Jump to content

User talk:Aditya Kabir/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10
This page is a topical archive of past discussions from the current talk page for the topic:

"Battles I fought with other Wikipedians".

In order to preserve the record of past discussions, the contents of this page should be preserved in their current form. Please do NOT make new edits to this page.
If you wish to make new comments or re-open an old discussion thread, please do so on the current talk page page. If necessary, copy the relevant discussion thread to the current talk page page and then add your comments there.
This talk page is an acid-test of Free Speech in Wikipedia. However, due to strong language, it may be unsuitable for virgins, pensioners and narcissists between the ages of 15 and 65.
Abuse: Vandalism • 3RR • Open proxy • Long term • Sock puppets • ArbCom enforcement • ISP reporting • Checkuser • Usernames
Noticeboards: Administrators • Incidents • Community sanction • Biographies • Conflict of interest • Fringe theories • Reliable sources


Re Articles for Deletion - Booty

Hi - I decided to post a reply here to this discussion in AfD.

I am no authority on this, but here goes: the same Wikipedia standards certainly should apply across the board. "Whose standards"? First of all, your own (what you choose to contribute), and then, everybody else's plus your own (how the article is further edited/discussed/and so on, by you and everybody else on Wikipedia).

If an article ends up in AfD (Articles for Deletion), like Bangladesh Booty, it's because a user has decided it may contravene Wikipedia policies, and so it may require deletion. As you will have seen, lots of inappropriate articles are added to Wikipedia every day. It is not always a bad thing to be in AfD, as long as the problem can be fixed. In AfD, this process takes over (the discussion of the articles, as you have seen).

The article will stay in AfD for five days before an administrator assesses the consensus (it isn't a straight vote, it is an assessment that takes account of all the opinions expressed) and then takes action. The exception is a Speedy Keep/Delete, which doesn't take five days - but Booty has not been recommended for Speedy Delete, so it's OK.

If you want to know more about how an admin decides on consensus, you'll need to get an admin to describe their job to you, because I am not an admin, and I do not know exactly what they do either. But admins are the ones who finally "decide" whether to keep/delete articles in AfD. (They also sign the articles in AfD when kept/deleted, and so you can easily find an admin by clicking their usernames in AfD and leaving a question on their talk page - any of them will be able to answer your questions.)

Anyway - Booty is in AfD because someone decided it seemed to be an unnotable film and there was no evidence that it was notable.

To make this film verifiably notable, you must describe what is notable about it in the article - what separates it from the hundreds of other films released every week. As you have said (and I personally believe it is true), this film is somewhat notable. I am not saying it is definitely notable enough to avoid deletion, but it has a chance.

Now, the trouble is, you cannot simply state in the article "it's notable because of X and Y and Z" - you must also back up statement X with at least one quote from a verifiable source - a reputable book, or a newspaper, or a media source, etc. - but not a blog, a forum or unknown website. Bangladeshi sources are fine, so long as they are trustworthy ones. The quote will show the reader that X has also been said by someone notable. This makes X something the reader can trust. And you must back up Y, Z and so on the same way.

This is the approach Wikipedia wants, because Wikipedia does not allow original research. Original research includes people saying "X and Y and Z" in an article without any evidence to back it up. Not good, because it means people could just make up anything they liked.

So, if you can find some media sources and quotes to put into the article that back up your claims about the film - first, that the situation for Bangladeshi women in general is how you state it, second, that Bangladeshi film actresses are not treated favourably, and third, that public and/or critical reaction in Bangladesh to Booty was positive, the way you describe it in the article, then that would be very good news. You don't need to create a perfect article. No one is expecting that. You just need to show that what you say has also been said at least once somewhere by someone notable. That's all. If you do that, I think you will get a few Keeps in AfD.

If you have these sources already, but do not know how to insert them into the article, I can help with that. But sadly I cannot help with finding the sources myself. I have looked online, and I couldn't find any. But if you need help with editing them into the article, reply on the article discussion page, and I will do what I can. I am watching the article, so I will see if you post there. BTW, it's better to post there about editing the article than in AfD, because it annoys the admins to post too much discussion in AfD, and the discussion is now too long. But you can still post questions about the deletion process etc. in AfD, of course.

Finally, again re "whose standards" - it is obviously going to be harder to make a porn film seem "notable", compared to the average Christina Aguilera album, because Aguilera is already a verified notable star, whereas the average porn star - which includes Jazmin, because we have no verifiable information about her on Wikipedia - isn't. But that shouldn't discourage you from trying.

If you find the sources in the next day or two, I think the article has a chance of survival. Good luck. --DaveG12345 07:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so very much. This is what I have found to be greatest strenght of wikipaedia - the oneness of attitude. I really hope there would be someone out there who would take notice, cut through the crap and come up with solidly useful solutions. Thanks again. I think I have a direction now. (Aditya Kabir 04:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC))
No problem, good luck with the changes and remember to post a comment back at AfD when you have made changes, so that people can check out the article and maybe reconsider their position. --DaveG12345 10:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I forgot to mention - if there were users in the AfD who said Delete and you think they may reconsider their verdict based on the new version of the article, remember to leave a note and a link on their user discussion pages, politely encouraging them to go back and maybe take another look. --DaveG12345 10:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
More on the Bangladesh Booty debate
AfD discussion • User talk:Yamla • User talk:Mwhorn[1] • User talk:Snugspout • User talk:Bwithh

References

  1. ^ Revision log of Mwhorn's talk page which was deleted by User:Omgitsasecret
Jazmin DVD covers debate
User talk:Yamla 01 • User talk:Yamla 02

Sorry

Wikipedia guidelines
Behavioral
Discussions
Content
Editing
Categorization
Style
Deletion
Project content
Other
Search

I offer my sincere apologies for not getting back to you regarding the pictures. I have been dealing with a number of personal issues which have been taking most of my time and energy. As you can see from my talk page, I'm on a semi-Wikibreak right now. Please understand that it was nothing personal (though I can understand why you may have believed it to be) and I hope to find a moment to answer your well-presented questions. In the meanwhile, I am quite happy to let the pictures stand and I apologise also for not acting quickly enough to prevent their initial removal. I hope you have no hard feelings. I certainly harbour no hard feelings toward you. --Yamla 15:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Riya Style1.jpg

Moved to User talk:Yamla/Archive 8 § Riya Sen Image

This image (Image:Riya Style1.jpg) is marked for deletion. It's a film screenshot and is not being used to provide critical commentary on the film. Additionally, it is a copyrighted image and so fails WP:FUC's first criteria. Only freely-licensed images may be used to depict living people. Also, you need to provide a hand-written fair-use rationale for any use of a copyrighted image on the Wikipedia, though in this case it is irrelevant as it is being used to depict a living person, thus will always fail WP:FUC. Note that WP:FUC's wording has changed recently. What used to be accepted no longer is. --Yamla 00:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Images which are replaceable (as per WP:FUC) are not permitted to be used until replaced. --Yamla 18:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You said: "Hey dude, I have added a fair use rationale for the biopic on the article Riya Sen. Please take a look at it. And, oh, since I have removed the deletion tage from the image as advised on the tags (i.e. the tags mat be removed if provided with a fair use rational), I also have removed the line from the article page that says the image is scheduled for deletion. I also have changed the licensing information from screenshot to fair use in Riya Sen and Style (film). I also have looked for another image to be used (yes, using google), and have done so. Well I admit that it didn't vary much, if any, in source and copyright status from the earlier one. But, I think before there is a replacable picture available it may stand. Please, check and advise."

