User talk:Worldbruce/Archive 8

Bengal famine

For my part, it eats at me to say to someone that I'll do something and then not do it, and our mutual friend has tried for years to get this article to Featured. Do you still want to go through the source-check and then take the article back to FAC after any required fixes are made? I've had some practice at this now, at Talk:HIAG. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Gary. R. Stevenson

Hello Worldbruce! I saw your note about not having a reliable source for a change to an article on Gary R. Stevenson. My source is the subject of the article - how do I provide that as a reliable source? Is there a different process or form for updating a page for an individual based on the individual's actual input? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbacon26 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sbacon26: The short answer is that Gary R. Stevenson is not an acceptable source for when he was born (strange but true, read on). Also he and people closely connected to him should not edit the Wikipedia article about him. The long answer is a lot longer, so grab some popcorn and get comfortable.

Any editor who has a close connection to Gary R. Stevenson (such as being him; a member of his family; a close friend; an employee, colleague, or client; doing work, even unpaid, for an organization that might have an interest in promoting him, etc.) is expected to dislose that connection in order to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. If you learned Stevenson's year of birth from him, you almost certainly have a close enough connection that you need to disclose. The disclosure needn't be super-specific, you do not need to reveal your real name or job title, for example, but you may be required to disclose your employer, depending on the nature of the connection.

After you have declared any connection, you will be free to suggest changes to the article. You still shouldn't edit the article directly, however, with a very few exceptions. If someone edited the article to be defamatory (such as by falsely saying he's been convicted of a crime) or to call him an obscene name, you could remove those additions. Other than such obvious cases of blatant lies or vandalism, subjects of Wikipedia articles have very little control over what Wikipedia says about him.

Everything added to Wikipedia must be supported by a published source. If Stevenson tells you his year of birth, or emails it to you, or shows you his driver's license, that's not acceptable because it isn't published in the sense that a newspaper, magazine, book, or TV broadcast is. A reader can't go to a library and examine a public copy to see if it really says what you say it does.

Bloomberg (a published source), says he was 59 as of December 15, 2016. If that's true, he was born between December 16, 1956 and December 15, 1957. A source like Bloomberg can be wrong, but there is no evidence that it is. So Wikipedia says he was born in 1956 or 1957. It is verifiable, and is correct even if your assertion about a more precise date of birth is true. If you can get a published reliable source, especially one that is also independent and secondary, to state that he was born in 1956, I would be happy to modify the Wikipedia article accordingly.

In addition to the links in the above text, you may find the following informative:

• Wikipedia:About you
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
• Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing

Finally, when you add content to talk pages (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Removed signature

Hi, Worldbruce, I've removed your signature from Talk:M Sayed Hossain. By the way, you moved Mohammed Younus to draftspace. But it is under construction, I mentioned it in the top by using a template. Thanks. Troyol (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You have made a mistake!

Hi WorldBruce, I'm HmmOily and you have made a mistake when reverting my edit on Bangladesh. It is true that [[Provisional Government of Bangladesh was formed on 10 April, 1971, not 17 April, 1971. You can see on that page so I can say I added a true information. Please let me now. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HmmOily (talk • contribs) 14:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Sena dynasty Origin

hey, I edited sena dynasty and provided sources as requested by you. please do a check and give a review. thanks Nobita456 (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nobita456: I'm sure the paragraph can be improved from where I left it, but your edits don't do that. They aren't even grammatically correct English. I suggest you revert yourself before someone does it for you. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Worldbruce please point out the grammatical errors. I would really appreciate that. I removed a raj era source and an unsourced line and replaced that with a WP:RS source.Nobita456 (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nobita456: With respect to grammar:

• "The founder of Sena dynasty Samanthasena, described as migrant Brahmaksatriya from Karnata" is a sentence fragment. It has no verb. It is also missing articles ("the", "a"). If you're trying to say what I think you're trying to say, it's also missing a comma after "dynasty" because his name is a parenthetical element.
• "The epithet ' Brahma-Kshatriya ' suggests that Senas were Brahmins by Caste and taken the profession of arms and became Kshatriyas" uses the wrong tense. "Taken" is a past participle. What the sentence needs is the simple past tense "took" or the pluperfect "had taken". I'm not a grammar teacher, so I can't tell you the name of the rule, but having two dependent clauses at the end, each joined by the conjunction "and" sounds terrible. Furthermore, you seem to be trying to say that there is a causal relationship between becoming warriors and becoming Kshatriyas, so a causal conjunction is called for to make that clear. There is no reason to capitalize "caste". There is no reason for extra spacing around "Brahma-Kshatriya".
• "Also the Sena kings were probably Baidyas, according historian to P.N. Chopra" starts with a conjunctive adverb. Because "also" modifies the verb "were", it would normally be written next to it. Starting the sentence with it jars the reader and makes the writer sound disorganized. That might be fine in speech or in creative writing, but Wikipedia aims for a direct, formal tone that conveys information clearly without surprising the reader. If one does start a sentence with a conjunctive adverb, then a comma is needed after it. Finally, the word order in the last clause is jumbled so that it makes no sense.

