User talk:Haffaz/Archive 1

WikiCup Award[edit]

Presidential Council[edit]

Hi. Fightennings are ongoing. We should made add a fifth belligerant. Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re[edit]

Sorry, I'm tired.--O1lI0 (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@O1lI0: No problem, you were just trying to do the right thing. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Talk) 03:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your ARSA page[edit]

Salam, I'm trying to get in touch with ARSA, would you by any chance know anyone I can email/message somehow? Code16 (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Code16: Salam Code16, I am sorry but I do not know anyone who has direct ties to ARSA. You can try messaging them on their Twitter page, but other than that I am of little assistance. Good luck! – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Talk)

hmm, yea i tried that, no response yet... anyways, thanks bro. Code16 (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About ARSA, you guys can contact me. As a Rohingya i knew about them very well. Rollywood facts (talk) 07:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion for Internal conflict in Bangladesh[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Internal conflict in Bangladesh —has been proposed to be renamed and moved. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tula Toli Massacre[edit]

Hello, I would like to inquire as to why my edit was reverted.

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately,

All my edits were vital information that cannot be left out for people to understand both sides of the story.

By removing my edits, you are essentially demonizing the Rakhine Buddhists and the Burmese Military

I understand that the Massacre is unforgivable nut it is not right to remove the prelude and follow up story while there are huge varieties of discrepancies and inconsistencies with the statements of the survivors.

I hope you would review your edit, thank you. Koenfoo (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Koenfoo: You make a fair point, and I thank you for your politeness. I will explain the reason why I reverted some of your edits:

On the page Tula Toli massacre:

“Are the stories they recount true? One thing I’ve learned over the decades (originally while covering China’s murder of Tiananmen democracy protesters in 1989) is that victims lie as well as perpetrators. Outrage leads to exaggerations, to elevated death tolls, to rumors becoming eyewitness accounts. But the attack on Tula Toli has been well documented by human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Fortify Rights, and it is substantiated by satellite photos showing burned huts.”(ref)

This section from your edit did not comply with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a place for original thought or publications of opinions. It is not a place for speculation, nor is the talk page.

I have noted your dissatisfaction with "demonizing" the Tatmadaw and Buddhists, and will re-add clarification that some of the statements are indeed claims that are not verified.

On the page Rohingya people:

The general agreement amongst most editors on the English Wikipedia is to refer to the people as "Rohingya", as Wikipedia is self-styled in a way where it can be understood from an international perspective. Often Rohingya-related articles mention that many people in Myanmar consider them "Bengalis", but we do not include it in parentheses or next to Rohingya with a slash because it is generally not an accepted term outside of Myanmar.

On the page Inn Din massacre:

Take this with a pinch of salt, but the source(s) you provided is not considered reliable per WP:Sourcing. It is a self-published source that has no other independent sources verifying the claims. It adds unintentional undue bias, and some of the content added to Wikipedia was plagiarized.

Please review Wikipedia's guidelines before reverting or re-adding material. Note that additions based on self-published sources such as those from Scribd will be reverted.

– GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Talk) 02:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply.

I hope to clarify as on the page Tula Toli massacre:

“Are the stories they recount true? One thing I’ve learned over the decades (originally while covering China’s murder of Tiananmen democracy protesters in 1989) is that victims lie as well as perpetrators. Outrage leads to exaggerations, to elevated death tolls, to rumors becoming eyewitness accounts. But the attack on Tula Toli has been well documented by human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Fortify Rights, and it is substantiated by satellite photos showing burned huts.”(ref)

It is essentially the same as the response section on Inn Din Massacre:

"United States: Nikki Haley, the American ambassador to the United Nations, spoke to the U.N. Security Council on 13 February 2018, calling the Myanmar government's denial of the massacre "preposterous" and the restrictions on travel in Rakhine State a deliberate act to "prevent access to an organisation that might bear witness to their[security forces'] atrocities." Haley also called for the release of the two Reuters journalists who were allegedly imprisoned for their coverage of the massacre."

For my third point, as quoted from Wikipedia:Published, all reliable sources must be both published and accessible to at least some people, according to definitions in the relevant policies and guidelines. Sources that are not published (e.g., something someone said to you personally) or not accessible (e.g., the only remaining copy of the book is locked in a vault, with no one allowed to read it) are never acceptable as sources on Wikipedia.

But the self-published source was written by an official representative of the United States for investigating the Rohingyan Crisis in Myanmar, with copies published and distributed to the Humans Rights Watch and press conferences overseas in Canada, for example. It is a self-published source online on both Facebook, Scribd.com with distributions to the general public in Myanmar. Moreover, these articles have a relatively wide audience of 22000+ people and evidences came straight from the horse's mouth from propaganda videos, interviews and official military Interrogations, e.t.c. It is impossible for News agencies whom you may credit a more reliable source to visit the Rakhine state using conventional methods. I would hope that an exception could be made or if a compromise could be accepted in publishing these information on wikipedia.

Thank you. Koenfoo (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the author of those publications, Rick Heizman, is reputable by Wikipedia's standards. Of course it is fair to say that everyone, including the media and myself, is biased in some way, but the bias is quite clear from Mr. Heizman when in comes to Myanmar/Burma. It is important to include the military's and Rakhines' accounts of events in Rakhine State, but I do not think Mr. Heizman's work should be used as the prime source for these accounts. A quick search of Mr. Heizman's work and background shows that it has been dismissed by experts, that he has no connection with the United States' government or official agencies, and that he does not interview both parties in his reports, leaving out potentially important testimony from both sides. I'd prefer adding sources that Mr. Heizman has referred to rather than his own published works, though most of his work is self-published and self-referenced.

