User talk:LucrativeOffer

Continued discussion on Bangladesh protests article

Wanted to continue our discussion here before I edit the 2021 Bangladesh anti-Modi protests article again. You claim that the Al Jazeera report (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/3/28/violent-protests-spread-in-bangladesh-after-modi-visit) mentions attack on mosques, yet I cannot find a single mention of mosques in this entire article! In fact, look at what the SECOND sentence in the entire article is: "Protesters also on Sunday reportedly attacked Hindu temples and a train in eastern Bangladesh." How can you claim that it's not significant enough when there is more mention of Hindu temples than mosques, even by the pro-Muslim website Al Jazeera? If you cannot find me hard evidence of attacks on mosques, I will re-instate my edits. Shivj80 (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reaching out. Please read these reports: [1], [2], that details the attacks on Baitul Mukarram mosque, there are lots of pictures in the internet showing the mosque burning. Then further rounds of attacks were made on mosques/madrassas in different districts in Bangladesh, [3], killing several madrassa students. LucrativeOffer (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LucrativeOffer I think you misunderstand my point. The articles that you have linked me show clashes occurring around the Baitul Mukarram mosque, but there is no evidence that the mosque has been damaged or vandalized or that people expressly attacked the mosque. You say the pictures show the mosque burning, but in fact they only show fires occurring around the mosque and near the police barricades. Also, the article you have linked me about the deaths of madrassa students do not mention madrassas being attacked at all, they only mention madrassa students being attacked. That is a key difference. With the Hindu temples, multiple reports suggest that it was the temples themselves that were attacked and vandalized. That is why I think it is important to note them. Mosques were not expressly attacked and damaged, while Hindu temples were. I hope you understand where I'm coming from now. Shivj80 (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm Freemesm. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to 2013 Operation at Motijheel Shapla Chattar because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! FreemesM ^(talk) 04:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have no intentions to make nonconstructive edits to the article, I tried to neutralize the tone of the article. I think you should read the Wikipedia policies about Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch.

Better you read those policies. Please don't engage in wp:editwar.--FreemesM ^(talk) 07:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's you who is initiating an edit war, introducing words like extremest,fundamentalist etc are far from having a neutral tone. Please read the policies carefully.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 2013 Operation at Motijheel Shapla Chattar, you may be blocked from editing. All the word, which you found 'controversial' in this article, are properly cited. FreemesM ^(talk) 11:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your biased editing with political agenda.

Hi can you write anything here?[4] thanksBigidilijak (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

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:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
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) 12:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at 2013 Operation at Motijheel Shapla Chattar. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Bbb23, I'm sorry that I edit warred in that article but I just couldn't tolerate the amount of biased texts in it. Now, I promise I won't edit war and you see I am even discussing the issue in the talk page. Please give me a chance and unblock me. Please trust me, from now on I'll never edit war and discuss in the talk page. Please give me another chance. Bbb23 and EdJohnston, please accept my request.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline, block has already expired. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:16, 28 May 2014 (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.

thanks, remember to sign

Hi User:LucrativeOffer, how are you? I am Bijidalajik. Do you remember me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.186.199 (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism at Bangladesh-India relations

Why did you revert my contributions to the page? You didn't give an explanation. If you cannot give an explanation, you cannot revert and I will be within my rights to restore my edits. 183.83.146.194 (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence you wrote "it has generally been noted that the ties between the two countries remain friendly, with increasing cooperation in a number of fields" is already noted in the second para of the lead, you do not need to repeat that. LucrativeOffer (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand that but there is no need to revert the neutralization of wording in the last para; only some Bangladeshis have seen a rise in anti-India sentiments, not all, and the anti-Modi protests, while significant, were by no means "massive" for a country like Bangladesh. 183.83.146.194 (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are adding your own opinions by saying "among some segments", the sources do not talk about any specific segments. Please stop doing that or I will have to report you. LucrativeOffer (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit warring at Bakarkhani

The RfC resulted in no consensus thus any new edits contrary to the version at the time (concerning the disputed info) when RfC was started is WP:DE.

You are supposed to dispute revert on talk page than sticking to edit warring. The edits you are restoring are defective anyway. NavjotSR (talk) 05:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, stop edit-warring as your edit has no consensus. LucrativeOffer (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Care to describe how there is "no consensus" for the version that is being restored against your POV pushing? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Care to show where you established consensus for the POV version that you are restoring? LucrativeOffer (talk) 05:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Counter questioning will not help you in your edit warring and WP:STONEWALLING. The talk page discussion is clear enough why statusquo should be maintained. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DS Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice ANEW

Notifying that I have just reported your endless edit warring on WP:ANEW#Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:LucrativeOffer_reported_by_User:Aman.kumar.goel_(Result:_). Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Bakarkhani. 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:38, 23 November 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]

Inquiry in regard to the edits made on the Bangladesh Chhatra League page

Dear, @LucrativeOffer it has come to my attention that you have reverted a well sourced paragraph on the Bangladesh Chhatra League page. I have also noticed that you have made many contributions to the page that hampers the neutrality of the page. Can you please explain these edits? And also, can you inform me why have you removed the paragraph mentioned above? বাসিরুল বিল্লাহ (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi বাসিরুল বিল্লাহ, I have to revert your edit because section blanking without proper explanation is a form of disruptive edit which must be reverted. LucrativeOffer (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, I did explain why the section was removed. বাসিরুল বিল্লাহ (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved

Sheikh Hasina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please respond to this edit warring report here A.Musketeer (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LucrativeOffer. In case you didn't receive the ping, notice that you were mentioned at this edit warring complaint. You are risking a block if you revert the article again without getting support from others on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

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.-AMomen88 (talk) 02:11, 16 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) 00:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

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]

August 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Delwar Hossain Sayeedi. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:03, 15 August 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]