User talk:Aditya Kabir/Archive 9

two questions

Isn't it standard procedure to put Template:Delrev on the deleted/deletable page as described by WP:DRV instructions? I found the edit summary a bit derogatory. Are image discussions and actions supposed to be inherently rude? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{delrev}} is usually used only for pages which have a keep decision appealed or which are restored during a DRV so that people can see the previous content. Image description pages without an actual image to correspond to them are deleted as a general standard. As for the description, it's taken directly from the deletion dropdown. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:70.128.184.187

Thanks for the note. I put the article on my watch list and will take care of it if it happens again. If I'm not around, you can report it to WP:AIV, since the IP has received a final warning. Cheers.--Kubigula (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catsuits and bodysuits in popular media

Please point to the particular scene, line, or critical commentary which says that a particular catsuit was made of lycra, leather, pleather, or whatever. Corvus cornix_talk 06:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like the material (leather/latex/vinyl) to be there without a citation, then remove them I thought about that but figured I'd get reverted. Corvus cornix_talk 17:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wardrobe malfunction

I'll give you Social aspects of clothing and to a lesser extent Voyeurism (though I highly disagree with this one as well), but how do you explain Wedgie, Whale tail, Downblouse and Upskirt, when none of these subjects involve a "defect" in an article of clothing or accidental exposure of one's body part? These all imply either a deliberate exposure or simply the visual effect of an article of clothing - not a result in an exposure due to a defect. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In context, now I can see how those terms apply with the expansion you've given to the article. Though on a personal level I still disagree. There is obviously a big difference in a defect in an article of clothing and an intentional display, but ...whatever. Nice job so far. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 19:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. :) The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greater India

It would be better if you could discuss and go through the concerned article's history ([1]) before making such edits. Thanks --Nosedown (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly mentioned in the edit summary that the gallery was imported to, and not from, Indianized kingdom. The gallery should be removed from the article on Indianized kingdom since not all images in this gallery are linked to the concerned topic. In other words, these images are more relevant to the Greater India article. And I apologize for the removal of the "Evolution of the term". That was done by mistake. --Nosedown (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. The article is in much better shape now. Cheers --Nosedown (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South Asia

My political affiliations, grudges etc are not relenvant here, it's just a matter of simple english reading skills:

this is what the sentence reads:

"It also encompasses the 562 protected princely states that became integral parts of the Union of India, but was not directly ruled by the Raj,[5] including Hyderabad State, Kingdom of Mysore, State of Jammu and Kashmir, Baroda, and Gwalior.[6] Sikkim joined India in 1975"

The sentence is constructed (assuming good faith) so as to imply that Jammu and kashmir is an integral part of India along with the other mentioned states, this is obviously not true, so the sentence needs to be correctly rephrased. Khokhar (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on my talk page, I would be happy to lend a hand, but I am not always very active so will try to help whenever possible. Regards. Khokhar (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silk Smitha

Hi Aditya Kabir. I have tried to revert the above-captioned article to the last clean version. I may have inadvertently taken out this edit of yours. Please feel free to restore that edit if I did indeed err. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 07:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal immigration in India

Hi,

I have somewhat enhanced the article Illegal immigration in India. Please review and comment on the talk page if the NPOV banner can be removed.

Thanks --Iball (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your comments in the talk page. Please check. --Iball (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia–Wikimedia Meetup
Kolkata, India

(view · edit · changes)

A-Class review

Hi,

Yes, you are right an A-Class should be decided by the relevant wikiproject. I was wondering how did the members of your project go about this and reached the decision for this article Talk:Shahbag to pass it as an A-Class article? I cannot see any discussions about this. Mootros (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Email

The problem is I have a 15 page honors thesis to write between now and May 5th, and then I have finals. I am technically supposed to be on wikibreak these days. I can't really be of much use until after 5/15, but it is quite clear that they are on the road to getting banned. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tibet on South Asia

Quigley seems to want to start a discussion on the inclusion of Tibet in South Asia. Please chime in if you can. You are being informed of this as you took part in similar discussions on Talk:South Asia in the past. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bambusa vulgaris

Hi Aditya Kabir, I have not forgotten about helping with the B. vulgaris article. I am currently working on a large list of disambiguations and when I am finished will take another look at it. It does need some work, but can see you have striven mightily to be thorough. As for rating it a "B", I would leave that to members of WikiProject Plants, although there is no prohibition from you rating it yourself, as far as I know. After all, WP is the encyclopedia anyone can edit.

One tip: all mentions of species' scientific names in the article should be in italics, without exception; this includes the genus and the specific epithet, whether written out completely, or abbreviated. To whit: B. vulgaris, Bambusa vulgaris. All levels above the level of genus are never italicized, so they can always be left alone.

