Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Imamul Ifaz, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Learn from others
• Be kind to others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us a bit about yourself
• Our great guide to Wikipedia

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the Help desk, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing four tildes (~~~~); our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. We're so glad you're here! Meatsgains^(talk) 01:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm FDW777. Your recent edit(s) to the page List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Imamul Ifaz, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Imamul H. Ifaz (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Imamul Ifaz! Your additions to Sheikh Hasina have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dhaka, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gulshan, Tejgaon and Mirpur. 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, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ferdous Ahmed, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Producer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm David Gerard. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Please review WP:RS and WP:V before continuing to attempt to edit-war WP:GUNREL sources into the encyclopedia. David Gerard (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what is an acceptable source then? Imamul Ifaz (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And IMDB (which you spread copiously over Ferdous Ahmed) is NOT an acceptable source. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

give the link of a website where i can take sources of an actors filmography and cite them. else im putting my citations back in. Imamul Ifaz (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ridley Jones, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. You cannot use these bad sources in a Wikipedia article. Please stop deliberately reinserting bad sources into Wikipedia articles. You have been warned by multiple editors over your sourcing practices. David Gerard (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

give the website names of the reliable sources then. else I'll carry on. you are no one to resist from editing Imamul Ifaz (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSP. Did you read through WP:RS and WP:V as yet? These are basic things for any editor. Competence is required - you need to be able to distinguish bad sources from good ones in a Wikipedia context - David Gerard (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've read them and found no errors. You are misleading me and trying to shift the topic. Imamul Ifaz (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are failing to have competence in estimating sourcing for Wikipedia. Again: multiple editors are suggesting to you that you change your approach - I see that yet another editor has reverted your edit-warring on this basis. Please consider that perhaps it's you - David Gerard (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Sheikh Hasina. As this is a controversial article, there was a consensus to retain a status-quo version in the article's intro unless there is a consensus to change it. Please refer to the article's talkpage to see the discussion. Nomian (talk) 06:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no guidelines in wikipedia to refrain editors from Editing controversial persons. It's the personal matter of the person or other individials. If you think I have put misinformation or edited based on hoax then you can change it with citing reference and adequete source. Thank you Imamul Ifaz (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no harm in editing controversial articles but you are writing the article from your biased point of view with unreliable sources which is against our policies. Please discuss your proposed changes in the talk page to achieve a consensus before changing the status quo. Since several other editors have pointed out your disruptive behavior, I think it would be best for you to listen to the cautions before engaging in another edit war. Nomian (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I hope you don't mind for me to also remove stuffs with unreliable source Imamul Ifaz (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Sheikh Hasina 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Bangladesh 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.
You also appear unable to constructively use talk pages. I have explained this in the ANI report. —Alalch E. 13:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not edit war, it is more of the content dispute. You are other users constantly harrasing me to remove my highly researched informations from the lead section. I have already reported this to the noticeboard. They said it should be resolved in the article's talk page. I would like you to not involve in this because basically you are biased towards other users without any proof. We don't need you to resolve this. Imamul Ifaz (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep reinstating your change unilaterally, you will be blocked. You should discuss your disputed edits on the talk page, but you have proven incapable of using talk pages, as I have explained here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Imamul Ifaz trying to evade scrutiny and bypass discussion by superficially emulating other editors + uses ChatGPT. This means that you should probably not edit Wikipedia at all, because Wikipedia:Competence is required, and you do not have it. Perhaps try at some other time. —Alalch E. 15:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:Wikihounding won't work against me. You and your mates should be more concise about the changes you make to a page, rather than arguing using a single reason. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard have already told that it's a dispute to be talked over in the article's talk page. Maybe you will be blocked from wikipedia for bulling and harrassing other users without any proof. I will soon revert it because you seem to have no reason to defend your point rather than just ranthing about my past mistakes and talking irrelevant. Imamul Ifaz (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2023 (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 Sheikh Hasina, 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. Take particular note of WP:NORESVAND. Accusing a fellow editor in good standing of vandalism, instead of assuming good faith, can be construed as a personal attack. Making personal attacks can get you blocked.
Also be aware that there was recently a six month long battle over the lead of this article. All three of the main participants: AMomen88, A.Musketeer, and LucrativeOffer ended up indefinitely blocked or topic banned. I encourage you to review the article's talk page and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1124#Editing against consensus at Sheikh Hasina. If you think there should be extensive changes to the lead, consider how to build consensus for the change you want to make. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, the person claims I was claiming my informations on the article with unreliable sources. So I would also like to help to remove infos with unreliable sources. Thanks for your concern Imamul Ifaz (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Alalch E. 17:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Imamul Ifaz: Did you see this yet? QuicoleJR (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew from it as I didn't change anything after this. I didn't want be involved in a Edit war. This has nothing to do with current situation. I believe you have been involved in Edit wars before. You do not have a clean history either. Imamul Ifaz (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Bangladesh) for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. 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 at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your email address from your user page, since it's not usually a good idea to make public that sort of thing. I see you have email enabled on your account, which is a much more secure way of doing it. If you really want to have your email on your userpage I won't stop you, but I thought I would let you know why I removed it in the first place. Primefac (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Casemiro seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 12:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Sheikh Hasina, you may be blocked from editing. You are again editing against consensus to add your POV to the article. Please pay heed to the suggestions given by several editors here. Nomian (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

im going to report you, what did i even add that violates wikipedia policy, all i added was her international achivements. Im going to report you for falsely accusing, if you don't apologize. Imamul Ifaz (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've undone your changes to the lead section of Jude Bellingham and thought I should explain why. The lead section is supposed to summarise the main aspects of the article, and shouldn't contain anything that isn't already covered and reliably sourced elsewhere in the article. For that reason, it shouldn't need to contain citations, except for "exceptional claims", which is why the youngest Birmingham player thing had a reference to the source defined later on in the article.

The most expensive English player in La Liga seems too trivial to go in the lead: please feel free to add it somewhere appropriate in the body of the article if you think it's important enough. The bit about known for athleticism etc also doesn't appear in the body, and would need serious sourcing.

Not sure why you'd want to move his Bundesliga PotY out of the club-related paragraph and into the national team one. But the main issue there is the strange citation you added, to a book published in 1972 documenting a match-fixing scandal of 1970/71, which can't possibly have anything to do with a 2023 award. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion. Theroadislong (talk) 10:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added source Imamul Ifaz (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You repeated the claim that "most people" in "the world" blamed Israel without even attempting to find a source for that extremely provocative claim.[1] Consider this your final warning. -- Veggies (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced. Check the references which clearly proves my words. And warning an user without proper validation is against Wikipedia's Policy . I hope you don't repeat that.

• WP:HOUND
  • WP:NPLT

Imamul Ifaz (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the sources before I removed the claim. Nowhere did it say that most people in the world blamed Israel. You've been warned. -- Veggies (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has generally been unable to learn from the warnings they've received. See this ANI discussion for some history. —Alalch E. 03:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you here to Wikihound @Alalch E.? Imamul Ifaz (talk) 12:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. I appreciate that you haven't repeated the disputed edit, but I really think it would be good for everyone if you would not respond to concerns from editors like you did here, and have been doing in the past. There's no reason to take these messages so negatively. We're all on the same team. —Alalch E. 13:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Economy of Dhaka, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited BCIC College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bengali.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Umayyad Caliphate, you may be blocked from editing. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at BCIC College. Your edits are egregiously promotional. Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 30 December 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 User:Imamul Ifaz. Thank you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imamul Ifaz (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imamul Ifaz (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]