User talk:Arman360Editor

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. A page you recently edited may not conform to some of Wikipedia’s guidelines for articles. Please ensure that your edits follow the Manual of Style and that all information is properly sourced from reliable references. For more information, see Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Introduction. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia. — CanonNi (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to Faridul Mostafa Khan, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 15:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• 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 have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.

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. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:03, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Yue. An edit that you recently made seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is usually unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and may contain factually inaccurate statements, fictitious citations, or other problems. You should instead read reliable sources and then summarize those in your own words. Your edit may have 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. Yue🌙 (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Yue,

Thanks for reaching out and letting me know about this. I appreciate you taking the time to check my edit. I am still learning how to follow Wikipedia writing standards properly, so your feedback helps me improve.

I did not mean to add anything that could cause problems. I will go back, review sources, and rewrite the content. If you noticed any specific issue in my edit, I would really appreciate it if you could point it out so I can fix it correctly.

Thanks again for your help and patience. Arman360Editor (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 𝚃𝚑𝚎 𝙶𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚝 𝙴𝚙𝚒𝚙𝚑𝚊𝚗𝚢👁👄👁 (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance. I understand the importance of keeping discussion pages as an accurate record and will avoid editing or removing others’ comments in the future. I appreciate the reminder and will review the welcome page to make sure I follow proper contribution practices. Arman360Editor (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you unconstructively edit Wikipedia using a large language model, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanveer Evan (2nd nomination). ROY is WAR Talk! 23:35, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello Royiswariii,

I appreciate your feedback. I understand the concern and I have already changed my approach. I will continue to focus my edits on constructive policy based edits.

Are there any specific issues with my edits that have not been addressed? I would appreciate the guidance. Arman360Editor (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Bro, even the reply was likely generated by an LLM... :') — Raihanur (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

If you have concerns about phrasing, you can use tools like Grammarly. But you shouldn't use an LLM while editing, especially on discussion pages. Discussion comments should reflect your own reasoning. — Raihanur (talk) 10:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I know my reply is looking like genarated by LLM cause of I use most uncommunicable word. but In my case I try to make accurate word for knowing accurate situation that's why It's look like LLM Genarate. Arman360Editor (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello Arman360Editor. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Arman360Editor. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Arman360Editor|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shovon Ahmed is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shovon Ahmed until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

JTtheOG (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I would like to support keeping this article. The subject appears to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines because there is coverage from independent and reliable sources. I believe the article can be improved further by adding additional citations, improving neutrality, and expanding verifiable information.

Deletion may remove useful encyclopedic content. Instead, improving sourcing and formatting would better align the article with Wikipedia standards. I am willing to help improve the article by adding reliable references and ensuring it follows Wikipedia policies. Arman360Editor (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tanveer Evan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanveer Evan (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

ROY is WAR Talk! 20:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I respectfully request that the article Tanveer Evan be retained.

The subject meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines through coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. These sources provide significant discussion of the subject’s work and public presence, rather than routine mentions or primary material. The article can be improved further by refining citations, tightening prose, and ensuring full compliance with Wikipedia’s content policies.

I acknowledge the concerns raised in this second nomination and encourage editors to focus on strengthening the article rather than removing it. Deletion should be a last resort when improvement is not possible. In this case, there is sufficient verifiable material available to support notability under existing guidelines.

I welcome constructive feedback and will assist in improving the article during the discussion period.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Arman360Editor (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

There are no incidents of vandalism or IP editors at Faridul Mostafa Khan, as you have stated in your report. What I see is an inexperienced wikipedian who apparently thinks page protection is for keeping their own version of the article in page space. I'm about ready to block you from your own page creation. So stop acting like a jerk before I or some other sysop) does. BusterD (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your compliment. I understand your point. I did not intend to control the article or prevent constructive edits. I was concerned about maintaining stability and may have misunderstood when protection is appropriate. I will withdraw the request and focus on improving the article through discussion and reliable sources. If I have misunderstood the policy, I would appreciate your guidance. Arman360Editor (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Faridul Mostafa Khan is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Arman360Editor -- Arman360Editor (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Arman360Editor, please do not continue to create the Talk:Faridul Mostafa Khan/GA1 page. By doing so, you are preventing your GA nomination of this article from being picked up by a reviewer: if the page exists, the assumption is that the article is being reviewed, so you are preventing a review from happening. Further, nominators are not allowed to open review pages for their own nominations, something you have now done twice.

I am going to attempt to have the page deleted again. If, once that happens, you should create a Talk:Faridul Mostafa Khan/GA1 page for a third time, I will have to assume that you are not serious about this nomination, and the nomination will almost certainly be deleted. Please note that there is an enormous backlog at GAN at the moment, and it may well take months before a reviewer chooses your nomination to review. Be patient, and a reviewer will come. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello BlueMoonset,

I appreciate your clarification, and I will refrain from creating the Talk:Faridul Mostafa Khan/GA1 page. My next step will be to wait for a reviewer to take the nomination via the standard GAN process.

Once again, thank you for the support, and I’m sorry for the misunderstanding.

Best,

Arman360Editor (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Arman360Editor's last warning of using LLMs on AfD. ROY is WAR Talk! 00:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Mainul Ahsan Nobel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. BusterD (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about the CSD G4 tagging of Mainul Ahsan Nobel. I get why you are concerned about deleting it and then recreating it.. I have rewritten and expanded the current version of the article a lot. I used reliable sources to show that the subject is notable.

I tried to fix the problems from the last deletion discussion by finding sources updating the content and changing the way the article is structured. If there are still problems please let me know so I can fix them.

If you think the article needs review then it would be better to discuss it in an Articles, for Deletion talk instead of deleting it quickly under G4. I am happy to keep improving the article to follow Wikipedia rules. --Arman360Editor (talk) 10:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mainul Ahsan Nobel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mainul Ahsan Nobel until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:48, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Faridul Mostafa Khan has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MCE89 -- MCE89 (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alessio Ippolito is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alessio Ippolito until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

KH-1 (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2026 (UTC)