I already responded prior to this message, but just to be clear... WP:FUC prohibits the use of a fair-use image to depict a living person, so this still fails the criteria. We can't wait until a replacement image is provided, that's not sufficient grounds under WP:FUC. Additionally, this is a film screenshot so we cannot use a different license. And given that, we are not using the image to provide critical commentary on the film but rather, just to illustrate an actress. It still violates the license. I know you are working hard here and you definitely are editing in good faith, but the image still violates WP:FUC. Please feel free to ask for more detailed explanations. --Yamla 18:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

(In response to your comments) They have not been noticed. There are in fact a large number of similar images currently in violation. It takes time to track them all down and tag them. WP:FUC was tightened up recently. It used to be permitted to use a fair-use (non-freely licensed) image to depict a living person (with appropriate rationale). This is no longer the case. As to what "replaceable" means, it really comes down to whether it would be reasonable for someone (not necessarily you) to create a free image. For example, you may not own a particular car but if this car is or was sold, someone else may and could take an image. You may not be able to take a free image of a living person but someone else certainly could. In both cases, the fair-use image is replaceable. --Yamla 19:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

(In response to your comments) Why does 1 not apply? Is the person dead? If so, I apologise. But if the person is still alive, criteria 1 most definitely applies. "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. [...] However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." If the person is still alive, the subject of the photograph still exists and a free equivalent "could be created that would adequately give the same information" (in this case, what the person looks like) simply by having someone take a picture of her, or having her agent release a promotional image under a free license. As to having the image replaced within the time, this follows from the current image violating WP:FUC so therefore, see the non-compliance section in WP:FUC. Images that fail WP:FUC must be deleted within 48 hours or 7 days, depending. --Yamla 19:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

(In response to your comments) Yes, it does. "However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." A living person is a subject of the photograph that still exists. A dead person would be a subject of a photograph that no longer exists. I agree that it is not spelled out explicitly but I assure you this is how it is meant to be understood. As to your other point, that you are not using the image merely to show what she looks like, I disagree. The image is in the page's infobox and thus is definitely showing only what she looks like. If it was not in the infobox but instead was attached to a paragraph discussing that particular movie and that paragraph made specific note of what the character looked like, then it would be an example of an image not being used solely to depict the person. As of now, though, it is not attached to any such paragraph and in fact the article makes only passing reference to that movie. --Yamla 19:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Cupcake

For Aditya Kabir, for remaining civil while discussing hard-to-grasp minutia
Moved to User talk:Yamla/Archive 8 § Nice cupcake, thanks

Here's a cupcake. I appreciate that you have remained civil in your discussions with me while we have been hashing out areas of WP:FU that have driven lesser people to distraction. --Yamla 19:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

(In response to your comments) I have not tried taking a picture of any celebrity, actually, but I have worked with some celebrities and non-celebrities to get a freely-licensed image for use on the Wikipedia. None of them were Bollywood actors or actresses, however. As to the infobox, these are used to provide basic information and to depict what the person looks like. If an image is to be used to provide critical commentary on a film, it needs to be attached to a paragraph providing that critical commentary. Often, an image which was attached to a paragraph and was fair-use there is moved up to the infobox but then must subsequently be removed for exactly this reason. Some of this stuff, unfortunately, is not explicitly spelled out. Other times, we try to spell something out (criteria #1 of WP:FUC) but people understandably read it differently than was intended. And then what about a situation where, say, the person is still alive but is in hiding? They still exist so a strict reading of #1 says we cannot use a fair-use image of them. But it's not reasonable to create a replacement. Now, try to write out a clear policy that will take all of these crazy situations into account, and you can see the problems. In the end, the only way to really go about things is with discussions like this, even though they take time. And thanks for noting the other image problems. I'll try to mark at least some of them when I have a moment.--Yamla 20:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to butt into the conversation, but I think it is better to have a bad quality free-licensed image than to have a great-looking non-free image-under FU. If a person is alive, sooner or later, a photo will be available. An example is Sunil Gangopadhyay, whom I met last month during a programme, and the photos I took were uploaded to commons, to be used in various WPs. If there is no pic yet at commons, then perhaps it is better to have no pic at all. Many other ventures have gotten into trouble due to copyright problems, and we need to be extremely careful about that. My 2 cents. :) --Ragib 22:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sob Sob Cry Cry

Policies and guidelines (list)
Principles
Content policies
Conduct policies
Other policy categories
Directories

You said: "It seems that the speed that you had in tagging Riya Sen's image I uploaded is not manifesting in addressing other images. Let me remind you of the images I posetd for you to take note:

Please, take a look, and let me know - why the image of Riya Sen from Style the movie was less of a fair use image than msot of these. Precedence is as good as law (even in the US, as far as I know), and these images set a very different precendence over the one that got the image in discussion deleted."

Some of these were not in violation. Image:ALI IBN RABBAN AL-TABARI.jpg is missing an accurate source, but presumably the painting was never protected by copyright. Image:Abdul Hamid.jpg is not replaceable as far as I can see, though it is missing a rationale for its current use. However, it was uploaded before the rationale requirement was added, so that image is okay. Similarly, Image:Abdul Rahman(convert).jpg and Image:AdamRyland.jpg. As to the non-specific images you have also listed, I am sorry to say that I am kept above capacity and am not looking for more work. If you believe these images are incorrectly tagged or are missing mandatory information, please mark them as such. Also, I direct your attention to WP:POINT. Thank you. --Yamla 21:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You said: "Thanks for the point. It stated exactly my sentiments. Thankfully I sought advice from an admin, before I did anything else. I guess, to remain on the fair side, I am going to mark pornstar images uploaded by Rglovejoy, they are mostly from Palyboy, a source that's pretty thick on copyrights. They have right to, considering the amount of infringement they face. Thanks again."

Thank you, I appreciate your efforts. --Yamla 21:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Riya Sen

Hey Aditya. Glad to see your level of activity on WP. Regarding the points you made about the Riya Sen article, I removed the links to the languages, because its Wikipedia policy to wikilink a word only once in an article. Since the words Hindi and Malayalam appear earlier in the article, I don't wikilink them a second time. This prevents an excessive number of wikilinks, which would make reading the article difficult.

As for the picture, please feel free to replace the one I have with a better one. The only problem is that copyright rules are pretty stringent, so the best option is to get posters or screenshots, crop her head out, and lower the resolution so it satisfies the fair use laws. I decided on this one because this was a shot that was in keeping with her image, but if you find a better one, go ahead and upload it - just be sure to replace the old one rather than uploading a new one, otherwise there's a huge excess of unused pictures.

