| Revision as of 18:28, 13 July 2020 editAman.kumar.goel (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers11,806 edits →Your editingTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:00, 14 July 2020 edit undoZa-ari-masen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,724 edits →Your editingNext edit → | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
| :{{u|Aman.kumar.goel}}, it's rather the other way round, Gotitbro has been restoring the nationalist POV changes made by ] and his sock IPs in these articles, essentially replacing Bangladesh with Indian subcontinent as the origin, quite akin to ], just like what happened on ] (I have already told El C about this pattern). All I did was add sources to these unsourced articles and made changes according to the sources. On ], after Utcurch expressed his concern, I added few more sources and again, made changes according to the sources. , , . All these edits were reverted by Gotitbro, claiming Utcursch endorsed his revert. The claim was proven false when I asked Utcursch if he really endorsed that revert, which he denied saying "I have not made any similar edits, so I'm not sure why my name is being used. I don't endorse those edits." This falsely claiming an admin's endorsement to revert another editor is a blatant violation of the ] listed in ]. Gotitbro again removed those sourced content, claiming ] is a "problematic ref".. I opened a discussion at the talk page requesting to explain there before removing the sources. It's been 13 days and no response has been given. ] had also been affected by sock IPs of Highpeaks35. I checked the sources and there were plenty of source misrepresentations which I removed (my edit summaries there already explain this). I went through the history of the article and restored the better sourced version. Same story with ] and ], I added sources and made changes per the sources. If you have doubts over these edits, start discussions in those talk pages and I will explain in detail which source supports which edits along with full quotes. Now let's shed a light on your behaviour. It does appear that you have been ]. Earlier you reverted my edits at ], and ], without any discussion. And now, you are falsely accusing me of nationalist edit warring on articles where Gotitbro has been constantly restoring unsourced POV content. I wouldn't be surprised if I find you ] with Gotitbro to revert my changes without gaining a consensus. In fact, if I go through your contributions, you just appear to be moving from one dispute to another, reverting other editors, assuming bad faith and threatning others to report. Your behavior clearly shows a ] attitude and violations of ] and ], enough to receive a sanction. {{u|El C}}, I hope you are following the discussion. ] (]) 08:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC) | :{{u|Aman.kumar.goel}}, it's rather the other way round, Gotitbro has been restoring the nationalist POV changes made by ] and his sock IPs in these articles, essentially replacing Bangladesh with Indian subcontinent as the origin, quite akin to ], just like what happened on ] (I have already told El C about this pattern). All I did was add sources to these unsourced articles and made changes according to the sources. On ], after Utcurch expressed his concern, I added few more sources and again, made changes according to the sources. , , . All these edits were reverted by Gotitbro, claiming Utcursch endorsed his revert. The claim was proven false when I asked Utcursch if he really endorsed that revert, which he denied saying "I have not made any similar edits, so I'm not sure why my name is being used. I don't endorse those edits." This falsely claiming an admin's endorsement to revert another editor is a blatant violation of the ] listed in ]. Gotitbro again removed those sourced content, claiming ] is a "problematic ref".. I opened a discussion at the talk page requesting to explain there before removing the sources. It's been 13 days and no response has been given. ] had also been affected by sock IPs of Highpeaks35. I checked the sources and there were plenty of source misrepresentations which I removed (my edit summaries there already explain this). I went through the history of the article and restored the better sourced version. Same story with ] and ], I added sources and made changes per the sources. If you have doubts over these edits, start discussions in those talk pages and I will explain in detail which source supports which edits along with full quotes. Now let's shed a light on your behaviour. It does appear that you have been ]. Earlier you reverted my edits at ], and ], without any discussion. And now, you are falsely accusing me of nationalist edit warring on articles where Gotitbro has been constantly restoring unsourced POV content. I wouldn't be surprised if I find you ] with Gotitbro to revert my changes without gaining a consensus. In fact, if I go through your contributions, you just appear to be moving from one dispute to another, reverting other editors, assuming bad faith and threatning others to report. Your behavior clearly shows a ] attitude and violations of ] and ], enough to receive a sanction. {{u|El C}}, I hope you are following the discussion. ] (]) 08:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC) | ||
