User talk:Abazizfahad

2023 SAFF Championship

You have to stop your revert editing : the rules of Wikipedia are simple [[2023 SAFF Championship: Revision history Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking Pindrice (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Apparently you're not used to rules of Wikipedia : read it ! Pindrice (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

One more reverting from you and I will report you to the administrators Pindrice (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

This page 2023 SAFF Championship do not belong to you : others editors have the right to edit it according to the rules. Stop immediatly you behaviour. It is the first and final warning Pindrice (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pindrice An editor was removing the link for no reason so I reverted to the old version. And you can show me any proof that I did it for no reason. Instead, I used this tool to remove destructive edits from IP addresses Abazizfahad (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pindrice see this Abazizfahad (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

When the link is already present one time in the page, there is absolutely no reason to repeat the links dozens of time ! Pindrice (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Read the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking : Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article; e.g. |work=The Guardian. Pindrice (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

it doesn't help the reader at all to have it repeated dozens of time, one time in enough Pindrice (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pindrice Then remove links from other articles related to football competitions! For example: - 2022 World Cup! Abazizfahad (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Or you can learn to follow the rules ! Pindrice (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, stop putting the row of India in two lines in the qualified team sectio this is highly unesthetic Pindrice (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pindrice You probably haven't seen the Pot of Draw event. The pot was arranged according to the ranking at the draw ceremony so despite India being the host nation they were placed second. However, in other competitions, the host country is placed first in Pot1. Abazizfahad (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pindrice See this Abazizfahad (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Abazizfahad What it has to do with what I just have said ? I talk about the "Participating nations" section and you talk about the draw, what is the connection ? Pindrice (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pindrice sorry! Such a big line looks very ugly Abazizfahad (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pindrice now? Abazizfahad (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Revert, undo, unreliable source

Can you explain this edit ? When one editor asked told you that soccerway is not relaible per wikipedia, then why are you adding the same link again and again? You added the ESPN links which is very much ok, why do you need to remove the links again and re-add the soccerway link? I kind of agree with @Pindrice:, it seems you don't care about guidelines at all seeing your edit patterns. Drat8sub (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Drat8sub First, tell me why you added Google as a source here? And I added ESPN and cut it because their points table was a little wrong in Group B. And I really didn't know why Soccerway couldn't be used as a source. Abazizfahad (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Drat8sub When I added again and again! Only added once. Abazizfahad (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

First, when I added google as source it was backed by another source, AIFF, where all match reports are stacked. Secondly, google match centre is not unreliable. Third, Soccerway is unreliable per consensus in wikipedia, so if an editor demands to remove or removes unreliable sources then you should not revert, undo their edits, it will not be taken in good faith. Finally, you must add edit summary, I have already mentioned why I have removed soccerway already, so care to read. Yes you did add soccerway multiple times, once while creating, and twice even after flagged as unreliable. Drat8sub (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

28 June 2023

Hello, I'm Drat8sub. I noticed that you recently removed content from 2023 SAFF Championship without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. 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. Thanks.

Not a single edit by you have a summary, not a single undo/revert have an explanation why you are do so. If you have a confusion of an edit which is explained in edit summary, rather then removing/reverting/undoing, open a topic for discussion at article talk page. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

Please stop. If you continue to assume ownership of articles, as you did at 2023 Israel–Hamas war protests, you may be blocked from editing. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy.I'm going to give you a warning here because you're not acting in good faith and have tried many times to ram your POV into the infobox images. For example, here, you tried to surreptitiously change the infobox to THREE pro-Palestine photos rather than a balance as had been discussed previously. It's clear you're not editing in good faith. Veggies (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Veggies These purported allegations have no factual basis. I think you feel like an administrator even though you are a normal user. Abazizfahad (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention placing horribly bad faith assumptions on other users when I tried to get them to go back to mediation on the talk page after a month of inactivity. Borgenland (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

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) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Veggies (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Israel-Hamas War Pics

I don’t have complains about the aesthetics of the photos you’re involved with. But just because it was there first when the article was created doesn’t guarantee it should permanently be there. And anyone who insists otherwise is opening themselves to WP:OWN violations. Plus, there is already a continental disbalance with your latest edit (2 Asian photos already) and finally this is not solely about pro-Palestinian protests as the flow of the article goes that is why some editors (myself included) split Palestine and Israel photos into 2 images of arrangement of sizes not because of POV but to avoid further perceptions of NPOV (which is already marked in the heading). Borgenland (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Borgenland When I attached the photo to Imagebox, no other photos I took were attached here. Then another person added another photo taken by me in the Bangladesh section. At that time, there were no protest pictures except those from the United States and Europe. There were even several pictures of New York. This photo of mine is the first Asian photo to be added to the article. You can view the edit history in the shell. Abazizfahad (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It’s not the issue of which came first but how this article could reflect things better. Based on the characteristics of your photos I believe yours looks better as a standalone. Maybe it is better to transfer your pic to the Bangladesh section to make way for a globally representative pic in the infobox as you have called for in the talk page before. Borgenland (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

And to assure you that I am acting in good faith, I am a fellow Asian as you can see in my user page. Borgenland (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Veggies (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)