I also made a couple of changes to the external links you added - I redirected the link to the relevant section. Also, I removed one of the other two external links since they point to very similar articles. Another thing I did was to the page on the Ganguly brothers - a small point but very important. Please make sure that all titles and sub-headings use lowercase letters except for the first letter and proper nouns. Otherwise Wikipedia links get very confused. In fact, if you find a page with too many capital letters, please go ahead and change it. Gamesmaster G-9 16:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

More on the Riya Sen debate
Wikipedia:Village pump • Talk:Riya Sen • User talk:Gamesmasterg9 • Image talk:Riya promo.jpg • Image talk:Riya Book.png

Image:Riya promo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Riya promo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 16:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Artcell AfD's

I just bundled them all together because they either all meet WP:MUSIC or all fail it. A bundled AfD is easier in this case.--Isotope23 19:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it... it's not a big deal.--Isotope23 19:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Artcell notability

I am not on Wikipedia enough to do the changes. However, if you notice there are articles about band members from regional bands that are not really known world-wide. The examples are numerous. The question of how well-known is well-known enough for WP is a tough one ;-). I'd say let's go ahead and remove the stubs that have no information other than names and if someone has enough information (s)he can create an article. urnonav

I think the notability issue is solved. You don't complain; so I am assuming you agree. The second issue is with the article Artcell itself. I am having trouble seeing what you want. Could you just go ahead and do the edits? If I disagree, I'll edit and we'll get somewhere. Just a request: try not to REMOVE information. If the wording is bad, sure, change it, but I don't want to lose information that someone gathered. If it's uncited, mark so or move to discussion page. Thanks, urnonav 01:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I assure you it won't be an edit war. It will be constructive editing to improve the article. I am quite aware of Wikipedia's various so-called "standards" and my personal opinion on the matter is, there is no reason to believe that the creators of these "standards" are super-human. The standards are their compromised opinion and more often than not major flaws show up where two standards contradict. (Check out the war about Kolkata versus Calcutta that took place a few months ago.) Once again, I need to know exactly what you are complaining about to know what is wrong. I cleared up some stuff from the article that I thought were blatant flattery and not information.
As far as your liking Artcell goes, not everyone likes everything. A band like Dream Theater or Queensryche will be called seminal and will make history and will yet sell fewer records in their lifetime than just-another-pop-singer, like Britney Spears, will sell over a few years. I am not comparing Artcell to these great Progressive Metal innovators, but I am saying is what you or I think hardly matters. They have a fan-base and their current popularity is fairly easy to guage. urnonav 08:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The Artcell debate
Deletion log 01 • Deletion log 02 • User talk:Urnonav • Talk:Artcell

Private Universities in Bangladesh

Conduct policies

You removed the redirects in the Private Universities in Bangladesh substubs. I recommend you either write some content or put the redirects back, else someone will delete them speedily under CSD A3. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-15 19:58Z

Thanks for your concern. But, instead of misleading people off to a list of schools in Bangladesh, which is only related to the subjects redirected, why don't you do it the honest way, and write on the universities yourself? These subversive techniques to keep shoddy contributions out of the editors will achieve nothing but more hassle for them. Remember, everyone works for free here, and no one deserves that extra hassle. I have tried to comply to your request and attended to 9-10 of those empty entries. But, I guess, it's time that User:NAHID, who created those entries, and you, who tried to hide them from the editors, get your hands dirty. And, oh, some of those entries do deserve a deletion (no notability and such). Thanks again. I'm sure your contributions will make WP a better and more knowledgeable place. - Aditya Kabir 15:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Apologies: I had to come back and write again. Sorry, that I was irritated at your suggestion. I know that you've been trying hard and working harder. But, that redirect trick was still unacceptable (you ought to know better). And, I'm sure you'll agree that overzealous creation of entries after entries on hardly-notable topics should be encouraged or protected. If these entries go deleted, that may be hard on the user, but not WP at all. Thanks. I hope your Esperanza spirit still holds. - Aditya Kabir 16:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for writing stubs for some of them. I'm not sure why you think a redirect is a "dishonest trick"? It is actually a very good, honest, useful trick. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-16 21:58Z
Explanation. I think redirecting an empty entry (an entry that doesn't have single word written) symbolizes sloppy contribution and making others do my bidding. It should not be protected as such. If necessary, the contributor can re-create the entries, if they get deleted, and at least make a stub. Besides, I believe that editors (that includes you too) have a job already hard enough without having to find out which redirects are real and which are just there to protect someone's sloppy work. Dishonesty may be too strong a word used out of frustration, but I still think this trick does the original over-zealous contributor any good.
Everyone should learn the WP ways by learning the obstacles, not by being pampered. That, of course, is my personal opinion only. I am learning it the hard way, and I see even editors bear pretty funny ideas on what's proper and what's not. Let's not encourage ignorance through our li'll tricks. - Aditya Kabir 08:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC) (P.S. I plan to add to more of the entries in discussion, just give me a couple of dyas more time)
Thanks, and go ahead and tag the ones you think aren't notable with {{db-empty}}. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-18 02:12Z

Hello, perhaps you have this figured out by now, but we cannot have empty articles lying about. Articles that only contain templates (such as {{Private Universities of Bangladesh}}) are considered empty and can be deleted on sight. And redirects are used so that if a person searches for a school, it goes to a list rather than saying we don't have an article on that. If you want to write articles on the individual schools, go ahead. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 18:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza is for everyone, though right now it is going through some changes. You can go ahead and add your name to the membership list if you like. About donating--I really don't know. I imagine they have Paypal or something like that. --Fang Aili talk 17:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Another playboy breast list deletion debate

I notice that you were involved in the last deletion debate for this article. Have you seen this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Playmates with D-cup or larger breasts. Interestingstuffadder 19:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ian King

I'm having trouble finding sources for it. Why don't you post it at WP:AWNB and see if they can help out and save it. Cause if he has "trained world-class athletes on four continents" then there must be stuff floating around that will help him pass the criteria. DXRAW 17:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I have responded on Talk:Ian King. I believe the main problem is that no one checked the book he authored to begin with, otherwise his qualification to write it with Lou Schuler wouldn't have been questioned. Regardless, the AfD has been relisted to generate further discussion: you have not removed these claims earlier, and I really feel it's inappropriate to do so now during the AfD. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 04:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Moved to User talk:Greatwalk

Thanks for the kind words on my talk page. As you can see, the Ian King article is no more. I think there is a philosophical debate going on between editors at Wiki...sort of Type A/Type B differences of opinion: Some believe, with enough culling and standards maintenance, Wiki will eventually become a 'capital -E'- Encyclopedic material, while others believe that Wiki's main claim to fame will always be that its articles are the first thing to come up in a search engine...so the articles have to be catchy and informative ( 'small-e'-encyclopedic material, if you will). I fall into the latter category, because most editors (in my observation) are too young, and the vast majority of editors are too inexperienced, to make Wiki anything else. I think Wiki does what it does really well, though...and that it's a great opportunity to put back into the WWW in a meaninful way. That said, I feel this article was sourced well enough for more conservative subject matter, but, because 'body-building' looks a bit tacky, these sources weren't deemed notable enough. I feel the article did, in fact, meet Wiki standards, but obviously never would have been included in Encyclopedia Britanica (which, I feel, is outside Wikipedia's scope.)

I'm sorry I didn't respond to your query and will do so now...I suspect this is a fundamental difference in opinion on how to interpret what appears to be purposefully broad guidelines provided by Wiki. Specifically, while I understand that you believe it is in a publisher's best interest to promote their authors, I do not agree it is in a publisher's best interest to falsify information about their authors, and in particular (since any book is a publisher's investment), it is not in any publisher's best interest to sign on an author that has made false claims about their background. I also disagreed that I had provided Amazon.com's assessment of the book as reference. The published work itself provides that information, it is an offline reference by nature, and the only online reference I had available was the amazon.com resaler. This is a confusion that constantly takes place with editors, I find: Offline reference material is valid too, and a reference to a book sold at amazon.com is not an amazon.com reference, per se. Sometimes the description available does tend to verify that the book contains certain content, though.

Secondly, I looked at Google references to the co-author of Ian King's Muscle book, and at references to the people who were paying attention to Ian King. Lou Schuler has co-written a published work with Ian King, Tom Venuto recommends most of Ian King's books second-to-none (including his own) and an interview with Ian King by Rob Wilkins has been included in almost every online body-building site available. This is a fairly quick Google search... so my question is...I can verify that these people are notable contributors to their field, and they all credit an older athlete (Ian King) as important, and some verify the claim about training athletes, etc. This seems notable to me, by Wiki standards (not necessarily my own)...and your concern that this is somehow all self-generated promotion, or false promotional claims made by profiteers seems highly unlikely to me.