As for the "Responses" section, it was intended for official responses from official organisations, specifically government bodies. A domestic response from Myanmar's government or military would have been added in that section, but in the case of the Inn Din massacre, it is already included in the body paragraphs.

If you are dissatisfied with how a page(s) is covered, I recommend that you express your grievances on its talk page, as it allows open discussion regarding the page itself. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Talk) 19:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. As to "the bias is quite clear from Mr. Heizman when in comes to Myanmar/Burma" I don't see how you managed to come to that conclusion as "A quick search of Mr. Heizman's work and background shows that it has been dismissed by experts" this article had never once mentioned or provided a single rebuttal to any of his reports and articles. Neither did they try to defend their stance and justify it. Moreover, don't you think the same goes for the media, for i can say for sure there is a tremendous amount bias against the military and the Rakhine Buddhists. For example, there is no such village called Dual Toli. That village is called Wet Kyein, which is a village inhabited by mostly Buddhists but also some Rohingya. Aren't you suspicious as to why the name was changed? This would make any other claim by the news reports unreliable. You can check this up to confirm it. "It is important to include the military's and Rakhines' accounts of events in Rakhine State, but I do not think Mr. Heizman's work should be used as the prime source for these accounts." Then why do you not include the military and Rakhine accounts then? There are interviews caught on video on recounts of the various conflicts in Arakan and those could be included on the page.

As to "leaving out potentially important testimony from both sides. ", I never said that I would remove the testimonials of the other side but rather, include those of the side of the Rakhine Buddhists and Military.

I hope you would consider my proposal, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koenfoo (talk • contribs) 03:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why you support lying media?[edit]

I had no intention of making a Wikipedia account but I saw your recent edits on Rohingya (Bengali) pages and I wonder why you reverted some additions supporting Rakhine and Burma army? Most articles on Wikipedia support only Rohingya and never Rakhine and I am curious why you support the problem. Maybe next time read Wikipedia rules and support both sides of the story, thank you. Arakan Mailman (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "lying media" and the content on Wikipedia is generally accepted as having reliable sources and evidence to back it up. Several dozen editors in the community do not conspire to create content biased towards one viewpoint, especially when it is generally cited with reliable independent sources. If you disagree with how a subject is covered on Wikipedia, express your dissatisfaction on the talk pages, not with individual editors. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Talk) 21:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Inn Din massacre victims.jpg[edit]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help![edit]

Greetings, I am a new Wikipedian and I need your help. Can you review this: Draft:Rohingya Language Academy and check is there anything you can add or need to remove.. if you have enough information about that you can also add and remove. If you think the article is suitable for review.. please let me know. Thank you! ArakaneseRohingya (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Salam, I recently added some content to the Rohingya flag page but it was removed by User:Money emoji claiming copyrights violation from: https://rohingyazuban.com/arakanese-rohingya-flag. (Please read 1 and 2) But I have got permission from https://rohingyazuban.com/arakanese-rohingya-flag to use their content. Please help me to restore this (my edit) and you can edit this as well so it doesn't get copyrights violation claim. If you need permission from RLA I can help you with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmanMia828 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Libya Wikiproject revamp[edit]

Hello, I am very knowledge able about the Middle East and MENA and its conflicts. I was very surprised to see that Wikiproject:Libya was not entirely as interactive and attractive as Wikiproject:Syria or Wikiproject:Israel and others for that matter. Please send me a message on your take or ideas on the matter, and if you want to join in. Max Pigeon (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contribute to creating Rohingya related articles[edit]

Assalamualaikum, First of all, I would like to thank you for your contributions to Rohingya-related articles. I always wanted to expand Rohingya content on Wikipedia and spread awareness of Rohingya people and culture. I have been thinking of writing Rohingya-related articles that include: Rohingya alphabet, Rohingya numerals, Rohingya activist/News anchors (that have gain popularity) and etc. I have written an article about RLA (Draft:Rohingya Language Academy) is one of the most important ones and submitted 27 days ago.. but it is still waiting for review. I would really appreciate it if you contribute to accept the article about RLA because the article I'm going to write is related to RLA (Draft:Rohingya Language Academy) because RLA is a language regulator for the Rohingya. Please give me some tips on how articles get accepted by Wikipedia. I want to keep in touch with you. It's my email: arakaneserohingya1@gmail.com or please kindly leave your email in reply and thank you for the "The Teamwork Barnstar" ArmanMia828 (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ArmanMia828: As-salāmu ʿalaykum, it's good to hear from you. I will rewrite some of the content on Draft:Rohingya Language Academy so it complies with Wikipedia's policies and attempt to submit the page into the mainspace (i.e. publish the article). If no problems are raised by other reviewers, the page should be live soon. Well wishes to you, GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Talk) 19:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020[edit]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to George Floyd protests does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Love of Corey (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Flag of the Peoples' United Revolutionary Movement.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Flag of the Peoples' United Revolutionary Movement.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahwaz logo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahwaz logo.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahwaz logo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahwaz logo.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]