User talk:Imamul Ifaz

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, 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

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

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

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

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]