I think there was call to ask for the article to be cleaned up, but not deleted. There were enough references to validate the minimal claims made, and certainly that a more knowledgeable person would eventually be able to source properly ...as always, the need to WP:Cleanup is not grounds for WP:Deletion and while your call to have the article improved was the right move, that call should never have been subject to a time-limit... IMO, the article should have been left for a qualified editor to say more, in their own time.

Thank you again for your kind words of support...they are much appreciated. You are also (by far) the most tactful and diplomatic editor I've had a disagreement with since I've been here...and as soon as I find just the right barnstar (I've been looking), I'll send one to you. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 07:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • LOL...Ok, on your advice I'll save looking for a barnstar. Seriously, if you're wondering why people don't respond to straight quotes of Wiki guidelines, your reply could give a few clues: I write about our differences in interpretation of guidelines, and you reply with (more) Wiki quotes and indisputable red-herrings ( "(it's) not about truth, but verifiable facts..." ).  :-)
No worries...and thanks for tips and the kind words. Whether it's your habit or not, they are much appreciated and do make a difference. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 22:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ian King

Ian King is an Australian, hence the article being listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia for the benefit of other Australian editors who may be able to provide a rationale for keeping the article. It could potentially be listed within a sports related deletion sorting page also, but I don't frequent sports articles all that often and am not aware of a similar deletion sorting page for the purpose. The article btw was eventually deleted. -- Longhair\talk 11:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You could always use Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia as a template, and edit accordingly for your intended project. -- Longhair\talk 12:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Other grameen initiatives in the article on Muhammad Yunus

Hi Aditya: do you have plan of creating stubs/articles for the different grameen initiatives mentioned on the page, i.e. Grameen Shikkha, Grameen Mothsho, Grameen Baybosa Bikash, Grameen Software Limited, Grameen Knitwear Limited, and Grameen Uddog? (I don't think that would be a worthwhile excercise.) If not, I'd like to remove the wikilinks as the redlinks don't look good. Arman Aziz 09:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. If you have plans of creating articles then that is very much comendable. Please do so. However, while most of what you said was right - you missed a simple point - which is - creation of wikilink should follow the creation of article. Creating links for articles which will be created in future is like adding cart before the horse. I also fully agree that adding real value to an article is more important than making it look beautiful - but I still don't understand how link to non-existing pages add value to an article. I would also beg to differ that creation of articles for organizations like Grameen Mothsho or Grameen Baybosa Bikash, which generate 0 google-hit outside the Grameen website, is a more worthwhile excercise than creating Portal:SAARC or Portal:Bengal.

Anyways, you friend Nahid has already dedicated himself to remove the redlinks, so I am not going to get further involved there. Arman Aziz 05:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your Counsel

Thanks for all the suggestions about how to discuss on wikipedia etc. on my talk page. There are definitely points in your post that I can learn from. Let me assure one thing to you, I also consider you a very valuable partner and wish we could work with greater synergy on wikipedia. I do not want to get rude with anyone unless there is a reason to believe someone is trying to take advantage of my politeness. Just wanted to raise a hypothtical situation to you... you are a knowledgable person, you'll understand the context.

Assume, one fine morning you log-in to wikipedia and discover the follwoing posting from me on Wikipedia talk:Featured content:

Is there any policy on the what kind of articles should be featured on Wikipedia? Or do we feature articles indiscriminately? I have found this featured article on Rajshahi University that makes little sense at all. Rajshahi University is an almost non-functional university (unlike the Cornell University, which is a world famous University and deserves to have a featured article), and the university has serious problems including terrorism where there is no safety to the life of teachers or students. Out of all the universities in the world, even a good article on this university seems unnecessary let alone a featured article.

Well, I have just discovered Shahbag, another featured article by the same user - User:Aditya Kabir, which depicts a defunct name for a location in a third world city. All the material of this article overlaps with Dhaka and Bangladesh. I guess, I am a bit surprised at this indiscriminate featuring of articles.

What will your feelings be? Will you be able to remain calm enough to be diplomatic and avoid being rude? If you think you can - I'd say you are a saint.

My sincere appologies: I am not a saint.

I don't know the full history of your interaction with Nahid and Niaz. But if there is any point of disagreement between them and you I will support them when I think they are right and I will support you when I think you are right. Nahid and Niaz have done a great job by creating all these small articles on Bangladeshi universities. I don't believe all articles on wikipedia have to be featured or even good articles. We are still far ... far from that achievement. But the way wikipedia has grown, it is now almost essential for any university to have an entry on wikipedia even if just a stub. And Niaz and NAHID have achieved that. I wish someone created stubs or start class articles for all banks or newspapers or hospitals in Bangladesh with equal enthusiasm.

Your's truly Arman Aziz 08:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to have a few comments about the historical incidents you raised. BD Portal header: When I had that discussion with you I was only looking at the portal from IE. And from IE what you were doing did not look like anything other than vandalism. So, I might have been a bit rude. Later User:B helped me to understand that actually the portal looks different from different browsers (IE and Firefox). Only then I realized that you were probably using Firefox or some other browser and that's why you were doing all those. I immediately appologized and requested you to reconfirm that you are using firefox - which you never did. Ultimately, I installed firefox just to solve this problem. Muhammad Yunus: I still think article first and then links - that should be the proper sequence. I saw those redlinks lying around for days and wanted to close them. But didn't find interest to create those articles as the notability of some of those organizations seemed marginal to me. So, I just asked you whether you have plans of creating articles for the redlinks or not. Instead of just saying "yes I have plans" you took it personally and went furious with me. And now that is an example when I loose head! Bangladesh geo-stubs: On wikipedia everyone has different priorities and preferences. You find interest in pornography, I find 0 interest there. I enjoy creating portals for my region, to you that is an indiscriminate activity. There is a need to allow everyone to choose their area of focus. You sought my help with that template and I tried to help you get started. But then I didn't want to engage further on the same activity as to me it was not a priority. So I tried to disassosiate myself from that endeavor and leave it to you and AA. May be I was not outright professional in my word choice when I did that. Since you're obviously superior to me in diplomacy on wikipedia talk pages, perhaps you can forgive my insubordinance now? Last but not least, my opinion about portals etc. - compared to wikipedia's 2,000,000 articles we still have too few portals (only one per 2,000 articles). I think we could use some more portals - at least 10 times what we have now. Adios. Arman Aziz 00:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
More on the debates with Arman Aziz
Redlinks • Rudeness • Nahid • IUB • Portal 01 • Portal 02 • Daily Star

Brazilian wax merge and redirect

Was this discussed somewhere? I don't agree with it, could it be undone pending discussion? Anchoress (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thong edits

Hi, you edited the Thong (clothing) article to clean it up by removing the gallery. This has been a "project that takes an eternity", though, and improvements are welcome. I think that the current selection of images includes those images that are necessary to illustrate what is discussed in the article. However, I disagree on the point of removing the gallery. There are a lot of potential images for the article and collecting them in a gallery helps with keeping the article (relatively) clean. People will attempt to add new images of differing quality to the article. Moreover, the gallery included images for illustrating different kinds of thongs on a plastic manikin — these were lost in the cleanup. These are details (even in fine details) that are essentially are subjects of the article. (I posted this to the personal page because the general talk tends to attract a lot of responses.) --Vuo (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Indosphere

