User talk:Salekin.sami36

January 2024

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)[reply]

@Shaan Sengupta What's the reason of removing or archiving the on going discussion and the last the discussion was updated just 10 days ago so why are you so keen to archiving the section? The page's neutrality is disputed and the issues many users have raised haven't been solved yet. So the discussion that's being removed or archived is relavant and the visitors. Your attempt on removing/archiving the talk section and threatening me to lose my Wikipedia privileges has made me question your motive? Covering on your tracks perhaps? Salekin.sami36 (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::@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)[reply]

@Shaan Sengupta

Talk page is used for improving the Wikipedia article by discussion among the users(If I'm wrong correct me). In this case users have raised multiple issues regarding the article, some of which are edited by you, interestingly. These issues haven't been solved yet and the talk section you removed was one of the two threads that discussed about the dispute. Also Just because a bot removed it doesn't mean it's not still relavant to the article. The thread is just 20 days old so it's not effectively closed. refer help:Archiveing talk page for more info. So as the dispute remains it is unnatural to remove that section of talk page. Thank you for understanding. Salekin.sami36 (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::::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)[reply]

Yes, the particular edit you're talking about is the most disputed one. Also, why are you so keen on archiving the thread? Salekin.sami36 (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~::::::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)~~[reply]

@Salekin.sami36 Shaan has been waging a war against Bangladeshi editors and pushing their hindutva ideas into everywhere. Don't worry, these are empty threats that has been made before and you aren't the first or the last editor to get threatened by the BJP IT Cells. 119.30.41.219 (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Shaan Sengupta I extended the Archival period to keep relavant thread of RFC in talk page for ease of access. You failed to mention the reason, your problem with extending the Archival period. Also, I disagree that you showed me any evidence that admin have asked the same that we shouldn't extend archival period, please refer me to the para. About the "Experienced or Inexperienced should only edit that.." part can you please provide me link to text or conversation so that I've clear understanding?

You've reverted my edit so there's a part you didn't liked about my edit, Let's work on that by stating things clearly and precisely and asking each other to try reach an agreement.

What's your Objection about the edit? Why my extending of archival period disrupts the page?

Please answer this. Also please write in the new thread because it totally different topic. Salekin.sami36 (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of Extending Archival Period(moving cuz this being entirely different topic)

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)[reply]

Shaan Sengupta I extended the Archival period to keep relavant thread of RFC in talk page for ease of access. You failed to mention the reason, your problem with extending the Archival period. Also, I disagree that you showed me any evidence that admin have asked the same that we shouldn't extend archival period, please refer me to the para. About the "Experienced or Inexperienced should only edit that.." part can you please provide me link to text or conversation so that I've clear understanding?

You've reverted my edit so there's a part you didn't liked about my edit, Let's work on that by stating things clearly and precisely and asking each other to try reach an agreement.

What's your Objection about the edit? Why my extending of archival period disrupts the page?

Please answer this. Salekin.sami36 (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::@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.

Also please read his first, third and fourth point (link can be found above) in reply where he says that these things should not be done by people involved. You can put a link to that discussion so that closer can read that. Why are you bent on unnecessarily extending the page length when 75000 is the suggested limit. ShaanSengupta^Talk 01:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaan Sengupta So If I getting it right your objection with extending the period is mostly for technical reasons (75kb). Reverting is done when the edit impacts negatively on the page, however I'm you've still not cleared how keeping the relavant thread of RfC impacts negatively on the whole page.

Answer to your question: I'm extending the archival period to keep relavant threads of RfC on the talk page. Which I've said earlier multiple times.
Adaptation is needed because one user has already expressed concern about archival period where you were involved whuch shared by me. Also I refered a disagreement over archival period where you were involved. An admin settled it to 90 days. This page is closely related and very similar to the closed case.
If you've any objections to extension other than technical issues please state. so that we can work on that.

Salekin.sami36 (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for commenting here, but I noticed that Help:Archiving a talk page (which Shaan Sengupta referenced) states that 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)[reply]

this may be a reason to keep any of the nearby sections. – robertsky (talk) 06:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::::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)[reply]

Thanks for your edits at Rape During The Bangladesh Liberation War!

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)[reply]

Ahh it's just sad to see your edits has since been reverted 88.239.17.21 (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you for your fight for right cause.

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)[reply]

IP Ranged Blocked!:(

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Salekin.sami36 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've been IP ranged blocked. My home Wi-Fi ISP unfortunately uses shared IP. I've seen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 reason:

It seems unlikely you're the person the block is aimed at so I'll grant you an IP block exemption. Please read the information below carefully. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP block exempt

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions. Inappropriate usage of this user right may result in revocation. I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will continue following Wikipedia rules as I always have. Salekin.sami36 (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]