I promise to get back to it, but it may be some time late this coming week. In the interim, if you want you can post to the WikiProject talk page, and see if a botanist will also lend some expert help. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 09:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I made some edits to the article, see what you think - you have been doing a great job with it! I like it a lot, and it was most needed (common bamboo without an article for this long? Amazing!). One thing, I put in a lot of synonyms, but you show B. surinamensis as a synon. If it is indeed a synon, we need to place it in its proper place in the taxobox, and it needs to have a ref placed in the synonyms_ref entry section of the taxobox. I imagine it is one of the books you have cited where you found it. Forget that last part, I see it was one of the ones I added from Tropicos :) Thanks! Hamamelis (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

South Asia

This RFC seems to be getting responses only from IPs... can you recruit an expert to clarify this? or maybe a notification on a relevant noticeboard to attract some comments? --lTopGunl (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

im osrry

thanks for your kind words but i cant take it here. too stressful, now i am told i dont count at all [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir Kush] and i know too many people on here are making it look like they want it too and this site isnt objective at all, and we cant do anything about it. Bouket (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perianth (plant)

Just for your information — there's no need to tag the talk page for speedy deletion. Talk pages are supposed to be deleted when their articles are deleted, so I would have deleted the talk page immediately after deleting the article even if you'd not tagged it. Nyttend (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bambusa vulgaris

Hi Aditya,

I'm really hard pressed for time. Not able to find enough time to address my various arguments, including with you. :) So my contribution to your quest is to provide a section missing vide Plant MOS - Description. However the urls are barebones and you will need to cloak them with cite webs. Ask for help in general WikiProjects Plants and India. You may like to ask User:Shyamal too for his opinion. Sorry cant help more at this stage. Hope it helps. Will pay more attention later when I'm free. AshLin (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you did not notice in the taxobox that arundinacea is a synonym for vulgaris? See ref three of the article. The redirect "arundinacea" goes to "bambos" which is also without reference. Vide ref 3 both are in fact synonyms of "B. vulgaris". Please restore my description. AshLin (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend you reflect the concern on talk page of WikiProject Plants where the experts reside. AshLin (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review limits changed

This is a notice to all users who currently have at least one open peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review. Because of the large number of peer review requests and relatively low number of reviewers, the backlog of PRs has been at 20 or more almost continually for several months. The backlog is for PR requests which have gone at least four days without comments, and some of these have gone two weeks or longer waiting for a review.

While we have been able to eventually review all PRs that remain on the backlog, something had to change. As a result of the discussion here, the consensus was that all users are now limited to one (1) open peer review request.

If you already have more than one open PR, that is OK in this transition period, but you cannot open any more until all your active PR requests have been closed. If you would like someone to close a PR for you, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Peer review. If you want to help with the backlog, please review an article whoe PR request is listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog/items. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi! Update in Talk:Gauḍa region. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on Talk:Gauḍa region page. Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help: History of Bengal Template

Hi, hope all is well. This User:Kmzayeem keeps changing History of Bengal template to History of Bangladesh. As seen here and here. Please help stop this vandalism. Thank you (69.112.76.243 (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

My signature!

This is code of my signature
<font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">[[User:Titodutta|Tito Dutta]] [[User talk:Titodutta|<big>✉</big>]]
I tried to add CSS type effect. More specifically I tried to make it like Indian flag (above saffron blue links (name, talk) and green below), but I know it does not look like that! --Tito Dutta ✉ 01:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied in my talk page! --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Belflower1997

I know you moved the Bette Davis pic on this user's talk page to fix some formatting issues. As a courtesy I just wanted to let you know that I have subsequently adjusted the Bette Davis pic to more closely resemble my original placement of it there. My intention was not for the pic to bookmark the entire June 2012 Notices section but for this user to notice and know that their ongoing editing practices (no references, no edit summaries, clogging up edit histories with incremental edits) are against accepted Wikipedia practices and guidelines - I sometimes use images with my notes to editors that are in the their interest-range (& that are also not one of the usual WP Notice/Warning logos). Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page!