Hi Aditya. The way I see it, Indosphere is a pretty different concept from Greater India and has a good scope of expanding on is own. Greater India and Indies, however, are pretty similar. Indosphere is similar in definition to Persianate society (contrasted to Greater Iran) or Sinosphere (contrasted to Greater China). Ideas like Greater India and Indies have some geographical basis, but Indosphere is a purely cultural concept (just like Anglosphere.) This could be a classical mergist splittist kind of a discussion. deeptrivia (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Aditya, I'm sorry for the delay; I peeked in on the AfD, and it looks like you've gotten the situation under control. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Bihari people

Hello Aditya, sorry for my actions. I was unaware that their was a discussion going on. I have provided my comments on the talk page of Biharis. Nevertheless, I did make several useful changes to the Bihari people article which I am restoring. I hope a decision is soon reached regarding the issue. With regards, AnupamTalk 06:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

TOC

I disagree with your views on layout but I am not seriously worried about such matters. I enjoy experimenting at certain times. I have stopped inserting TOC left long ago, merely to save you the bother of deleting them, but may be some TOCs I had put in earlier are still there. Since you are so worried on that point, you can delete them as and when you find them. I don't even remember where I may have inserted these. To be of some help I will also delete them when I locate them. Regards. - P.K.Niyogi (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Your tagging of several userboxes for deletion

I would like you to be aware of a couple points related to the tagging you did:

  1. When you tag a page which is, or is likely to be soon, transcluded on a page, please place it between a <noinclude> and a </noinclude> tags.
  2. Although in this case the creation of the pages was against the rules, it isn't always the case that "creating subpages using another user's userspace without permission is explicit vandalism". Moving a page into a user's namespace is, in some way, "creating subpages using another user's userspace"; and in some situations, moving a speedy-deletable page into the author's namespace is the correct thing to do.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What's your problem?

Bhaia, what's your problem? Why are you tagging pictures that I have uploaded? If there is anything going wrong, you may tell me directly. I always respect you and your activity and even in all the pages (including this one) address you as a Bhaia which means a big bro. So, I expected attitude like a big bro. We are not enemy here! I hope you can understand why I am leaving this comment.

Kind regards,

Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 18:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't take me wrong. We are like a family here, working together. You can at least ask me why did I create userboxes on someone's space? Bhaia, you really hurt me. :-( . - Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 19:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Actually I always consider you, Arman Bhaia, Ragib Bhaia and some other Wikipedians out here, not only as my senior brothers but also as my guides. I know, I am getting emotional and WP is not a place for emotion. But you cannot ignore emotions; at the end of the day we are all human being. I hope in future if I do anything wrong, or you feel any confusion regarding any of my edits, you'll guide me on the right path, not as a Wikipedian, as a senior bro. That's how actually community develops. Cheers - Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Kolkata trivia

Please see the talk page and comment. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Kolkata facts

I added to the introduction that it ranked 13th in the world (based on 2007 estimates by Demographia) and then you added a rankings section that states it is 12th in the world. I realize that figures are different depending on whether you're looking at estimates, projections, census data, etc. but we should probably keep it consistent lest the article contradict itself. It would probably be a good idea to add a note saying what the data is based up (e.g., 2007 estimates, 2000 census data). I have no preference, but I just thought I should point that out if you want to make that call. Thanks. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your use of rollback is being discussed at WP:ANI

Hello, Aditya Kabir. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents that concerns you. See WP:ANI#User:Aditya Kabir and misuse of rollback feature. EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Per the thread at ANI and my talk page I have restored the right. I am confident that you now understand when it is to be used. Happy editing! Pedro :  Chat  07:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback discussion

You may want to give some input here Pedro :  Chat  10:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Parashurama

I am contesting the proposal for speedy deletion of Parashurama (disambiguation). I have explained my reason for this on the talk page. Please let me know what you think of my suggestion. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough

Alrite. But why was the new map removed? --Emperor Genius (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge tags

I would think that after three complete months of discussion, where there is no consensus for a merge, that the merge should not be performed. All four articles discuss different items all about the same location, yes, but that doesn't mean the articles on two geographic entities should be merged into an article on a geopolitical entity. That and those that have weighed in on the talk page have opposed the move. Do not replace the tags, unless you wish to bring up the topic in a more centralized location. I'm sure the WikiProject on Indian topics is much better than the talk page of one specific article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bikini/Borat

Hi, you edited out my Borat/mankini/YouTube link today, which is fine – I do see your point. However, stale though the joke may be, I saw (again) 2 stag do's using mankinis this very weekend in the UK. It's still very popular, so I think it's worth noting (even minorly) as a cultural transfer phenomenon. I'd say so, anyway. Yeah? I tried looking for the subsection you mentioned ("(cur) (last) 14:58, 2 June 2008 Aditya Kabir (Talk | contribs) (35,705 bytes) (that borat joke is getting stale, you may put it in the movies sub-section under the popular culture section") but can't find any movies sub-section. Let me know what I can do, if anything. Sorry, I'm a virgin at these things, so I don't really know how this works. Thanks for your help, Kieron.

Indian sub-continent, South Asia

I know you're not being a dick! One of the problems with this mess of Indian articles (and I agree that it is a mess) is that there seem to be a multiplicity of political undercurrents that are driving their creation. British India, British Raj, British Rule in India, Company Rule in India, Princely States is a case in point. In the case of South Asia and the Indian Subcontinent the case is a lot simpler. We have three articles where there should be two. One for the tectonic plate thing and one for the South Asia/Indian subcontinent thing. On the political dimension, both terms, 'Indian subcontinent' as well as 'South Asia' refer to the same political area. Though South Asia is the more modern term, Indian subcontinent is used as (if not more) often in the academic world. I recognize that the term 'Indian' downplays the presence of non-Indian countries in the region, and also recognize that the preferred political term is South Asia and feel that we should do the following:

  • Have only two articles, one for the tectonic plate and one for the political entity
  • Title the political entity 'South Asia' with Indian subcontinent redirecting to South Asia
  • Ensure that the Indian subcontinent term is recognized as being equivalent to South Asia in the lead

It seems to me that that is the correct way to proceed. I see you have an interest in sorting this mess out so let me know what you think. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 15:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

explanation

The record shows you moved Isa Khan (Guantanamo detainee 23) to Isa Khan (Guantanamo detainee). Your edit summary said: "(moved Isa Khan (Guantanamo detainee 23) to Isa Khan (Guantanamo detainee): Why 23? It's inhuman and it's not needed.)"

I am sure you thought this was an obvious move. I disagree.

The actual identity of the Guantanamo captives is surprisingly muddy. The Guantanamo camp authorities did an absolutely abysmal job of keeping track of their names. Allegations wander from dossier to dossier. There are sets of captives who faced the exact same allegations, because camp authorities did a bad job telling captives apart. There are at least half a dozen captives whose names would normally have been transliterated identically. And camp authorities came up with multiple poorly thought out, incompatible renaming schemes for these captives.

