Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dhaka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burger. 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) 06:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Solomon The Magnifico! 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]

I explained the matter on the talk page. I did not constantly revert within a 24 hour period. Hence, your warning seems a bit exaggerated. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 strongly you feel about an issue. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. One editor must not accuse another of misbehavior, such as vandalism or sockpuppetry, without evidence. Doing so is a personal attack, and can lead to being blocked. Worldbruce (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce Well noted. But I shouldn't be the only one protecting this content. The montage was there before me. It was only one image that was altered. I should not be receiving personal attacks from that editor because of a simple alteration. Thanks anyways for the heads up.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh is watched by about 1500 editors, Dhaka by more than 300, Chittagong by nearly 200. If no one else is reverting changes, maybe it's because there's nothing seriously wrong with most of the changes, and the content you are "protecting" isn't really any better. Editors are expected to assume other editors have good intentions. You've raised some reasonable points about how up-to-date images are, and about geographic diversity. Try to reach consensus about the content through discussion based on image use policy and image style guidelines. If you reach an impasse, various dispute resolution mechanisms are available. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know for a fact that my content is better simply because anyone with a reasonable, good faith knowledge of Bangladesh would understand where I am coming from. If similar disruptions occurred in other country or city articles, editors are quick to revert. Why isn't it happening in the case of Bangladesh? Is it deliberate to keep this country's coverage at sub-par quality? Oddly, neighboring India enjoys better protection. Maybe it's because India is watched by more pro-active editors, which is clearly lacking from Bangladesh.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Travelogue.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is strange that when I am telling to suggest changes for the proposed lead section you don't answer. But when I execute the lead section, you revert my action showing some "reason" (now I am not here to debate the reasons you showed, we can always start new discussion to debate your reason but this is not the time). But I can't keep the present lead section even it is better, because in future edit war will happen for this lead I suspect. So, I want to give to two options to choose one.

1. Answer my concerns in the talk page in Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and help me to edit and create the lead section so that both can reach a compromise, or
2. We can go to Dispute resolution to request a better lead section, including all our concerns that will help us to prevent future edit wars.

So the choice is yours. Instead of ignoring my messages that would be great if you help to do that, but even if you don't want to then we have second option and Dispute resolution seems promising enough. Mehedi Abedin 07:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Economy of Bangladesh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BRAC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gulshan Avenue from Gulshan 1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Worldbruce (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 November 30. Thank you. Worldbruce (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salam Solomon,

You are invited to render your opinion on an ongoing discussion on the Sheikh Hasina talk page. I have argued that there should be positive and negative information in the lead to the article to make it balanced and neutral, but the opposing user wants to insert information which is entirely negative.

Kind regards, AMomen88 (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Salam Solomon,

Please can you comment regarding the proposed lead I have composed for Sheikh Hasina at Dispute Resolution. I would welcome any criticisms or proposals for better sources.-AMomen88 (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bengal, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Shah Shuja and Devapala.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Chronic incivility and disruptive editing by User:Solomon The Magnifico. Thank you. --Worldbruce (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salam Solomon,

Please can you read my proposed lede for Sheikh Hasina and render your opinions. I have tried to compose a balanced lede which includes achievements and failings of the Hasina administration. Thanks-- AMomen88 (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Solomon The Magnifico: This is a reminder I would appreciate you contributing to the RFC on the proposed lede for Sheikh Hasina. I have included important points you raised during the Dispute Resolution discussion and would welcome any more requests for content. I hope you note that I was the only user who mentioned the positive edits you made during the Administrators' noticeboard discussion, I also discouraged harsh punishment for your conduct. I am glad you have not been punished with punitive sanctions and I hope you continue making constructive edits with passion.—AMomen88 (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AMomen88 It's an extremely big topic. Need more time to analyze this. I fully recognize the importance of the subject. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is clearly a Canvassing by AMomen88 as he is trying to exchange favors to influence an RfC. Please be aware that any participation in that RfC influenced by this canvassing and which favors AMomen88's position, will surely result in a report at WP:ANI. LucrativeOffer (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LucrativeOffer: Please note the user has every right to render their opinion on the RfC and should not be deterred by cheap empty threats. You yourself have asked other users who are in favour of your opinion to comment on discussions on numerous occasions. This is blatant hypocrisy and highly inappropriate conduct.—AMomen88 (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your linking of an essay which is not a policy/guideline further establishes the notion that you have a poor understanding of code of conducts in wikipedia. Regarding the post in A.Musketeer's talkpage, it was not an inappropriate message since there was no biased tone and A.Musketeer was already listed as a participant in the DR. LucrativeOffer (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A month has passed since your initial analysis, it is now the longest running RfC. Your contribution to the discussion would be important. I have incorporated the components you wanted to be added. You should not be put-off by intimidation. —AMomen88 (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AMomen88 You will not help by launching any edit wars. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is disappointing that you failed to contribute throughout the almost two months the RfC was active, you had ample opportunity to contribute to the discussion and I notified you on a number of occasions. The RfC has now closed and as a result an inaccurate lede remains in the lede. This can only be interpreted as being disingenuous on your behalf.-AMomen88 (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you blaming me for your failure? Don't stress about the lede. That can be addressed at some point in the future. You cannot force me to join the RfC. Good faith on your part has always been inconsistent. Besides, I don't have the time. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's editing policy encourages you to be bold, especially when making changes that you believe are uncontroversial. If you are reverted, however, then you can no longer assume your edit is uncontroversial. If you still believe your edit is an improvement, the normal next step is to discuss the matter with the editor who reverted you. This is the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD). Using an edit summary while reverting again is not discussion, it is talking without listening. It is edit warring, and is unhelpful. (There is a bold, revert, revert variation of BRD, but it is not appropriate to use it if you disagree with the reason you were reverted or don't understand it. It is to be used when the first revert was plainly an accident.)