"Work in progress" above in your talk page is a disambiguation page! --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's fixed now. The original link was not a disambig page. But, over the time it changed, and I didn't notice. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Andrew Nelson (author)

The article Andrew Nelson (author) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reliable references on anything except he wrote a few pieces for Salon.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bangla Rock

The page Bangla rock was full of partial information, I have entered some facts there but still it needs more information especially about Bangladesh. Please go through the Talk page there. - Kmzayeem (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self published source

As you are active in Military history articles, feel free to remove WP:SPS pakdef.info from wiki articles, that you come across. The WP:RSN discussion is here, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_108#Pakdef.info cheers--DBig Xray 21:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REX#Verification of reliability

Dear Aditya! Is your request still open? Please let me know. Thank you, -- Doc Taxon (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you need all the 8 references stated there? -- Doc Taxon (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sorry ji i didnt realise

you or i can remove the unstantiated information i added

also the info i removed may have been incorrect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raam2012 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title of 2013 Bangladesh riots

I just saw that you changed the title of 2013 Bangladesh violence after ICT verdicts to 2013 Bangladesh riots. I understand the title should be more compact, however the title 2013 Bangladesh riots is very general. I would request you to suggest a more specific name if you do not like the title: 2013 Bangladesh violence after ICT verdicts. Thanks.Pratanu.roy (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is already a thread named 'Changing the title' in the talk page. Pratanu.roy (talk) 07:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can the article 2013 Bangladesh riots be merged with the broader article of 2013 Bangladesh protests which mentions both shahbag protest and the later violent counter protest. The section on Shahbag forks out and later if/when the info in the counter protest section gets too large, we can fork out another article. However at the present moment because of the length of the 2013 Bangladesh riots, I would suggest a merge with 2013 Bangladesh protests. also few images on the violent counter protest would be quite informative for audiences and would enrich the article. LegalEagle (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far I can see, Bangladesh protests can work as a mother article, while specific separate events can have separate articles, i.e. the Riots and Shahbag. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1971 Bangladesh atrocities

You recently comment on a RM on the article 1971 Bangladesh atrocities. The discussion was closed and the article moved to the previous title by another editor per WP:RM/TR. A new RM has been initiated and can be found here Darkness Shines (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sundarbans South Wildlife Sanctuary wikipedia article

Hello Aditya, I have been given the article Sundarbans South Wildlife Sanctuary to 'Wikify', and I have found the large Sundarbans acticle and feel that the three small articles that you created in 2011 would be more noticed and appropriate if they are combined with this larger article. I have copied the material from the South, East and West articles to the Sundarbans article in the Geography section. The West one does not have much specific information about it. I wonder what you think of the material being moved here. If it works effectively, the three small articles could be deleted. What do you think? Travers (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

FYI: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#2013_Bangladesh_India_WikiProjects_dispute_resolution.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'71 genocide

Hi!

Your comments here would be appreciated!--ArmanJ (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bikini

Just wondering if you've had a chance to stop by the bikini article in recent months and see the effects of the effort made to continue to improve the work? I noted your comments peppered throughout a talk page archive there and so you must've been a primary contributor to the article, hence I thought I'd check in with you, even if several years may have passed since you were regularly involved there. Az x2 17:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I read your feedback on my talk page and made most of the edits you suggested, including deleting the gallery completely, although I used two images from the gallery within the main body of the article, including replacing the WWE wrestlers w/ the beach volleyball shot (Since you were certainly correct about the relative controversies). I also add much more info about the controversies related to bikinis in beach volleyball, and current developments by the FIVB that allowed for uniform changes (shorts instead of bikini bottoms) at London 2012. Thanks again for the feedback - I've tried to garner input via the article's talk page and am active there, just waiting for folks to contribute so it's not just me working on the article lol... Az x2 18:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really appreciate your recent contributions to bikini, especially the copyediting like what you applied to the sports controversies section. I would've gotten around to it eventually, but it's so nice to have someone else come in and make clearer a section like that that significantly increased in size off of one or two edits. I also agree with your replacement of the microkini picture with the much toned-down pic of model in bikini underwear. I thought that was a very nice touch to add substance to that variant, especially when the focus of the text is on the swimwear version. I understand you're not necessarily a fan of the main image, but I also feel very strongly that it should remain as-is, since it is of tremendous "quality" (not just in a technical sense) and complies with seemingly all of the guidelines in MOS for a lead image, without being shocking or sensationalized and w/o unnecessary objectification imo.