| ::I can tell that your reply has failed to address the concerns I was raising. Using User:Highpeaks35 and his block as a cover for your own unilateral modifications involving "Bengali" to "Bangladeshi" and removing any mention of India or ] from the infobox as you have done , , , , is simply enough. If a person has taken responsibility of edits made by a blocked user then you should challenge the edit on the basis that are seperate from irrelevant socking issues. All these dishes are consumed in both nations, India and Bangladesh. The use of ] is self-explanatory, it is not a peer reviewed academic article, furthermore, it is a Bangladeshi newspaper, with probable bias, other references for Misti doi clearly stated it is a Bengali dish, not just Bangladeshi. As for ], you inserted "] and ]" in there. Bangladesh was founded in 1971, long after the Pala Empire. The Palas spoke proto-Bengali, not even modern Bengali. {{U|NavjotSR}} explained this on the talk page of ]. You are also removing any mention of "Indian" from articles, as seen in ] and ]. {{U|Fylindfotberserk}} warned you before about pushing nationalism there as well. Most importantly, you edit warring in Misti doi shows you have learned little from your previous blocks, as seen , , and , again a blatant violation of ]. ''']''' <sup>('']'')</sup> 18:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC) | ::I can tell that your reply has failed to address the concerns I was raising. Using User:Highpeaks35 and his block as a cover for your own unilateral modifications involving "Bengali" to "Bangladeshi" and removing any mention of India or ] from the infobox as you have done , , , , is simply enough. If a person has taken responsibility of edits made by a blocked user then you should challenge the edit on the basis that are seperate from irrelevant socking issues. All these dishes are consumed in both nations, India and Bangladesh. The use of ] is self-explanatory, it is not a peer reviewed academic article, furthermore, it is a Bangladeshi newspaper, with probable bias, other references for Misti doi clearly stated it is a Bengali dish, not just Bangladeshi. As for ], you inserted "] and ]" in there. Bangladesh was founded in 1971, long after the Pala Empire. The Palas spoke proto-Bengali, not even modern Bengali. {{U|NavjotSR}} explained this on the talk page of ]. You are also removing any mention of "Indian" from articles, as seen in ] and ]. {{U|Fylindfotberserk}} warned you before about pushing nationalism there as well. Most importantly, you edit warring in Misti doi shows you have learned little from your previous blocks, as seen , , and , again a blatant violation of ]. ''']''' <sup>('']'')</sup> 18:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC) | ||
| :::{{u|Aman.kumar.goel}}, please don't make up your own rules here. Highpeaks35's sock IPs have several times contacted Gotitbro (either on his user talkpage or elsewhere by tagging him) asking him to restore the changes and he obliged, this is clearly ]. And the evidences are not just limited to these articles alone but go well beyond. As I said, I have already explained it to {{u|El C}}. As stated earlier, my edits are all supported by reliable sources, just labeling them "nationalist" is not a valid justification to challenge them. Content that fails ] will be removed and the onus to cite them is on the users who add those unsourced content. Here are the issues explained article by article: | |||
| * ]: "it is a Bangladeshi newspaper, with probable bias", that's a baseless statement without any evidence, so should we also reject all the Indian newspapers with an Indian bias? The ] is an obvious ] and is frequently cited by South Asia-related articles on Misplaced Pages, including featured articles like ], ], ] etc. There is no guideline or policy that says sources outside peer-reviewed academic articles cannot be used. Of course academic articles are more acceptable but I didn't find any statement in any academic sources that contradicts what the article from The Daily Star has stated. There is a detailed description about the origin of ] that shouldn't leave any doubt about its origins. I have already started a discussion on the talkpage on this issue which is yet to receive any response. | |||
| * ]: I merely reverted the same nationalist and unsourced POV changes made by a sock IP of Highpeaks35. The version I restored stated, "They advanced the achievements of previous Bengali civilisations and created outstanding works of ], most notably in the ] and ] spheres", no mention about Bangladesh. Articles like ] and ] were linked probably because unlike ], there were no Bengal equivalent articles available for arts and sculpture. Culture of Pala Empire categorically associates with Bengal/Bangladesh more than wider Indian subcontinent and the scope of those articles goes beyond the history of modern Bangladeshi state which justifies the edit. | |||
| * ]: Fylindfotberserk didn't "warn" me about any "nationalism". He only stated his points in a civil manner on the talkpage and I stated mine. Pre-47 people cannot be described as "Indian" as ] came into being in 1947. Same with ] | |||
| * ]: There were enough editors other than me who disagreed with NavjotSR on the talkpage, I'm not sure why you consider his opinion as authoritative unless you share his POV. As a matter of fact, the sock IPs of Highpeaks35 have also previously tagged NavjotSR and you, along with Gotitbro in campaigning against me. It's rather shady that you are tagging the same set of editors here. | |||