Leaving aside the grammatical errors you've introduced:

• You've returned the second sentence to a very close paraphrase of Allan, Haig, and Dodwell (1934), which says, "The epithet 'Brlhma-Kshatriya' suggests that Samantasena was a Brahman who had taken to the profession of arms." Try to put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase.
• The second sentence contains opinion ("suggests"), but you've removed inline attribution of that opinion, instead stating it in Wikipedia's voice.
• You removed Allan, Haig, and Dodwell (1934) as a source on the grounds of WP:RAJ. Allan is a Raj-era source, though from relatively late in that period. And the essay, though it doesn't carry the weight of a policy or guideline, does raise important issues. I agree that we should be cautious with Allan, though for the simple reason that WP:AGE MATTERS. Whether an old source is acceptable depends on whether more recent scholarship has a new viewpoint. It is inconsistent of you to argue that Allan should not be cited, and yet to write almost verbatim what Allan wrote. If he was so wrong about caste that he must not be cited, then we shouldn't be saying the same thing about caste that he did. Maybe we shouldn't be saying anything at all about caste.

I assume that English is not your first language. There are millions of ways of improving the encyclopedia. Some require greater mastery of English than others. If you wish to be a successful editor, don't try to rewrite sections of well established and actively maintained articles, particularly controversial sections like origins (as you can see from Talk:Sena dynasty), and topics, like caste, that are under sanctions. Contribute in ways that don't depend so heavily on fluency in English. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• Tweaked it a little,please check it out and thanks for your guidance.Nobita456 (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Banglapedia

please see this Nobita456 (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nobita456: What about that? Like I and others said there, Banglapedia is a reliable source. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh

here. Definitely giggled. Star Mississippi 15:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Omission of reserved seats on Bangladesh general election articles

Hi Worldbruce,

A few days ago I amended the infobox and results table of 2018 Bangladeshi general election to include reserved seats for women. It appears that the reserved seats for women have been omitted on every Bangladeshi general election article. It would be very helpful if you used your expertise to assist in correcting this. I think it would be appropriate to have an election box similar to this one on the 2018 Pakistani elections which includes a space for reserved seats. There may also be merit in inquiring with the author of election map attached on the infobox of that page as it includes reserved seats which would better display the results of the Bangladeshi election.

Kind regards,–AMomen88 (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Tagging pages for speedy deletion

Hello, Worldbruce,

If you are going to be tagging more pages for speedy deletion, please, in the "sockpuppet" field, put the name of the sockmaster, in this case User:Mostly shoaib, not the name of the sockpuppet. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Review

If possible please review Khandaker Abdullah Jahangir (from their contribution, i'm quite sure it was created by a sock of User:Lazy-restless). I'm letting you know because you previously opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khandaker Abdullah Jahangir. Thanks. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Yuk! Wading through that is going to be unpleasant. I'm already working on a bunch of different things, and will become significantly busier in real life next week, but will do what I can. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

If pssible, please reivew Draft:Asad Noor. I am quite sure it was created by the person himself. IMO, most of sources aren't from third party (they are just some press release). --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Criminal (1990 film)

I think what you meant to say is that Wikipedia is not meant to be an indiscriminate listing of all films ever made. It is currently in reality very close to being such, there are very few films we do not have articles on, and thousands of films we have articles on with no reliable sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: The only film articles I follow are those about Bangladeshi films. Wikipedia has articles on perhaps half of those recent films, and far fewer on films more than 20 years old. If your impression of the wider film domain is accurate, then there is much cleanup to be done if Wikipedia is going to hold true to its principles. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

My general sense is that with American films, at least of those made from 1930-1960, Wikipedia probably has articles on over 95% of them, and a good percentage of those articles have IMDb as their only source. It took me way too few clicks to find Bells of San Angelo, a 1947 film sourced only to IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Page 232

Greetings, thanks again for the resource [1]. Just started reading it, and noticed page 232 is missing. Just asking if you still had the book, and whether page 232 contains relevant content? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria: The page between 231 and 233 is completely blank, not even numbered. The editor's style was to start every paper on the right (odd numbered) page, so if the preceding paper finished on an odd page, Rubenson left a blank page before starting the next paper. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your explaining that. @Worldbruce:

Barnstar for you!