I have one question though: do you understand what the purpose of the final line in the article is (Faced with sexpot supermodels and the cult of body consciousness, a shift away from the bikini remains, offering passive resistance to the concept that "if you've got it, you have to flaunt it".), why that quote was selected? I wasn't responsible for it, as it predated my interest in the article, but I don't understand what it's to convey and wonder if it's not an attempt at editorializing something? Idk tho, so if you have any thoughts on that, or would suggest a different means of concluding that section and the article, I'd be keen to hear it. Thanks again, and hoping you can continue to make any necessary contributions to the article at present. Cheers. Az x2 22:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Wondering if you could return to bikini and please take a quick & urgent look at the new section-addition someone made at the beginning of main article body. They created an entirely new section on the etymology of the word bikini, which has some interesting, new material but which also repeats much of what's in the main history section. I think the new material could simply be integrated into the history section and doesn't require its own independent section, and certainly not as the first part of the main article text. Even if you don't have time to make any edit to this material, would you provide your feedback as to what you think should happen to it, if anything? Thanks... Az x2 21:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aditya! Just a heads up that since the BIKINI article has entered into a period of "stability", with us three most prolific contributors having concluded our most active periods editing and improving the article, I made the Good Article Nomination... Hopefully the bikini-nomination gets picked up for review soon and we don't have to wait months. But I wanted to notify you and Btphelps so that you would be aware of the nomination and hopefully available to respond to a reviewer should one materialize. Hopefully any reviewer considering the article will also notify both of you if they proceed so that you could respond. And I also wanted to make you aware of the GAN so that any reviewer would see that whatever the differences are that may have informed your perspectives in editing the article, it IS stable and not subject to any edit warring whatsoever, that anything initially viewed as contentious has either been re-evaluated or otherwise resolved. Thanks! Az x2 19:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Miss Süddeutschland

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Miss Süddeutschland requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Inanygivenhole (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect so. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 23:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your question at the Help desk

	Hello Aditya Kabir. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{Resolved\|1=~~~~}} at the top of the section. Thank you!
	Message added on 14:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{helpdeskreply}} template.

Boli khela

To be frank, I could use some help on how that's done. Morinae (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tajuddin Ahmad

Hello. Can I have some help refining the intro in this article? --31.205.56.85 (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Will take a look. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bikini

Please open a WP:PR and I will review it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jayne Mansfield Page

Hi, sorry for late reply. Sure I can help. I can go through it in more detail but did you have anything specific in mind? Thx :) Presto808 (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh

Hi, Aditya -- I just thought I'd ask you whether you approve of the recent edits to Bangladesh. I believe I recall that there was a discussion at some point on the Talk page about the language. I'll let you decide whether the changes to content in the article are correct, but after you decide that, grammatical errors in the new material must be addressed, including "it's" when it should be "its" and "there are some amount of" would need to be corrected. I'll await your review and any changes you make. CorinneSD (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Bazaan undid most of them. CorinneSD (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CorinneSD. I couldn't find the edits you are referring to. Can you post some defs? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Aditya (is it Aditya or Aditva? I see both.), but I don't know what you mean by "defs". I assume you mean some sort of link to the actual edits, but I don't know how to create that kind of link. I looked again at the revision history for Bangladesh and I see that you have also made an edit. If you go back a few edits, you will see that, on March 10, Bazaan undid the edits of an editor with a user name that is not in English letters, with an edit summary saying "partial rv of good faith edits, these matters already have a consensus. please discuss your changes first before making them". After that, it goes back and forth a bit. Those March 10 edits were the ones I was concerned about. I guess I shouldn't be so concerned and should just wait a bit; I forget sometimes that other editors have the articles on their watchlists. CorinneSD (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I was only looking for your edits getting reverted. Checking the edits of the non-english named editor's getting reverted.

Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See my additional comment on the article's talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkstalk sez... I think that Aditya was asking for diffs, Corinne. Aditya, there is a shorthand defs which means definitions, usually. Corinne likes language a lot, and I expect that she wondered what words you wanted definitions of. :-) Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rural schools vs. private university?

Hello, I think you did not notice the recent Talk:Bangladesh page. I am open to discussion about pictures. (Mohd. Toukir Hamid (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I have already mentioned I am not new though you are doing the same thing again.I contribute both Bengali and English Wikipedia and I know rules and regulations.I thing you have mistaken.One of the core policies of Wikipedia specifically calls for a claim to fame. And, Wikipedia is not a gallery. Here, what do you want to know by claim to fame. Is it famous or well known university or good ranked university? You should have cleared that.Obviously it is famous or well known university or good ranked university. Listen bro,I have contributed many years and though I have not Participated more on English Wikipedia because of my other works. I am auto-patrolled, roll-backer and reviewer in Bengali Wikipedia and I know what is Wikipedia. Right? Thank you again.(Mohd. Toukir Hamid (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ratan Kumar Paul

The article Ratan Kumar Paul has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. C1776M ^Talk 16:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Un-salvageable. Nothing found on Google. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi nationalism

Hi! I have somewhat expanded it after its merger with Bengali nationalism, let me know if the merger is still needed. Thanks. --Zayeem ^(talk) 14:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to discuss

You are invited to participate in a discussion here. --» nafSadh did say 19:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saiman Miah

Dear Kabir, I invite you to express your opinion about the article for deletion. --Rossi101 (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Rossi101[reply]

Proposal for WP:NCGN#Bangladesh

A convention for naming geographic locations in Bangladesh is proposed. You are invited to discuss. – nafSadh did say 01:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject Bangladesh Premier League

Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Bangladesh Premier League. We're currently facing problems to run this project and we need your help! If you have a spare moment, please join and help us.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 15:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you are a Bangladeshi I would request please help us. --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 15:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: History of aviation in Bangladesh

Hello Mr. Aditya!

