User talk:Yasarhossain07

Welcome!

Hello, Yasarhossain07, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 17:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Hello, I'm M.Bitton. An edit that you recently made to Talk:Yevgeny Prigozhin seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! M.Bitton (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous people

Hi there. Per Merriam-Webster, an indigenous people are "the earliest known inhabitants of a place and especially of a place that was colonized by a now-dominant group". Thus it is an appropriate term for Māori in mainland New Zealand. The term "mainland" is to differentiate New Zealand from the Chatham Islands, where the Moriori are the indigenous people. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is what you get when you google the meaning of indigenous: originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native. Cambridge university definition says used to refer to, or relating to, the people who originally lived in a place, rather than people who moved there from somewhere else. Seems like Merriam Webster have changed the meaning of the word indigenous. If you don’t want to misinform people you should just type Māoris were the earliest settlers to New Zealand. They are not indigenous since they’re originally from East Polynesia. Yasarhossain07 (talk) 05:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Using your logic nobody is indigenous to anywhere except the East African Rift Valley. That doesn't change the archaeological fact that the Māori are the earliest known inhabitants in what is now New Zealand and are therefore indigenous. If you want to make a change to the article, find yourself a reliable source which says that Māori are not indigenous, and then take it to the talk page discussion which I am about to open. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the meaning of the word indigenous to fit your narrative. Chinese are indigenous to China because that’s where to come from, same for Indians, Iranians and Germans. There is absolutely no proof that these people came from Africa. Māoris are immigrants who moved to New Zealand on 14th century therefore they’re not indigenous. Yasarhossain07 (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You credit me with far more influence on the dictionary meaning of words than I actually have. I reiterate: find yourself a reliable source, and then take it to the article talk page. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any dictionary will tell you that "indigenous", when applied to people, means "earliest inhabitants". A link to one (Merriam-Webster) was provided earlier in the discussion.

There is extensive fossil and archaeological evidence showing that all humans originated in Africa.

I see you have already received a warning for edit warring (below); I urge you to take it seriously.

—VeryRarelyStable 07:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now I will leave link from Cambridge University definition and googled definition as well. Both say insidious are originally inhabitants of a land not people who moved there and their ancestry is traced back to some other country. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/indigenous

https://www.google.com/search?q=indigenous+meaning&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS940US940&oq=indigin&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgBECMYJxixAjIGCAAQRRg5MgkIARAjGCcYsQIyEAgCEAAYgwEYkQIYsQMYigUyCggDEAAYkQIYigUyEAgEEAAYgwEYkQIYsQMYigUyCggFEAAYkQIYigUyDQgGEAAYkQIYsQMYigUyDAgHEAAYChixAxiABDIPCAgQABgKGIMBGLEDGIAEMgkICRAAGAoYgATSAQg0ODUwajFqNKgCALACAA&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8 Yasarhossain07 (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the link you just posted:

2. (of people) inhabiting or existing in a land from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists.

Even without this, "from the earliest times" can only mean "from the earliest times of human occupation". If your hypothesis is that Chinese people, Indians, Iranians, or Germans somehow burst out of the soil in their respective countries in an act of spontaneous self-creation, I can assure you they did not.

—VeryRarelyStable 02:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Your recent editing history at Māori people shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Māori people. 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. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all there is no such thing as mainland New Zealand and secondly Māoris moved to New Zealand from East Polynesia in 14th century. So my editing should stand since the facts are on my side. Why is someone allowed to put misinformation on Wikipedia articles which are read by millions of people. Māoris unlike aboriginal Australians aren’t indigenous. There ancestry can be clearly traced back to other Pacific Islands where they had moved from. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/election-2023-winston-peters-claims-maori-are-not-indigenous-during-nelson-meeting-with-nz-first-supporters/ZCEBFEUDZJGHXA2SY4KGOFETIQ/ Yasarhossain07 (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Mainland" is not a synonym for "continent". Winston Peters is not a reliable source. —VeryRarelyStable 02:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand has 2 main islands. There is no such thing as mainland New Zealand. Winston Peters is a Maori, former deputy prime minister. Maori moved to New Zealand in 14th century. They aren’t indigenous to New Zealand nor is it clear if they were even the first immigrants. They could’ve possibly killed the people who lived there before their arrival. Yasarhossain07 (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mainland New Zealand, in this context (as a comparison to the Chatham Islands) has a clear and unambiguous meaning. Winston Peters is not a reliable source for anything other than his own opinion (and maybe not even that ^[1]). There were no people who lived in NZ before the Māori - unless you think Haast's eagles are people. Now go to the article talk page and stop trying to edit war. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.thepost.co.nz/a/politics/350098313/winston-peters-doubles-down-terror-attack-claim

December 2023

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Parham wiki (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Please do not add commentary to articles, as you did at Gerhard Schröder. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to discuss the article, please use Talk:Gerhard Schröder. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is it neutral? It doesn’t feel like a serious article when you smear the former Chancellor of Germany. This article has a serious Ukrainian bias. I can provide source to my addition which shows many former chancellor work in the private sector. Yasarhossain07 (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any perceived bias is to be discussed on the talk page of the article. Jeppiz (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A key board warrior is calling one of the greatest German leaders who helped Germany reunify a Russian puppet. Wikipedia is losing it’s credibility because of keyboard warriors having too much power. Yasarhossain07 (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Veliky Novgorod