I wanted the wikipedia to do a better job of distinguishing Guantanamo captives apart than the Guantanamo camp authorities. So, for the several dozen captives whose names required disambiguation I named their articles according to the rubric Joe Blow (Guantanaamo captive Nnn). Some of these captives whose names require disambiguation are like Isa Khan -- they require disambiguation from individuals who aren't other captives. But that is less than half. I personally think it was unwise to have two distinct disambiguation schemes. Geo Swan (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

See talk page

Talk:South_Asia#Why.2C_oh_why.3F

Comment duplicated below for convenience:

Relevant policy says the flag may be used the first time the country is listed, the point at which you are removing the flags is the point at which they are first mentioned. Flags at the moment are only used in "Definitions and Usage" and "Territory and region data", I do not understand your flag problem, the case is no longer that there is excessive use of flags considering they are now only placed twice, both in relevant localities. Flags present in the initial list is not against Wikipedia policy Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You said it does "But, the relevant policy doesn't say so [that flags in the beginning are ok]", but WP:FLAG does not say anywhere flags in the list go against Wikipedia policy, in fact it even puts down guidelines for how flags are to be used in a list (as I cquoted before). You cannot really consider much for consensus if you have only two people (you and me) editing the article and considering you were the one making the "controversial edit", I was the one undoing it. The flags in the list are years old, you are the only and first person I know of to try (and I have a long history on this page) to get rid of them (this is excluding the people who removed the once present Tibet flag from page, as this is a conflict regarding Tibet's sovereignty and not Wikipedia policy). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC) -also on Talk page Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this edit [1]

This edit you made makes that section very unclear, so I reverted it. Your edit makes it become very difficult to read. Please do not revert back to your version

Also, the format you made does not have an relevance to the Manual of Style. Please do not misread the MOS as you did regarding flags. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to revert the page once again, I would request that you do not revert other parts of the article. Furthermore, I requested an RfC on the page, so that a third opinion may come in. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

I have observed that you seem to have a problem accepting WP:AGF.

  • Apparently you made this edit in response to this edit and this edit. I don’t use Twinkle; so I don’t know what kind of input you may have put into Twinkle, but it must have had something to do with unconstructive edits, inasmuch as Twinkle used a {{uw-vandalism1}} tag. (Twinkle does let you preview your posts, doesn’t it?) Even your personal text accused Wbrz of “slapping on disruptive tags” – apparently in reference to adding {{deletable image-caption }} on the infobox image caption. But Wbrz was required to add that warning as a courtesy to other editors; see the last line of {{di-replaceable fair use}}. You were also wrong to call Wbrz’s edits unconstructive: Even if Wikipedia’s non-free image policy had allowed the use of that image, other editors have as much right as you to decide the content of articles. Now I don’t fault you for your misunderstanding Wikipedia’s image policy. And I appreciate that everything you have done was in an effort to improve Wikipedia, but a basic behavior guideline of Wikipedia requires you to assume the same for others. It is essential for creating a collaborative encyclopedia.
  • I still do not understand what point you were trying to make with this edit. It refers to a post from Rossrs to Stetsonharry about your post to Wbrz above. But neither Rossrs nor Stetsonharry nor Wbrz is involved in the FFD. Conversely, I was not involved with the post you cite. So who do you suggest was acting in bad faith?

—teb728 t c 00:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Help with South Asia

Hey, there is this editor User:SorenShadow who is making edits to this page about Iran not being part of South Asia. I need your help with this person. They keep reverting to an edit (made by a vandal IP) that pointlessly singles out Rutgers for not included Iran in their definition [2][3].

This is my counter edit [4]

Can you help me deal with this user, as they revert to a vandal edit. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jayne Mansfield biographical timeline

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jayne Mansfield biographical timeline, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayne Mansfield biographical timeline. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Warrah (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for School article reviewing

As you are an experienced and skilled editor of Wikipedia, I would like to request you to review the article Dhaka Residential Model College for Good Article status. I have contributed significantly to the article and recently nominated for WP:GA status. Could you please grant my request? Please inform your reply in my talk page. Thanks Tanweer (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Aditya Kabir! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 401 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Nethra Raghuraman - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Books from Books LLC

Hi Aditya Kabir,

I just removed a reference from the article Dwight Hooker that was sourced to a book from "Books LLC". I only saw afterwards that I had already removed that reference a few days ago and that you had re-added it. "Books LLC" has published thousands of those print-on-demand books via online books shops like Amazon or Barnes & Noble. Those are mostly just compilations of related Wikipedia articles that are all contained in the same category (in this case Category:Playboy photographers). In many product descriptions on Amazon, they even include links that link right back to the Wikipedia articles (see this description for example.) There are other users who have noticed this too, and one user even bought one of these books and verified that it only contains Wikipedia articles: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced articles#Books LLC. So I wouldn't use these books as references for Wikipedia articles, unless you bought the book and can verify that this specific book is not copied from Wikipedia. Regards, --02:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. --Kam Solusar (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Weekly Holiday, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.banglapedia.org/httpdocs/HT/H_0141.HTM, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Weekly Holiday saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! VernoWhitney (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

While not a word-for-word copy, the article is a close paraphrase and needs to be rewritten further (preferably from scratch) in order to avoid infringing copyright. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I guess it's quite fixed now. Please, check and take appropriate action. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Rohingya Jihad

Thanks for your message. No idea why I notified you. What I thought I was doing was clicking on editors in the article history. Sorry to bother you. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cryptic Fate

An editor has nominated Cryptic Fate, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptic Fate and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

An/I

Hello, Aditya Kabir. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Category:Chowdhury family

Hi! You proposed speedy deletion of Category:Chowdhury family. I've nominated it at CfD instead, because it doesn't match any of the speedy deletion criteria. I've copied your rationale to the nomination, which is located here. Feel free to participate on the discussion on that page. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dwight Hooker

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

No references to support claims. Only ref is to playboy

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. mark nutley (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Dwight Hooker

I have nominated Dwight Hooker, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwight Hooker. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. CIreland (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Regarding your comment: "Cresix and Nightscream, please, discuss on the discussion page, no need to form a tagteam". First, we HAVE discussed on the talk page. Secondly, two editors can disagree with you without it being "tagteam". That is assuming bad faith and a personal attack. Accordingly:
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. Cresix (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My apologies. No need to template a regular, though. Would you, please, take part in the discussion or address the issues raised in the discussion now? Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Apology accepted. Yes, for personal attacks, regulars should be templated. Personal attacks are never a minor issue. If you didn't deserve a template, you wouldn't have made the attack to begin with, especially since both editors that you attacked had already contributed to the discussion. Now, I have in fact responded to the latest discussion. You and I have a disagreement about whether a source is reliable. Your opinion is no better than mine on that issue. So seek resolution instead of constantly reverting. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
That exactly is my recommendation regarding reverting. But, as for reliability of a source, I think Wikipedia has policies and practices quite firmly in place, no matter what you or I believe. And, I would rather follow that. And, I am happy that templating have served some purpose for you. Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Cite the policy that specifically states that the source cited is unreliable. Not your opinion; the policy. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Jazmin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jazmin 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/Jazmin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Social impact of thong underwear for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Social impact of thong underwear 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/Social impact of thong underwear until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Toddst1 (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of maintenance tags / restoration of unsourced material in Thong (clothing)

Your edit summary said "way too many banners screaming the same message, removed some of the redundant" - in that case, you should remove the improperly sourced / unsourced material rather than only what you perceive to be exraneous maintenance tags.

Under no circumstances should you ever restore unsourced material that has been removed unless you are supplying citations from reliable sources. I'm sure you know our policies around those areas, and your edits appear to be in conflict with them. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. Toddst1 (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

bikini

i agree with your edits on bikini. i think this edit [5] is a personal attack against you and he should apologize for it. well see. Bouket (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a personal attack. Toddst1 (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
In which way it's not a personal attack? Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Any way you choose. Toddst1 (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Misunderstanidng of what an WP:EW is by Toddst1.
Any further discussion on this matter should take place on User talk:Toddst1 where the actual discussion started.