First of all, thanks for thank (the one you gave me for my edits)! Two months ago, you asked me if I had any information about aviation in Bangladesh before WWII. Well, I'm not very sure anyone has any information on that. As far as my knowledge goes, there was barely any aviation activity in the then Bengal of the British Empire. Many of the airstrips in Bangladesh today were built during WWII, so its highly unlikely anything significant took place here. I, however, will ask a few people who might know something and let you know. By the way, sorry for the extremely late reply! I have been busy with life lately.

Good Day! :) Rihaz (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On "bikini"

Just wanted to say that while I don't have the time to review Bikini spot checking indicates to me that it's very ready to go; I don't think you'll have much trouble at GAN once it finally gets started. Wonder why that is! :) ResMar 20:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Bikini

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bikini you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Bikini

The article Bikini you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Bikini for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GAN

I saw. Going to make some proposals on the talk page now because I think that the treatment you were given was unnecessary and grossly unfair. ResMar 00:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Proposal. ResMar 01:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bengali people#List of people in the collage

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bengali people#List of people in the collage. Thanks. ~ nafSadh did say 15:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your help desk question

I didn't see a response, but I said here (once it is archived; I thought that would happen today) to try WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Hello, Aditya Kabir. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Clean your talk page . Too many old messages. CosmicEmperor (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lets adopt WP:BDPLACE

Request for Comment on WP:BDPLACE

There is a generic conventions for geographic names. But that is not clear enough for places in Bangladesh. That is why a WP:BDPLACE is proposed and it is time to adopt it.

A discussion is taking place here and an RfC is made. Please participate. nafSadh did say 22:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)][reply]

South Asia

Moving it to Talk:South Asia. nafSadh did say 13:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bangladeshis#Definition of Bangladeshis

You might want to have a look into this and provide WP:3O. nafSadh did say 13:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign-language articles

Hi. I saw that you submitted Penangkal petir for speedy deletion based on its coverage of the subject of Lightning rod coupled with it being in Indonesian. I just wanted to let you know that being in a foreign language isn't grounds for speedy deletion. The procedures for such an article are spelled out at WP:Pages needing translation into English. I agreed with your other rationale, though, and converted the tag into a {{db-a10}} referencing the lightning rod article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to BDPLACE/Log

Hi Aditya Kabir, I'm puzzled by some of the changes you recently made to Wikipedia:BDPLACE/Log. According to WP:BDPLACE:

Shouldn't Tanore Upazila remain Tanore Upazila? "Upazila" is an integral part of the proper name. And there's no other Tanore Upazila in another district that would force the addition of ", <district name>" as disambiguation.
As above, shouldn't Puthia Upazila remain Puthia Upazila?
As above, shouldn't Mohanpur Upazila remain Mohanpur Upazila?
As above, shouldn't Bholahat Upazila remain Bholahat Upazila?

Shouldn't Enayetpur remain Enayetpur? There's no other Enayetpur from which disambiguation is required.
As above, shouldn't Gaganpur remain Gaganpur?
As above, shouldn't Hemayetpur remain Hemayetpur?
As above, shouldn't Randhunibari remain Randhunibari?
As above, shouldn't Nazipur remain Nazipur?

Thanks, Worldbruce (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Kabir, you might want to review your understanding of, and changes made thereof, WP:BDPLACE. nafSadh did say 19:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hello, Aditya Kabir. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--115ash^→(☏) 14:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your comment "The article is now protected, but the editor PakSol has still not received a consensus or sanction or any other community intevention. That may be required if we consider his warring attitude, ignorance of arguments, and, if I may say so, extreme hard-headedness in pushing his POV, which looks a bit like coming from Pakistani Army POV to me. But, that is just my conjecture, yet to be established."__________PakSol is TripWire. I checked my contributions and was surprised that i commented on TripWire's talkpage. But then I found he has deleted his userpage that previously stated,"The user is a serving member of Pakistan Army".--Cosmic Emperor 05:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Can you invite Nafsadh and some of the old checkuser people to here to discuss this? Also, can you post some diffs here? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually changing Username, not two accounts.Cosmic Emperor 10:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ekhanei.com (September 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ekhanei.com and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Aditya Kabir, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ekhanei (September 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sam Sailor was:

This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Ekhanei.com, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ekhanei and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

-- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ekhanei.com (September 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ekhanei.com and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invite

Please comment

There's a afd going on here. It needs to close, but consensus is not certain. More participation is needed. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/967511948IPCS-Special-Report-11.pdf. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ekhanei.com (October 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by JMHamo was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of websites and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ekhanei.com and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

JMHamo (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Continent. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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. - BilCat (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR cleanup drive

Hello TWL users! We hope JSTOR has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!