| Your intentions are quite visible. You are clearly ] here by tagging other editors that share your ideological POV in a hope that they will revert my edits in those articles as well as assist you in your report against me. You also attempted to mislead by falsely claiming an edit of Utcursch as me edit warring on Mishti Doi. Your behaviour has clearly violated ], ] and ] in this discussion alone. ] (]) 00:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:00, 14 July 2020
Thank you for registering an account. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
| |||||||
You can also place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will come shortly to answer your questions. | |||||||
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Your editing
Your consistent POV pushing which often seems nationalistic is unacceptable and beyond the pale. Your constant edit warring on Bakarkhani resulted in two blocks by El C, now you are edit warring in Mishti doi, as seen here, here, and here, again a blatant violation of WP:EW. Utcursch have infromed you here "not in source; the book is titled Bangladesh and mentions mishti doi; one can find several books about cuisine of Kolkata / West Bengal which mention mishti doi" as seen in multiple refs here, here, and here. But, you still edit warred with both Utcursch and Gotitbro. You again changed Bengali dishes to "Bangladeshi" in Mughlai paratha, Chotpoti and Jhalmuri. I strongly suggest you revert these edits already and try a broader dispute resolution which will address your ideological dispute with the terms more approparitely than unilateral changes to long standing versions. Otherwise the area is covered by discretionary sanctions and I won't hesitate to report you. Aman Kumar Goel 05:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Aman.kumar.goel, it's rather the other way round, Gotitbro has been restoring the nationalist POV changes made by User:Highpeaks35 and his sock IPs in these articles, essentially replacing Bangladesh with Indian subcontinent as the origin, quite akin to WP:PROXYING, just like what happened on Bakarkhani (I have already told El C about this pattern). All I did was add sources to these unsourced articles and made changes according to the sources. On Mishti Doi, after Utcurch expressed his concern, I added few more sources and again, made changes according to the sources. , , . All these edits were reverted by Gotitbro, claiming Utcursch endorsed his revert. The claim was proven false when I asked Utcursch if he really endorsed that revert, which he denied saying "I have not made any similar edits, so I'm not sure why my name is being used. I don't endorse those edits." This falsely claiming an admin's endorsement to revert another editor is a blatant violation of the guidance for editors listed in WP:ACDS. Gotitbro again removed those sourced content, claiming The Daily Star (Bangladesh) is a "problematic ref".. I opened a discussion at the talk page requesting to explain there before removing the sources. It's been 13 days and no response has been given. Mughlai Paratha had also been affected by sock IPs of Highpeaks35. I checked the sources and there were plenty of source misrepresentations which I removed (my edit summaries there already explain this). I went through the history of the article and restored the better sourced version. Same story with Jhalmuri and Chotpoti, I added sources and made changes per the sources. If you have doubts over these edits, start discussions in those talk pages and I will explain in detail which source supports which edits along with full quotes. Now let's shed a light on your behaviour. It does appear that you have been following my edits. Earlier you reverted my edits at Pala Empire, and Nazrul Geeti, without any discussion. And now, you are falsely accusing me of nationalist edit warring on articles where Gotitbro has been constantly restoring unsourced POV content. I wouldn't be surprised if I find you tag teaming with Gotitbro to revert my changes without gaining a consensus. In fact, if I go through your contributions, you just appear to be moving from one dispute to another, reverting other editors, assuming bad faith and threatning others to report. Your behavior clearly shows a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASS, enough to receive a sanction. El C, I hope you are following the discussion. Za-ari-masen (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- I can tell that your reply has failed to address the concerns I was raising. Using User:Highpeaks35 and his block as a cover for your own unilateral modifications involving "Bengali" to "Bangladeshi" and removing any mention of India or Indian cuisine from the infobox as you have done here, here, here, here, is simply enough. If a person has taken responsibility of edits made by a blocked user then you should challenge the edit on the basis that are seperate from irrelevant socking issues. All these dishes are consumed in both nations, India and Bangladesh. The use of The Daily Star (Bangladesh) is self-explanatory, it is not a peer reviewed academic article, furthermore, it is a Bangladeshi newspaper, with probable bias, other references for Misti doi clearly stated it is a Bengali dish, not just Bangladeshi. As for Pala Empire, you inserted "Bangladeshi art and Sculpture of Bangladesh" in there. Bangladesh was founded in 1971, long after the Pala Empire. The Palas spoke proto-Bengali, not even modern