		The Guidance Barnstar
		message Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Bakhtiar Khalji

Sir , I beg to differ about Neutrality about the Article on Aforementioned , he killed thousands of Budhhist priests , destroyed University of Nalanda , Burned the precious books , about 9 million in number , that would suffice for calling him a Genocidal Invader. 114.29.227.83 (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Request to review the article

I am expanding Mujib: The Making of a Nation article. But I can't understand if I should put 'this' to that section or not. Also maybe if can have a better idea about the expansion or clean up the article. So I will request you to check the article. Mehedi Abedin 16:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Official language of Bangladesh

Hello! Regarding the latest revision of Bangladesh (till I write this message), I am quite unsure whether to revert or to rearrange the language section of the infobox. English is also an official language along with Bengali in Bangladesh. Can you please have a look? Reagards — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 06:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Meghmollar2017: The infobox should not include the phrase "and national language". Sminthopsis84 gave a good explanation of why at Talk:Bangladesh/Archive 6#"de facto national language".

The cited source (updated url: http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-367/section-24550.html) supports only one official language, Bengali. English is used to varying degrees within education, media, government and the judiciary in Bangladesh, and so has some of the characteristics of an official language. Here's how other encyclopedias deal with it:

• Banglapedia: "In 1972, Bangla became the official language of Bangladesh ... English is mainly a language of communication with the outside world ... The standard of English nationally in Bangladesh is not high, and English is still an urban, elite language."
• The Columbia Encyclopedia: "Bengali is the nation's official language, and English is used in urban centers."
• Countries of the World and Their Leaders Yearbook: "Bengali is the official language of Bangladesh, English is widely spoken and used in official and business circles."
• Encyclopedia Britannica: In summary: "Official Language: Bengali". In body: "Bengali is the mother tongue of almost the entire population of Bangladesh. However, the indigenous minority groups have their own languages ... English ... is spoken in urban centres and among educated groups."
• Political Handbook of the World: "Official Language: Bengali"
• World Press Encyclopedia: "The people are ethnically homogeneous, 98 percent of them speaking Bengali, which is the national language, mandatory in all government offices; English is understood by the elite and serves also as an official language."

Wikipedia shouldn't call English an official language because sources generally don't. The body of Bangladesh should say something like "English is a common second language among urban elites". Languages of Bangladesh can go into greater depth about the fields and contexts in which English is used, and how that has evolved over time. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I see the edit is already reverted. Thanks a lot. :D — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 04:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Jaya Ahsan

On Jaya Ahsan, you reverted an edit of mine, in doing so adding an unsourced birth year. Based on your comments on the talkpage (which i interpreted as you saying that there is no sourced birth year), I'm guessing this was a simple mistake on your part (misread diff?), so I reverted, but figured it would be best to let you know anyway. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Advice

Hello Worldbruce, I have been approached by Md. Mashiur Rahman on my talk page to remove the plagiarism claim from the article. Given BLP consideration, I think it would be better to remove the claim. I am seeking your opinion on removing/keeping the claim. Any thoughts?Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@Vinegarymass911: Thanks for the question. I removed the contentious claim based on my reading of WP:EXCEPTIONAL and the note to WP:BLPPRIMARY. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively. The article in The Daily Star is a reliable source, but if a contentious claim is verifiable and noteworthy, it will appear in *multiple* reliable sources, not just one. I couldn't find another source in English or Bengali that touches on the claim. Worldbruce (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Detective

Per a Google search, numerous directories label it as a 2019 film (e.g. [2], [3]). But also, the article doesn't feature nearly enough sourcing to establish the permanent notability of a film that's still unreleased seven years after its article was first created -- it takes a lot more than just four or five footnotes to bump a film from "film that has to clear WP:NFO by being released and reviewed by professional film critics" to "film that just has to clear WP:NFF on pre-release production coverage" -- so if the directories that label it as a 2019 film are wrong, and the film actually still hasn't been released as of 2022, then the article really should be listed for WP:AFD as not clearing our inclusion standards at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Review