See the list

Sent of behalf of Nikkimaria for The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ekhanei.com concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Ekhanei.com, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Ekhanei.com

Hello, Aditya Kabir. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Ekhanei.com".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bandarban District

Hi Aditya Kabir, concerning this edit nearly all of the text is exactly the same to the one above it. There is almost no need for this text in the article and it should be removed. Sure its not word-for-word the exact same but its pretty similar and it conveys no new information. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

দয়া করে এর উপর নজর রাখো

১

২

৩

৪

৫ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.100.143.247 (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lot of stuff going on. Can you give links for specific edits? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember who made those edits. A group of editors are trying to write that Mukti Bahini was involved in mass rape of Bihari women, and Pakistan government were forced to send Pakistan Army to protect Bihari women. Those contents are removed right now, but the editors are trying to push them back again. There were also sections that Mukti Bahini raped Bengali women who opposed independence from Pakistan. These "removed contents" were sourced from books written by Pakistani writers. Another content they want to insert, is that there was Bihari genocide in 1971 Bangladesh along with Bengali genocide. Four nationalist editors are working together to show that, Mukti Bahini was the main villain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.100.143.75 (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who are these four editors? Registered users? What are their user names? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contents are added by TalhaZubairButt and supported by SheriffIsInTown and FreeatlastChitchat. Sometimes TripWire.

Edits made in Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War

1- Go through the last paragraph of this edit by TalhaZubairButt. He added a section at the end, stating "The West Pakistani soldiers are not the only ones who have been killing in East Bengal, of course. On the night of March 25… the Bengali troops and paramilitary units stationed in East Pakistan mutinied and attacked non-Bengalis with atrocious savagery. Thousands of families of unfortunate Muslims, many of them refugees from Bihar who chose Pakistan at the time of the partition riots in 1947, were mercilessly wiped out. Women were raped, or had their breasts torn out with specially-fashioned knives. Children did not escape the horror; the lucky ones were killed with their parents…"

2- During the war Bihari women were also abducted by Bengalis in retaliation for the wartime abductions of Bengali women

3- Of late there have been reports of rape and even West Pakistanis are not being spared; on April 12 two West Pakistani women were raped, and an attempt was made on two others. This line is included in the edit.

4- Another POV of TalhaZubairButt, In 1996, Bangladeshi author, Dr Abdul Mu'min Chowdhury, who was initially presumed to have been killed by the Pakistani Army during the 1971 war, published a book, Behind the Myth of Three million, in which he expressed an alternate viewpoint. According to him the claim that the Pakistani Army raped 200,000-400,000 women was a myth designed to instigate hatred against Pakistan.

5- Christian Gerlach states that a systematic collection of statistical data had been aborted, possibly because the data did not substantiate the Bangladeshi claim that 200,000 women had been raped.

6- FreeatlastChitchat reverting

Edits in Bangladesh Liberation War

Contents added by TalhaZubairButt, and supported by TripWire. There are many edits, I can't show all difference.

1- TripWire's edit. This is a part of a series of edits and reverts. Through this edit, they are trying to show that Pakistan Army came to rescue Biharis. I don't know who first inserted the content.

2- TripWire's revert

3- They found a author Sharmila Bose to change History

Edits in 1971 Bangladesh genocide

Many contents were added by TalhaZubairButt and SheriffIsInTown. I can't show all differences. They were edit warring with Volunteer Marek.

1- Whoever inserted this content, was removed by Volunteer Marek and added back by FreeatlastChitchat. If you check carefully, this is another attempt to show that Pakistan Army was the hero in 1971 and Mukti Bahini was the villain FreeatlastChitchat wants to keep the content, most likely added by TalhaZubairButt.

Mukti Bahini

SheriffIsInTown was making repeated disruptive edits as this and this, for which he was warned

Mujibnagar

Sheriff tried to wipe out all contents instead of trying to find sources. Later on the article was rescued by Sminthopsis84.

FreeatlstChitchat doesn't check any edit. He follows the edits of his friends and opponents and reverts accordingly. FreeatlastChitchat is also anti-Shia, for which he ends up edit-warring with Iranian editors. He was blocked many times and reported many times at ANI. Sheriff has engaged in large scale nationalist POV edits recently.