Hello @Yasarhossain07, I'm @Nikolaj1905. I have reverted your recent edit to the Veliky Novgorod article. If an uncontroversial statement seems to be unsourced, please add the Citation needed template instead of just deleting the content. Chances are that another Wikipedia editor will provide the source. In this case it was particularly easy, by the way, as the citation was provided in the body of the article. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 08:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arman Tsarukyan

Hi Yasarhossaino 7, Pls note that your edit was reverted. Pls note that no ethnicity, heritage, bloodline on the lead section. Pls provide independent, reliable source it indicated he has a Russian citizenship in order to add the info back. Cassiopeia talk 04:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, 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.

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.

TylerBurden (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand isn’t located in Eastern Europe. Yasarhossain07 (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I believe Russia is. What's with the attitude and personal attacks above? TylerBurden (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 23:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above warning is regarding your edit here. Pls comment on content and not the editor. Cassiopeia talk 23:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BRICS

Saudi Arabia has not officially joined BRICS. They are still considering it.^[1]
Please ensure your edits are formatted and marked up correctly, otherwise the infobox does not display correct information. See Template:Infobox organization for a guide.

... discospinster _talk 23:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Saudi Arabia has not yet joined BRICS - Saudi official source

May 2024

Hello. I noticed that you recently removed content and references regarding a contentious topic from Alabuga Special Economic Zone § Shahed-136 drone assembly. Please remember that personal speculation and original research are not adequate reasons to remove factual or supported information. 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. – Primium (talk) 04:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.– Primium (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advice to avoid being banned - important

Yasar,

I agree with you - Wikipedia is systemically biased. I assume that you see systemic bias on Wikipedia as a very serious problem that has serious consequences, or else you wouldn't be taking the time to edit here. I feel the same way. Some of the edits you have made are good, and I think you have the potential to become a competent editor who can really make a positive difference.

The problem is, you are about to be banned, because some of your edits have not been so good, and some of them have not been in accordance with Wikipedia's policies.

There is only one way to have a shot at not being banned, and I am going to tell you what it is. So if you really want to help fix Wikipedia's systemic bias, please read this carefully.

It is essential that you read Wikipedia's policies. Especially WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. There are a few other important ones, but those are the 3 you should start with. Don't just read them. Study them. Read the entire policy, word for word, multiple times, and think carefully about what they mean. Then, look at the talk pages for those policies, and look through the archives, so that you can begin to understand how the policies evolved to their current form, and so that you know what the current debates are about those policies. This might take you days, even weeks or months - but it is essential, and it's worth the effort.

Then, after you have done that, you can resume editing, but you must make sure that all of your edits are compliant with WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and other policies. If another editor tells you that you have violated one of the policies, keep an open mind and remain open to constructive criticism.

You might think to yourself "well, Wikipedia's policies are systemically biased, too, so why should I follow them?" - that's a fair question. The simple answer is: you will be banned if you don't follow the policies. The longer answer is: it's possible that some of Wikipedia's policies are biased, but in order to critique them, you have to understand them first. So, set your criticisms of Wikipedia's policies aside, for now.

The only way you will not be banned is if you do this: publish a comment here that says something like "If you show me the courtesy of not banning me, I will commit myself to studying and understanding Wikipedia's policies before I do any more editing, and I will remain open to constructive criticism from more experienced editors." Don't just copy and paste that, say it in your own words. Then, actually do what I have recommended above.

If you do this, you will probably not be banned. If you don't do this...your Wikipedia editing days are over. It's that simple.

I'm not trying to talk down to you. I am telling you this because I want you to be able to stick around and contribute. Please follow my recommendation so that you do not get banned. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. — Newslinger talk 07:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. — Newslinger talk 07:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Bajrang Dal, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 07:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

I see that you disagree with the statement that Rohit Sharma's mother tongue is Telugu. Please could you discuss this on the article talk page: Talk:Rohit Sharma#Mother tongue.

Your edit to the article on Rohit Sharma placed a citation next to a statement that Rohit Sharma's bother is called Vishal Sharma. But you said that the citation was for his mother tongue, so the edit did not make sense and has been reverted.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.check this video. https://youtube.com/watch?si=GqqAwFmyVgd0dJLb&v=YR3bL5KgCfY&feature=youtu.be

he was asked to say sth in Telegu and he said that his Telegu is very weak.