December 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bikini. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Toddst1 (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I posted for a discussion User talk:Beyond My Ken, Talk:Bikini and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. and I did request for discussions every time I reverted, which didn't happen. I did post my concerns before reverting, while the other party went on to revert my other edits without participating in the discussion. It was natural to assume that the other party isn't interested in discussion, and okay to make another revert. The other party's answer to his talk page, which ended in - "I'm not interested in hearing from you, since your interest seems entirely selfish and not focused on improving the encyclopedia" - made that assumption even more natural.
You seem to have forgotten the very beginning of the relevant guideline - "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." (WP:WAR) I also have noted with some curiosity that while you templated me, you have done no such thing to the other party. I also was quite curious to see that you didn't find - "You've done it to Bikini and Bikini variant and Thong (clothing)-- which I didn't revert because it's already garabage. You apparently think you know what a good image is; you're wrong, but I can't be bothered to spend the time necessary to tutor you about what is a good image and what is bad" - to be a personal attack, especially because the relevant guideline is summarized as - "Comment on the content, not on the contributor". (WP:PERSONAL)
I have posted this to my talk page as well. I'm really surprised at this action. Can you, please, explain where I'm wrong? Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Edit warring is edit warring. Toddst1 (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
And, no edit war is no edit war. Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Explanation: if you disagree with another editor about something, it should only be reverted once. WP:BRD, while not an official policy is good advice. After the reversion start a discussion on the talk page. If you can't come to agreement and think you're right, try to get more editors to participate using some form of content WP:DR like WP:DRN or WP:RFC. Nobody Ent 13:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

hi aditya. toddst1 doesnt think you understand that you were doing edit warring. i think according to wikipedia it counts as edit warring no matter who is right. you didnt actually edit war since you didnt break that 3RR rule but i think its important to him that you understand that you AND beyond my ken were both edit warring or about to edit war or something. even though you were right, the correct procedure is that you get consensus on the talk page and get other people involved, when you have a problematic behavior like beyond my ken did. i think so anyway. Bouket (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Bouket, I' don't think you're helping here and in fact you are dead wrong. From WP:EW

"An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned. ... The three revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three revert rule, or even coming close to doing so."

Toddst1 (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
how am i dead wrong? i said its important that he understands that both he and BMK are edit warring. am i not understanding something? Bouket (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Both parties were edit warring. That's very different from saying "you didnt actually edit war since you didnt break that 3RR rule" as you did above. Toddst1 (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course, by repeatedly you mean "more than once"/"twice or more", which renders 3RR quite irrelevant though. And, starting a discussion on the second revert doesn't even count, especially when a "regular" editor decides not to discuss. Warning only one of the parties involved and ignoring the other's personal attack makes it easier to reach a consensus, especially when uninvolved editors agree to the version of the party warned. Yes, yes, I get it. No wonder the number of active Wikipedians are not growing and only a handful of new volunteers are joining in. A brilliant way to nurture a community, I'm sure. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please notify involved editors that you bring to administrative noticeboards

Apparently you missed the giant orange box at the top of the editing screen for ANI:

Please be more careful. Toddst1 (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about this page? Where did you find giant orange box? Please, be more civil towards other editors, even when they don't have the blocking right. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Nobody is being the least bit uncivil towards you - the warning(s) above are pretty standard. As per the big orange box on ANI what you see when you try to EDIT that page, and per the notification at the top of the page to begin with, you MUST notify any editor you report. ANY editor, including an admin, would be fully within their right to put the exact same warning on your page. For crying out loud, you've been here over 3 years - you're no newbie, and you've been templated before! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I seriously hope you know what you are doing. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You should get this: [[6]] when you click the "Edit this Page" tab and the box shown above should be at top. Is that what you're seeing? Nobody Ent 13:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Aditya, this is a real issue and yes, we are very serious. We do know what we're doing and as BWilkins said, nobody is being the least bit uncivil towards you.
However you have transgressed a number of policies back to back and the kindest way I can think of to describe your lack of notification here is "very discourteous." I strongly suggest you start looking at your own actions much more closely, stop trying to project these problems onto others and take responsibility for your actions. Toddst1 (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I like that "we" part. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

hi

i tried to help out but i just made the people involved angry with me. i dont know what we can do here, but at least we got toddst1 to admit both of you were edit warring. i still dont know why he thought its ok for an established editor to edit war, but ok. lets move on. sorry i couldnt help more. are you going to continue to edit here? Bouket (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course, I'll continue. Wikipedia foundation owns this encyclopaedia, and then it's owned by us, common editors. We create the articles, we expand them, we cite the information, and we cross-reference the content. It's us, and that is the whole idea of the project. It's the biggest bestest encyclopaedia ever because we don't give up or give in. Looking forward to working with you in a non-conflictive situation. BTW, I have no particular area of interest, and you can ask my participation for any article you are working on. Research and citation is what I do best (though there are awesome editors who surpass me by far in that area). Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
i dont edit a lot and i feel like editing less since now i think a user is stalking my edits. this has all been really discouraging. but maybe ill become positive again. i started editing because this site has such a bad reputation but has so much potential i wanted to see if i could help. nice to meet you though. Bouket (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
oh and thanks for your kind offer Bouket (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
No, dear. Don't be so discouraged. In fact, MBK has been a valiant editor making thousands of edits to improve Wikipedia and Toddst1 has been protecting the project from various kinds of maledits for a long time. Both are highly laudable editors. No one is perfect, and both may have been wrong or even abusive here and there without even realizing the mistake. But, Wikipedia works. Check this signpost article. And, hey, let's not keep grudges. What's a large community without a few conflicts? It's all part of the process. Cheers, and I mean it. Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
i guess but it feels so conrfontational when people should be trying to help each other instead Bouket (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Worry not. You'll be really surprised at the amount of help that's available here. Not all the time, not everywhere, but it's there. Wikipedia community is like any other big community. I have met the worst of jerks here, including admins getting kicked out of the project, and I have seen the best of golden hearted too, including people who learned a specific subject overnight just to help another editor. Keep faith, dear. Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
More on the debates with Toddst1
Lemme clarify • Abusive behaviour of an admin • Can't see the point • Can't see the point

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jayne Mansfield's physical assets in popular culture. Since you had some involvement with the Jayne Mansfield's physical assets in popular culture redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Please rephrase your rude comment on a blocked user

Hi, I had welcomed this user and his talkpage was on my watch. I see that the new user had made some not so perfect edits on article(s) and may be had even shown some arrogance after which he was blocked. But Please understand that comments such as this will only fire up the situation, and is a good example of WP:BITE. That comment in my opinion is unnecessary, rude and inciting. Please rephrase it in a kind way.
Please be kind to others in the same way as you expect from others on your User_talk:Aditya_Kabir/Editnotice, cheers--DBigXray 21:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Glad that you considered my advise.--DBigXray 05:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Extreme irritation, I guess. I have been seeing the same amount of stubborn non-reason quite a bit around the Wikipedia, often together with extreme incompetence/laziness. Stuff like that can really gets to you at times. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
But you cannot fight arrogance with arrogance, my friend. Admins are always there if issues get out of hand. --DBigXray 05:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
True. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Re : For god's sake