Hi, i noticed a user created many small articles. I have doubts about their notability (as stand-alone article). Anyway, let's say they are notable. Even in that case, instead of creating 3 articles (Sangsadia Nirbachan 1991, Sangsadia Nirbachan 1996, Sangsadia Nirbachan 2001, there should be one article (e.g. Sangsadia Nirbachan Padak). Same with others also and IMO, most of them should be merge into Orders, decorations, and medals of Bangladesh. If you have time, please take a look. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Please give your opinion

A discussion regarding the contentious edits on Sheikh Hasina is ongoing here, you are invited to comment.--AMomen88 (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Stop the veiled bigotry

I distinctly explained my reasons for the reverts in Dhaka. Edits by multiple, longstanding editors are being removed en masse by a notoriously disruptive editor. You are doing nothing about it. Oh wait, you are not even an administrator. Yet you pretend to be one. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion

I got the ping from your ani post. I just want to suggest that you strike "administrator" in your comment; I'm not an admin. Schazjmd (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding vandalism on Helal Uddin Ahmed

Any explanation for me why are you constantly putting the "Controversy" section back? Are you working for any opposition party? Sartaj267 12:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Improving the page of SSMC

Hello! First of all, I want to thank you for developing Bangladesh related pages in Wikipedia.

Sir Salimullah Medical College is a prestigious medical school in Bangladesh. But unfortunately, the quality of the wiki page of this college is very poor. So I think the wiki page needs to be improved, and I couldn’t find anyone better than you for this task. I hope that you’ll find some time and reshape the page of SSMC, and make it a top-quality wikipedia page.

Thank you! Litton123 (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Litton123: The biggest challenge with making an article top-quality is finding enough good, independent, reliable sources. As a start, I've added a few to Talk:Sir Salimullah Medical College. What do you know about the college? Do you have a close connection to it that makes you want to see the article improved?

Several of the article's problems are tagged, so I will eventually clean it up. Not make it top notch, but at least make it follow Wikipedia's guidelines. Of the 18,000 or so articles in the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, however, over 4,500 are tagged for cleanup, so I may not get to this particular topic anytime soon. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind response!

I don't know that much, I'm reading about the higher education institutions of Bangladesh, and found that this page is poorer in quality compared to others. (Like less history, less information etc.)

It's okay if you clean it up later, at least try to make it better than the present condition. Litton123 (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your contribution to theRfC in Talk: Bengalis

Could you please add your comment outside the RfC? I was looking at the case and I don't want to confuse the parties involved with who is actually doing the RfC Chefs-kiss (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Chefs-kiss: Sorry, I didn't realize third opinion was a form of WP:RFC, and didn't know what rules of formatting or etiquette apply. I certainly don't want anyone confused. Please feel free to refactor my talk page comment in any way that you feel improves clarity. And thanks for stepping in to provide a fresh perspective from a cool head. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

No worries. I actually had your same critiques but I wanted to get everyone's opinion! Chefs-kiss (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I have to ammend my comment. It is not an RfC, but it is part of the consensus process of WP. Its mostly that WP: 3O has people take cases and then processing it themselves. I do appreciate your opinion though! Chefs-kiss (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Auld Lang Syne

Hey. I seem to be editing again, though I am a pale sliver of my former gryphon self. I hope again that you can forgive me for bailing out after trying to play rainmaker a couple of years ago. The gray weight on my soul at that time was disturbing my real life. Sorry. § Lingzhi (talk) 08:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Issue on the Bangladesh Army equipment list article

Sorry to bother you, but I think the Bangladesh army really does use the Pindad SS2 assault rifles. Take a look at this photo:[4], you can see a Bangladeshi soldier carrying a SS2 assault rifle (I used a translation tool, there is a possibility of translation errors). From the picture, it can be concluded that the Bangladesh army used the SS2 assault rifles. Abhiseka Nareswara (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Abhiseka Nareswara: Photographs are primary sources. There are numerous difficulties with primary sources. Eric H. Larson, the editor of Camopedia, notes some of the problems:

In conducting research one must always apply careful principles of discrimination to verify that the particular caption or identifying text is accurate ... even military news agencies have been known to make mistakes, and one should always examine the details of a photograph to ensure they do not contradict the identification provided for it. In cases where the national or unit affiliation of combatants in a photograph cannot be verified, the photograph should not be relied upon as a piece of documentation simply based on inexpert hearsay.

