User talk:Bazaan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Thanks JamesBWatson. I still request the vanishing of my account.--Bazaan (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

If you mean courtesy vanishing, then the answer is "no", as that is extended only to editors in good standing, not editors who have been blocked indefinitely for trolling and vandalism, as in your case. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Watch your language. You look at my contributions over the last couple of years, I have created numerous articles of importance on Bangladesh (Secularism in Bangladesh, Bangladeshi nationalism) and added significant improvements to Bangladesh articles (Chittagong, Bangladesh, Dhaka). The least I'd expect is my account to be vanished. Apparently the administrators were reluctant since I made several edits after I made my official request. So I decided to get myself blocked. It had to be done. But I am requesting the account be vanished, it's the least I can expect.--Bazaan (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
No it isn't. You are not going to be rewarded for trolling. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

However, MLP is better, i miss you Bazaan, please, come back. 190.99.187.54 (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Bazaan (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I am responding to issues raised in ANI. I again commit myself to never repeating the behavior which caused my indefinite block. In 2013 and 2014, I had differences with a few editors of WP:Bangladesh, which unfortunately swelled into a rather traumatic cycle of personal hostilities. This included pointless edit wars and conflicts over what pictures to be placed in what article. The absence of Wikipedia administrative or arbitration personnel caused the situation to deteriorate further. Initially when I joined Wikipedia around 2007, I was much younger and faced several issues like copyright infringement. But I now have a stronger understanding of Wikipedia policies. I believe I have matured over time. My contributions were never questioned for pushing an unacceptable POV, but a few people at times disagreed with its relevance. However, I used reliable and credible references. If my editing privileges are restored, you will not see any dramatic rise in editing activity. If there are any issues, it will be brought to either DRN or ANI. I've learnt my lesson truly well. I don't deserve a topic ban as I never had serious content disputes. It was mostly personal attacks over pictures and relevant sentences. Lastly regarding sockpuppetry, please have a look at the first investigation. As one administrator notes, he didn't even consider what happened to be sockpuppetry. I opened a second account after being blocked. My mistake. I have always made good faith contributions. Never in bad faith of gaming the system.

Decline reason:

I've copied your statement to WP:AN. Declining this because it would be quite inappropriate for me unilaterally to unblock you while a discussion's happening. Please don't use any more of these unblock templates: not because there's something fundamentally wrong with using them, but because they'll get declined as well, and a pile of unsuccessful unblock requests routinely causes people to think that you're being frivolous, making unblocking more unlikely. If you have any additional notes, the best route is probably to use {{helpme}} followed by "please copy this statement to the unblock section at WP:AN" and then your statement. Nyttend (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

It seems, from the discussion at the administrator's noticeboard, that the community is - for the most part - comfortable with your account being unblocked provided certain conditions. I would propose, based on the comments at that thread, the following conditions: You are indefinitely topic banned from all articles related to Bangladesh, broadly construed, with the possibility of an appeal of this topic ban after 6 months, and you shall be limited to this one account until you demonstrate a clear need for a legitimate alternative account. Do you agree to these terms? Additionally, the community would take it as a good first step towards demonstrating that you plan to edit within the rules here if you were to list any accounts you have used which are not presently blocked. Sam Walton (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Samwalton9:, I'm perfectly fine with the conditions. I'd add though that the few editors who acted like my enemies and caused hell to break lose went inactive quite soon after I was blocked.--Bazaan (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I've unblocked you per these conditions. Sam Walton (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bazaan. Is this IP (Special:Contributions/120.136.5.60) you? Sam Walton (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

SPI notice[edit]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bazaan. Thank you. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

March 2016[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Matsanayam[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Matsanayam has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced and possible original research

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dhaka Courier cover page.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dhaka Courier cover page.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)