again edited the intro paragraph was because another user had violated the neutral policy of wikipedia and added an indian picture.

Decline reason:

No answer in 4 days to question below. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Can I just ask (to help us to make a decision): what will you do if you felt that another user in the future violates the neutrality policy? PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the delay in responding as i was away. but if you will see the edits you will notice that i am doing my level best to maintain neutrality. whereas the indian editor even though there is a whole article dealing with indian issues is trying to make this article non neutral. the intro picture itself is a violation of the neutrality of the article. Please refer to my edits and you will see that there is absolutely nothing non-neutral in my edits. not to mention the fact that there is a whole article related to india pakistan 1971 yet the indian editor is still trying to push his pov in the bangladesh article. BangladeshPride (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]