Bengali. NavjotSR explained this on the talk page of Bakarkhani. You are also removing any mention of "Indian" from articles, as seen in Nazrul Geeti and Surya Sen. Fylindfotberserk warned you before about pushing nationalism there as well. Most importantly, you edit warring in Misti doi shows you have learned little from your previous blocks, as seen here, here, and here, again a blatant violation of WP:EW. Aman Kumar Goel 18:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Aman.kumar.goel, please don't make up your own rules here. Highpeaks35's sock IPs have several times contacted Gotitbro (either on his user talkpage or elsewhere by tagging him) asking him to restore the changes and he obliged, this is clearly WP:PROXYING. And the evidences are not just limited to these articles alone but go well beyond. As I said, I have already explained it to El C. As stated earlier, my edits are all supported by reliable sources, just labeling them "nationalist" is not a valid justification to challenge them. Content that fails WP:V will be removed and the onus to cite them is on the users who add those unsourced content. Here are the issues explained article by article:
- I can tell that your reply has failed to address the concerns I was raising. Using User:Highpeaks35 and his block as a cover for your own unilateral modifications involving "Bengali" to "Bangladeshi" and removing any mention of India or Indian cuisine from the infobox as you have done here, here, here, here, is simply enough. If a person has taken responsibility of edits made by a blocked user then you should challenge the edit on the basis that are seperate from irrelevant socking issues. All these dishes are consumed in both nations, India and Bangladesh. The use of The Daily Star (Bangladesh) is self-explanatory, it is not a peer reviewed academic article, furthermore, it is a Bangladeshi newspaper, with probable bias, other references for Misti doi clearly stated it is a Bengali dish, not just Bangladeshi. As for Pala Empire, you inserted "Bangladeshi art and Sculpture of Bangladesh" in there. Bangladesh was founded in 1971, long after the Pala Empire. The Palas spoke proto-Bengali, not even modern Bengali. NavjotSR explained this on the talk page of Bakarkhani. You are also removing any mention of "Indian" from articles, as seen in Nazrul Geeti and Surya Sen. Fylindfotberserk warned you before about pushing nationalism there as well. Most importantly, you edit warring in Misti doi shows you have learned little from your previous blocks, as seen here, here, and here, again a blatant violation of WP:EW. Aman Kumar Goel 18:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Mishti Doi: "it is a Bangladeshi newspaper, with probable bias", that's a baseless statement without any evidence, so should we also reject all the Indian newspapers with an Indian bias? The The Daily Star (Bangladesh) is an obvious WP:RS and is frequently cited by South Asia-related articles on Misplaced Pages, including featured articles like Dhaka, Satyajit Ray, Bengali Language Movement etc. There is no guideline or policy that says sources outside peer-reviewed academic articles cannot be used. Of course academic articles are more acceptable but I didn't find any statement in any academic sources that contradicts what the article from The Daily Star has stated. There is a detailed description about the origin of Mishti Doi that shouldn't leave any doubt about its origins. I have already started a discussion on the talkpage on this issue which is yet to receive any response.
- Pala Empire: I merely reverted the same nationalist and unsourced POV changes made by a sock IP of Highpeaks35. The version I restored stated, "They advanced the achievements of previous Bengali civilisations and created outstanding works of arts, most notably in the sculpture and architectural spheres", no mention about Bangladesh. Articles like Bangladeshi art and Sculpture of Bangladesh were linked probably because unlike Architecture of Bengal, there were no Bengal equivalent articles available for arts and sculpture. Culture of Pala Empire categorically associates with Bengal/Bangladesh more than wider Indian subcontinent and the scope of those articles goes beyond the history of modern Bangladeshi state which justifies the edit.
- Surya Sen: Fylindfotberserk didn't "warn" me about any "nationalism". He only stated his points in a civil manner on the talkpage and I stated mine. Pre-47 people cannot be described as "Indian" as India came into being in 1947. Same with Nazrul Geeti
- Bakarkhani: There were enough editors other than me who disagreed with NavjotSR on the talkpage, I'm not sure why you consider his opinion as authoritative unless you share his POV. As a matter of fact, the sock IPs of Highpeaks35 have also previously tagged NavjotSR and you, along with Gotitbro in campaigning against me. It's rather shady that you are tagging the same set of editors here.
Your intentions are quite visible. You are clearly WP:Canvassing here by tagging other editors that share your ideological POV in a hope that they will revert my edits in those articles as well as assist you in your report against me. You also attempted to mislead by falsely claiming an edit of Utcursch as me edit warring on Mishti Doi. Your behaviour has clearly violated WP:Civility, WP:HARASS and WP:BATTLEGROUND in this discussion alone. Za-ari-masen (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)