... photographs taken of a unit on parade ... indicate only that this unit wore a particular style of camouflage on that specific day; they give no indication whether usage continued before or afterwards with any degree of consistency.[5]

SIPRI, which also uses primary sources, notes that, "Sources often provide only partial information, and substantial disagreement between them is common ... Exercising judgement and making informed cautious estimates are therefore important elements in compiling the SIPRI Arms Transfers Database. "

Wikipedians may use primary sources to make straightforward statements that don't require specialist knowledge, but are not allowed to do the sort of analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and synthesis that secondary sources like SIPRI do, because that would be original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.

Facebook is not a reliable publisher. The unverified Facebook account Defense Technology of Bangladesh is not a reliable author. You may be confident that their image depicts a Bangladesh Army soldier, carrying a Pindad SS2 assault rifle, on a recent day, but that's all interpretation of the photograph, and such original research is forbidden here. A better source – one that is reliable and secondary – must exist. If not, the information doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

• The BTR-70 is a good example of why photographs are often terrible sources. Below are two photos by the same photographer, purportedly of two models of APC taken about six weeks apart. It's really hard to tell them apart, isn't it? Even the crews look identical! Is the one on the left proof that BA currently has 55 BTR-70s in inventory? That's what the article claimed at one time, but no reliable source mentions the BTR-70 in connection with Bangladesh.

• 
  BTR-70 of Bangladesh Army
• 
  BTR-80 of Bangladesh Army

Does the Bangladesh Army use the Pindad SS2 assault rifle? Perhaps they do. I couldn't care less one way or another. My only concern is that the content of Wikipedia be verifiable. Given the absence of reliable secondary sources on the issue, one has to question whether it should matter to the encyclopedia what makes of rifles they use, any more than what brand of soap they use. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a little time to reply my message. I still haven't found a reliable enough source. Abhiseka Nareswara (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Old draft Draft:Theoretical behaviorism

Pretty old but I just wanted to note that the editor is the person who devised the framework (not outing, he says he is and there were recent discussions about it. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Worldbruce. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

〜 Festucalex • talk 16:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: Thanks a million! I won't upload to Commons, of course, but I'll keep the request open and contact a volunteer as you indicated. Thanks again! 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Worldbruce. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Golden ^{call me maybe?} 08:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism in Dhaka article

Deserve this edit definitely strong punishment. Indian editor here [6] 2A0A:A546:C369:0:60:7315:79E5:AB61 (talk) 09:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Bangladesh genocide

Hello, Worldbruce,

I see you moved this article, could you move all of the archived Talk page to the correct page title? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

There is also Gonohotta Memorial Day if you think it should be moved back, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: Thanks for the heads up! From the message boxes the swap script displayed during the move, I thought all the subpages had been moved, but obviously not. I fixed the archived Talk pages manually. Vinegarymass911 moved the national day back to Bangladesh Genocide Remembrance Day.

It sets my antennae aquiver when a four day old account makes 160 edits on 100 pages (including redirects, creating disambiguation pages, page moves, templates, and initiating move requests). We'll see what develops. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Help is global locked

@Worldbruce First of all I apologize for posting a message on your talk page. Because I have no choice without your help. I am currently in global lock due to creating multiple accounts.When I was new to Wikipedia I created multiple accounts without realizing it and unique. Later I was contributing to Bangla Wikipedia as per all policies. But my English Wikipedia account is blocked was I admitted all my early mistakes and asked them to give me a chance on my talk page. But I'm locked globally. Please give me a chance you hope no more mistakes I promise to work according to all principles

@Md Sunnat Ali Mollik 103.138.125.197 (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Removing folk festivals from Bengali Muslims.

why would you remove those edits? Bengali Muslims undoubtedly does follow those festivals. what were you thinking? 2400:2412:44C1:7D00:1877:668F:A031:7060 (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Your editing is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Any edit you make without logging in so as to evading your block will be reverted. You can return to your original account and appeal your block, but the more you try to evade it the less likely it will ever be lifted. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Shumon 169 sock

Hi, it is regarding these edits by the IP sock of User:Shumon 169 here [7]. He keeps on bloating the sections. What should we do? Banrevert again? Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: I haven't studied their behaviour in depth. Even if I had, I probably wouldn't have the perfect answer. Doubtless it will be some combination of reverts, reporting the sock puppetry at WP:SPI, and requesting temporary increases in page protection at WP:RFPP. If you want more eyes on the problem, you could raise it at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)