Mother tongue is the language which a person has grown up speaking from early childhood. So while his mother’s mother tongue might be Telegu his is not. His mother tongue is actually Marathi since he grew up speaking that language. Yasarhossain07 (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We use what reliable sources publish - Wikipedia:Reliable sources
We don't conduct original research on our own - Wikipedia:No original research

— DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 14:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to contribute to Talk:Rohit Sharma#Mother tongue. If you do not, then your edit concerning Telegu will be reverted by neutral editors.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia needs you to engage on the article talk page. The other editor supported his/her version with citations. We need you to look at those citations, and for you to explain (on the article talk page) why you think they do not support what he/she is saying.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your edit war

His mother tongue has nothing to do with his ability to speak, but on few occassions he do speak Telugu in Hyd. I already mentioned about your non sense in edit summary. His father is Marathi and his mother his Telugu so his mother tongue is what? You can mention his father tongue is Marathi if you wish to. You will be blocked for edit war by Toddy if you continue this non sense. And on top of it you are removing the references, this is vandalism and disruptive editing behavior.Ustadeditor2011 (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He said he can’t speak Telegu. Well. Mother Tongue is the language you grow up speaking. Mother tongue is literally not the language your mother speaks. Just stop posting wrong information. Yasarhossain07 (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt matter if he is able to speak or not my dear. What matters is his mother's language. Dinesh Karthik's mother is also Telugu, his father is Tamil. He too cant speak Telugu properly. For government records his mother tongue is Telugu. Stop your baseless argument with me. I know you are a Marathi and you wish to endorse it. Wikipedia doesnt work that way. Keep your opinions to ur self. Wikipedia is based on facts. Unfortunately his mother his Telugu, which is not to your liking. If his mother is Russian, then his mother tongue would be Russian. Period. NO mother tongue is not the language you grow up with. Mother tongue is your mother's spoken language. You may speak 10 languages fluently, but mother tongue wont change, unless you change ur biological mother. Do not message me on this issue. I will revert your edits if you vandalise the article again on this matter.Ustadeditor2011 (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ustadeditor2011: Please see Mother tongue, which redirects to First language. See also wikt:Mother tongue, which supports this as its primary definition, but also has as a definition "The language spoken by one's mother, when it differs from that spoken by one's father", so you are not entirely wrong, but Yasarhossain07 is more correct.-Gadfium (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the matter into neutral tone. There is no mention of Telugu as his mother tongue in the updated matter. Now if you revert my edit. I will make sure u will be blocked for disrupting the article again and again with ur marathi bias. Do not message me Ustadeditor2011 (talk) 03:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You and your brother are entirely wrong, and this version is correct and clear here "The language spoken by one's mother, when it differs from that spoken by one's father", You may be his brother under his influence. Help ur brother outside wikipedia not inside wikipedia. I am neither Telugu nor Marathi, I am Kannada. Anyways I have changed the context in the matter as agreeble to both. But his mother tongue will remain Telugu to the world, it cant be changed to Marathi or Hindi, whether you like it or not. Unfortnately, we both cant change his mother. Looks like if given a chance you and your brother would also change his mother, and put new mother or you and your brother's marathi mother in his mother's place. I wonder why people with zero common sense like you and your brother (both marathi loving) also contribute in wikipedia.Ustadeditor2011 (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you do not mind, but I have copied the above discussion to Talk:Rohit Sharma#Mother tongue debate.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it says mother tongue is first language or native tongue. His first language and native tongue isn’t Telegu. Yasarhossain07 (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Hello, I'm Pinakpani. I noticed that you recently removed content from Shariful Haque Dalim 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. Pinakpani (talk) 05:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Chittagonian language. 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. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Chittagonian language, you may be blocked from editing. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? Why are you providing false information about Chittagonian language? Are you a native speaker or do you live there? Chittagonian and Bengali are 2 totally different languages with different grammar and vocabulary. Stop vandalizing this page and let Chittagonians worry about the page involving Chittagonian language. Yasarhossain07 (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you want to keep your preferred version by removing reliable sourced content. Stop doing it. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Chittagonian language. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours to prevent further disruptive removal of material. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yasarhossain07: Warning: You must stop repeating changes that are challenged by other users. Instead, disagreements need to be discussed on the article talk page, with reliable sources. In particular, if there is any further edit warring at Chittagonian language you will be blocked for a longer period. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khamzat Chimaev

I didn’t add sources because wrong information was input from the sources that already existed. Yasarhossain07 (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yasarhossaino07, Good day. If info can be found on existing source (just after the sentence), you have to indicate it on the edit summary. If the source can be found somewhere else in the article and not right after the sentence, then you need to state that in the edit summary and provide the source (or the ref # of the source) so we can check. Have a good day. Cassiopeia talk 01:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay i read the 2 articles and none of those 2 articles have indicated that he was given UAE citizenship or that he wanted to represent UAE but I won’t make any more edits. Cheers. In athletics you can’t officially represent a country without acquiring citizenship from that country. Yasarhossain07 (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed representing UEA in the article. Pls note that UFC is a mixed martial league and it is an individual sport so if a fighter states they want to represent certain country or carry certain country flag which they dont hold a citizenship, that is just their desire and we would not state that in the lead section (intro). You can always edit any page in Wikipedia as long as you adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. If you have any questions about mma or any editing guidlines, pls let me know. Have a good day. Cassiopeia talk 01:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.thepost.co.nz/a/politics/350098313/winston-peters-doubles-down-terror-attack-claim

[2] Saudi Arabia has not yet joined BRICS - Saudi official source

[1]

[1]