Your edit summary, "the person does not deserve an inline attribution. the citation is sufficient", for this edit, indicates that you do not understand the purpose of inline attribution versus citation. Citations are used so that readers can check sources against Wikipedia's text. Inline attribution is part of maintaining a neutral point of view. It alerts readers that something is an opinion, not a fact, and makes it clear whose viewpoint it is. It is not some kind of reward for a deserving scholar. Economist Indrajit Ray's estimate is an opinion. As a matter of policy, Wikipedia must not state his opinion in Wikipedia's voice. Do you understand now why your edit must be reverted?

You have in the past bemoaned a perceived lack of support from editors like me (experienced, I assume you mean). When I see an editor headed the wrong direction, I do my best to steer them back towards improving Wikipedia, which I assume is their goal. Whether you accept that guidance or not is up to you. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When someone lays out mathematical figures, it is not an opinion but a fact. I think that's my simple answer to this. I do not have time for an edit war. But if necessary I will debate with you further on this in the future. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing Baul image without consensus. Also no where is it claimed that it ios Laoln Shah' it is stated that the Baul is a disciple of Lalon Shah and Baul music is popular in that region. Please stop removing it based on your apparent mnan hating nature and show true equality to both women nd men, WP:EW but you seem to have an aggressive behavior with that issue but I will try to protect the article from you. Seek a proper consensus from other editors if you want to change it and if you cointinue this disruptive editing you will be reported. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second warning please stop the disruptive removal of Baul images based without consensus or you will be reported after the third warn. Dilbaggg (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually while reviewing your history of warns and disruptive editing, I don't think a third warn will be necessary for report next time you remove the Baul image without proper consensus, check WP:RfC. Dilbaggg (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, keep your Baul image. Don't be disruptive and remove everything else. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tank you gor your cooperation. Yes adding and removing images require oroper consensus. Also we must be gender WP:Neutral when representing culture. Best wishes and thank you for your amazing contribution. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bangladesh, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages BRAC and Al-Shams.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Sheikh Mujibur Rahman into Bangladesh. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce, this is not a "copyright problem". To say so would be trivializing. But I take note of what you said regarding edit summaries. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Solomon The Magnifico!

I noticed that you recently edited the Bangladesh page on Wikipedia. I am writing to seek clarification regarding the removal of my previous edits related to the "1971 Bangladesh genocide"(where I added follow up text to make it more speceifc and comprehensible). While I appreciate the addition of new information that you made, but I would like to understand the reason behind the removal of my edit.

Could you please specify if my previous edit violated any Wikipedia policies or guidelines? As far as I am aware, my edit was based on verifiable sources and aimed at providing more specific and comprehensible information. I also made sure that my edit was not part of any ongoing disputes or controversial issues.

If there were any valid reasons for removing my edits, I would appreciate it if you could share them with me. In case there were no valid reasons and the removal was based on personal preference, If I do not receive a response from you, I plan to re-edit the page and include my information. Although I would not revert your edit.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Thecybergulf (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thecybergulf Are you referring to the mention of the Al-Badr militia? While it is true that the Al-Badr played a key role in the massacre of intellectuals in the final days of the war, the Pakistani junta bore primary responsibility for what happened. While I fully appreciate, support and understand where you are coming from with this edit, I do not think the lede has to mention only the Al-Badr. There were three militias in 1971: Razakars, Al-Badr and Al-Shams. Each militia played key roles in support of junta forces. The Al-Badr's role was to identify targets, guide West Pakistani troops to the houses of those targets, and assist in catching those targets who were summarily executed by junta soldiers. Killings were primarily and largely carried by junta troops, with the support of auxiliary local guides and interpreters from the militias. Hence, mentioning just the Al-Badr comes off as a tad bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I only mentioned Al-Badr and Pakistani Army because they had a prominent role in this after reading the massacre page. Well thank you for correcting me. I guess you should have added all three militia group instead of reverting my edit. So whats next? adding all four of them? Thecybergulf (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NEUTRALITY, its best to not apportion blame in the lede and make the lede contentious. If one goes to the actual Bangladesh genocide page or even scroll down to the atrocities section in the Bangladesh section, the perpetrators are clearly mentioned. I'm sorry but I do think mentioning all four comes of as convoluted. The lede is convoluted enough. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

okay Thecybergulf (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bengal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Human development.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed you have removed some information from the article Bangladesh without any adequate reasoning. I reverted it back because your reason was insufficient. Imamul Ifaz (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Imamul Ifaz Your edits have made the intro excessively long. You removed the term Indo-Pacific, despite the source referring to the Indo-Pacific. Plus, why are you interested in mentioning paramilitary forces? It's very unusual for a lede of a country-specific article to focus on its paramilitary forces. Frankly, to me its pointless. If you are going to make the intro excessively long, I rather make it more short. Otherwise, it defeats the purpose. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I understand that you think the intro is excessively long, and that you're not sure why I mentioned the paramilitary forces.

I agree that the intro could be shorter, and I've made some changes to make it more concise. It is for giving the readers basic understanding about the article.

In world politics Bangladesh is a middle-power , you can find that in the article linked with the term.

As for the paramilitary forces, I thought it was important to mention them because they play a significant role in Bangladesh. They're responsible for a variety of tasks, including border security, counter-terrorism, and disaster relief. I believe that understanding the role of the paramilitary forces is essential to understanding Bangladesh as a country.

I hope this is helpful. Please let me know if you have any other feedback.

Thanks Imamul Ifaz (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]