It's been quite a few months since I made the edits in Template:Bengal Renaissance and those had been undone long before you posted this thread. Please don't make unnecessary or belated complains. As for the Template:Tourism in Bangladesh, you can give your valuable advice on the talk page of the template, my user talk page is not the only place where you can negotiate. Some of your threads in my talk page are repeatedly violating the Wikipedia policies such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Harassment etc. Since you are an experienced editor here, I'm not reminding the negative results of these violations, thanks. --Kmzayeem (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: If you see it that way, I'll rather leave you to the community and the policies. Which, if you don't change your ways, will bring you more trouble.
I've already changed the way which I adopted initially but it seems it's your turn now since you are making redundant and belated complains which is severely annoying. My last edit in Template:Bengal Renaissance was on 4 May 2012 and it had been undone on 17 June 2012, more than a month before you posted the thread regarding this on ‎31 July 2012, see here. You have done a similar thing regarding the Template:History of Bengal. I admit I have committed some mistakes but bringing those past issues repeatedly can be termed as a severe violation of Civility. Besides, your metaphorical comments indicating me can be termed as harassment. Please don't post any philosophical comments or advice other than the technical issues. Your such behavior can discourage the relatively new users to edit here and ultimately damage the work of building an encyclopedia which will bring you the same trouble that you warned me. Hope you will abide by the policies. Please don't reply in my talk page. --Kmzayeem (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Rest of the story
My original comment

Talk:Bikini waxing

Please clarify how you think this edit improves, or benefits the encyclopedia?

As per wp:notaforum I am perfectly within my rights to remove any post that claims "Pubic-waxing arose with pop-music lyrics about cuttin', rippin', and killin' ho's and bitches, when football-players were idolized for murdering or assaulting wives and girlfriends. Some men cannot perceive of sex (or ANY pleasure, sexual or not) in terms different from dog-fighting and car-crashes, and anything that degrades their partner feeds their psychopathic frenzy. Turning adult women into little children by waxing off their attributes of adultness is part of this sick game".

At best, this is ignorant soapboxing, and at worst blatant trolling - both of which are valid reasons for removal. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Rest of the story
Whole lot of fun stuff

Possible etymology section

Ms Kabir,

May I suggest we add an etymology section to the Bangladesh article? To begin with, it's a very interesting subject. However there also seems to be quite a lot of confusion in Western media over the origin of the word Bengal, with a lot of ignorant people claiming it emerged only during British rule. It's amazing that there is no mention of the Persian term Bangalah which was used during the medieval period. Just a suggestion. I'm not very good in crafting Wikipedia texts though.--Bazaan (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. But, I believe it better belongs to the article on Bengal. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Now what's your problem? What happened to Wikipedia not being a battleground? For your information, I am not the type of person who engages in "puffery". My edits are very much in line with the facts.--Bazaan (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Aditya(talk • contribs) 19:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Reply LouisAragon

Hello, I think you missed my reply on my talk page. It's actually good like it is right now, as putting them all at the same place will give confusion. The UN definition (and the only definition in the world wich adds Iran) is the most deviating one, that's why we included it later on in the article some time ago, so people understand it's based solely for something compeltely different (namely statistic purposes), and nothing else. Regards LouisAragon (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to the talk page. I will revert the edition back to the one before you, for now, as it's normal before a consensus is reached on behalf on changing that what already existed. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request re South Asia

Hi, I'm a regular volunteer at 3O. Your request for a 3O has been removed due to the RFC pending on the same issue. Dispute resolution processes may only be used one at a time and generally cannot be used if any other DR process or similar process to resolve a dispute is pending. If the RFC does not work within it's alloted 30 day period, then you may consider trying 3O or some other DR process. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Muhammad Hamidullah Khan

Hi, I'm responding to your comments at Talk:Muhammad Hamidullah Khan, which I thought were well reasoned. An anon has added back the contentious material, reverting my edits. Do you have any thoughts about how to combat this? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the Bangladesh War Of Independence 1971 situation. I've been seeing such changes recently but hadn't taken much notice because it is now a redirect. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Culture of Dhaka

The section about culture in Dhaka had long been a mess. Rainmaker23 and another IP uses have been developing it. I posit, it is high time we fork the section to a full article. I created Culture of Bangladesh Culture of Dhaka. You are invited to add your good work there. – nafSadh did say 19:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Blonde bombshell

You may want to comment on the requested move at Talk:Blonde bombshell (disambiguation), before this devolves into an edit war. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

May be its raining again

You might want to keep an eye on. – nafSadh did say 08:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Sleeper alert? Look into Mr. Chy's contrib, just came back to restore R23's edit after two years! – nafSadh did say 08:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Another duck? A handful of edits a couple of years back was all he did, not enough to have any experience. Let's see how much experience he shows. Without showing some expertise he can't get Bazaan/UCk/Rainmaker's work done, and with showing expertise he gets caught. Yes, let's keep and eye on him. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Roger that. – nafSadh did say 15:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
It is definitely raining. – nafSadh did say 16:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

can we?

Can we give double or more vote on the same person?--115ash→(☏) 13:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. :( Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Removing collage completely in this page and adding in Bangladeshis and Bengali Hindus the only Solution

Bangladeshis might feel that they are larger in population but lower in pictures , and they will try to remove lots on great people Chaitanya mahaprabhu, Ramakrishna , Swami Vivekananda , Subhash Bose , Aurobindo Ghosh , Sharat Chandra Chatterjee , Pranab Mukherjee , Michael Madhushudhan , Khudiram , Sharadindu , Sukumar Roy. And they are trying to fill with Shefali Chaundhury . As if there must be some balancing act . Where both will get equal share of the property(collage ). Already we have two pages Bangladeshis and Bengali Hindus . Best solution would be to remove the picture collage here in this article and add in those pages according to Bangladeshi and Indian point of view. Problem solved.

In that case as i stated above , Bifurcation won't be necessary . Then Subhash Chandra Bose Vs Shefali Chaudhuri , Bipasha Vs Ramakrishna , Shakib Vs Swami Vivekananda , Pranab Mukherjee Vs Zia ul Haq debate will be over.So , lets call for peace. This page Bengali people don't require picture collage as the discussion will go nowhere . We must add our preference in Bangladeshis and Bengali Hindus page. Sorry guys , all of you will have to sacrifice your hard labour ,especially those involved in this edit war from the past few months . Lots of pages get deleted . This is nothing. Thanks for your contribution to the talk page , but this is the best solution available right now. As there is no end to debate.112.79.38.6 (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you furnish any evidence to support any of your statements? Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Bengali people. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I am not taking this insanity accusation lightly . Don't use fuck in edit summary. C E (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Now I know who was messing up the codes. Thanks. Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any knowledge about codes. Can you show revision history difference ?--C E (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's not get personal, and let's stick to building an encyclopedia. While you are busy pushing POVs and feeling slighted, some people are busy building a consensus. Perhaps you can realize that. Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the hard work but if someone calls Subhash Chandra Bose king of the jungle-with reference to my Andaman comment. C E (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

What's this? What are you complaining about? How come you have so much time to waste on uselessness? Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I think this edit is what he's complaining about. "Let's not get personal" is good advice, but it goes for you, too. You may want to consider striking parts of this comment. Huon (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Huon: Now what is it? Cosmic Emperor is complaining about one comment, so I need to edit down another comment? And, seriously, reporting what is happening is not getting personal. Every comment I made has reference in the talk page. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Never mind. I can see the issue as solved. And, if you would like to know, I have apologized too. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

remove all my votes and comments and nobody should send me any alert messages about Bengali people . I can do that myself but it might affect your valuable codes(no idea what code)--CosmicEmperor (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Need Your Help

This person is creating headache . I normally IP edit but I can't take him alone.Just look at the choice of his Usernames .

1 , 2 , 3.Sky Blue Eyes (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aditya_Kabir/Archive_3&oldid=1190237210"