File:Jalsaghar.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jalsaghar.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Israt Manzil.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Israt Manzil.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Facebook directory

Hi, Aditya Kabir, your image has been deleted. Just wanted to inform you. Lotje (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What image? :O Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ananthabhadram Kavya.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ananthabhadram Kavya.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Aditya Kabir. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ekhanei.com homepage.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ekhanei.com homepage.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Israt Manzil.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Israt Manzil.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. czar 09:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Garo Baptist Convention, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tura (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Birthday

Happy Birthday! Have a good day and many more. Nebulous Nanuqsaurus 13:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC) Nebulous Nanuqsaurus 13:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebulous Nanuqsaurus (talk • contribs)

Jayne Mansfield

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Jayne Mansfield has been completed.

There are a few things I wanted to draw to your attention:

In the Early Career section is says that "her prominent breasts were considered problematic" – I’m assuming by advertisers, and added it, but this should be clarified if possible.

In the Film stardom (1955–1958) section it says she performed Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter 444 times. In the Stage career section it says she performed 450 shows - I added "about" before 450 which should be good enough to explain the discrepancy.

In the Television career section this sentence appears: In November 1957, one of her nightclub acts was featured in a special episode of NBC's The Perry Como Show ("Holiday in Las Vegas"), which created "a situation" for the audience according to the broadcaster. "A situation" needs to be clarified.

In the Soundtracks section it says that she sang two songs for The Sheriff of Fractured Jaw and lip-synced to one by Connie Francis. In the Film stardom (1955–1958) section it says that Francis sang all three songs. Which is correct.

Live Performances: This song title which is not capitalized appears – "This Queen has her aces in all the right places" – I to checked the title and found that this is actually a line in the lyrics to a song in the musical Damn Yankees - called "A Little Brains, A Little Talent". Need to check this.

I placed several "citation" or "clarification" tags throughout the article to draw attention to other issues.

Without access to the original sources, it may be difficult to resolve these. This is also true with sentences/paragraphs with multiple citations. It may well be that multiple citations are necessary, and not a case of over citing, but again, without the original sources, who knows?

I suspect that reviewers will say that an article can have only one Info Box at the head of the article. You might consider making sure the information in the later boxes is included in the article and remove them.

Good luck going forward with this.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute on Operation Searchlight

Lets try to solve the dispute on DRN. I do not want this to consume too much of our time.Saadkhan12345 (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Saadkhan12345 (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Train-the-Trainer 2018: Invitation to participate

Hello, it gives us great pleasure to inform that the Train-the-Trainer (TTT) 2018 programme organised by CIS-A2K is going to be held from 26–28 January 2018.

What is TTT?

Train the Trainer or TTT is a residential training program. The program attempts to groom leadership skills among the Indian Wikimedia community members. Earlier TTT have been conducted in 2013, 2015, 2016, and 2017.

Who should join?

An editor who is interested to conduct real-life and online Wiki-events such as outreach, workshop, GLAM, edit-a-thon, photowalk etc.

Any active Wikimedian contributing to any Indic language Wikimedia project is eligible to apply.

An editor must have 500+ edits.

Anyone who have already participated in an earlier iteration of TTT, can not apply.

Please see more about this program at: CIS-A2K/Events/Train the Trainer Program/2018. Please fill this form to show your interest to join. The last date of signing up is 7 December 2017. If you have any question, please let us know.

On behalf of Titodutta. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Aditya Kabir. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on Kasundi

Most of the prose you included in the above article was copied from various copyright web pages. Some of this was detected by automatic plagiarism detection software and the remainder I found manually. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, most of the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 25

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 25, October – November 2017

OAWiki & #1Lib1Ref
User Group update
Global branches update
Spotlight: Research libraries and Wikimedia
Bytes in brief

Arabic, Korean and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. Your signature is also causing Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links.

You are encouraged to change

:( <font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">[[User:Aditya Kabir|Aditya]]</font><sup>([[User talk:Aditya Kabir|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Aditya Kabir|contribs]])</sup>

: :( Aditya^{(talk • contribs)}

to

:( [[User:Aditya Kabir|<span style="font-family: Kristen ITC; color: deeppink;">Aditya</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Aditya Kabir|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Aditya Kabir|contribs]])</sup>

: :( Aditya^{(talk • contribs)}

—Anomalocaris (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the cupcake, and for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About The page " United Bengal "

Hello ! Apu Hope you are well

I can see your edit recently in the page Greater Bangladesh as i am not sure you edited in Previous United Bengal page or not . You are one of the passionate Wikipedian your contribution is all over Wikipedia . Mostly Bangladesh Related and i respect your work .

The United Bengal page was developed by many wikidpedians from many years . One of the user recently moved the page to Greater Bangladesh and even deleted the previous united Bengal page and he created a new one for redirect .

As you must know The Term " United Bengal " a historical reality and The term greater Bangladesh is a off topic . I am not against the page Greater Bangladesh . But the merger of the page united Bengal to greater Bangladesh was a immature or planned task . As I am also a new Wikipedian and cant exactly recover the old united Bengal page .

I think its a serious issue and a planned disinformation tactics . waiting for your opinion --Aziz Tarak. (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on May Mann

Material you included in the above article back in 2012 appears to have been copied from the copyright web pages https://findingaid.lib.byu.edu/viewItem/MSS%201449 and http://articles.latimes.com/1995-04-26/news/mn-58998_1_biographer. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 26

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018

#1Lib1Ref
User Group update
Global branches update
Spotlight: What can we glean from OCLC’s experience with library staff learning Wikipedia?
Bytes in brief

Arabic and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Dead bodies of Bengali intellectuals, 14 December 1971.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Dead bodies of Bengali intellectuals, 14 December 1971.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes - Issue 27

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 27, February – March 2018

#1Lib1Ref
New collections
- Alexander Street (expansion)
- Cambridge University Press (expansion)
User Group
Global branches update
- Wiki Indaba Wikipedia + Library Discussions
Spotlight: Using librarianship to create a more equitable internet: LGBTQ+ advocacy as a wiki-librarian
Bytes in brief

Arabic, Chinese and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 28

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 28, April – May 2018

#1Bib1Ref
New partners
User Group update
Global branches update
- Wikipedia Library global coordinators' meeting
Spotlight: What are the ten most cited sources on Wikipedia? Let's ask the data
Bytes in brief

Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 29

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 29, June – July 2018

New partners
- Economic & Political Weekly–10 accounts
Wikimania
Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
Global branches update
Bytes in brief

Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes, Issue 30

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 30, August – Septmeber 2018

Library Card translation
Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref spreads to the Southern Hemisphere and beyond
Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
Global branches update
Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Aditya Kabir. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Aditya Kabir. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes, Issue 31

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 31, October – Novemeber 2018

OAWiki
Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
Global branches update
Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Haors in Bangladesh

Template:Haors in Bangladesh has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes, Issue 32

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 32, January – February 2019

#1Lib1Ref
New and expanded partners
Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
Global branches update
Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Wax Dey

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Wax Dey, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from http://www.postnewsline.com/2009/05/african-dream-wax-aka-nde-ndifonka.html, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. 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:

Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Wax Dey and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Wax Dey, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Wax Dey. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Wax Dey with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

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.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

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:Wax Dey 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! – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes, Issue 33

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 33, March – April 2019

#1Lib1Ref
Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
Global branches update
Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... and six --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 34, May – June 2019

Partnerships
#1Lib1Ref
Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
Global branches update
Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited BKash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Great work on bKash Vinegarymass911 (talk) 03:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 35, July – August 2019

Wikimania
We're building something great, but..
Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
A Wikibrarian's story
Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Have a very happy birthday on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 36

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 36, September – October 2019

#1Lib1Ref January 2020
#1Lib1Ref 2019 stories and learnings

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Subcontinent : Afghanistan

Hey are you crazy ? Why did you put Afghanistan in the Indian Subcontinent ? As I am of Afghan origin I feel greatly insulted, change this please, every Afghan feel cringe when a South Asian try to put us in their region we are not, it's not because some Pashtuns and Turkic people coming from actual Afghanistan ruled your countries that we are South Asians/Indian Subcontinent, I know it's all political and I think you greatly accept Hindutva ideology which is literally an "Indian" Nazism. I wanted to let you know that every Afghan hate your false contributions to Wikipedia and I hope one day you will that all this political and racist bullsh** was stupid, what are your arguments ? Afghans watch Bollywood ? Moghol Empire (that was only present in Kabul region, by the way the rulers were Central Asians) ? Gandhara (only parts of Kabul) ? Did you forget that Afghanistan is the homeland of Iranic people literally, it's the most probable country where they split between Eastern Iranians and Western Iranians, Iranic are Central Asians and you know this, did you forget about Bactrians, Sassanides, Samanids, Safavids, Arab Caliphates, and more ? Like I said in another thread, more than 50% of Afghanistan are Persian speakers and Turkic language speakers, are you blind ? Islam ? Ghaznavids converted Indians actual Pakistanis did you know that ? Go seriously check a physician to cure you racism and your insecurities. From a Persian speaking Afghan from Central and Northern Afghanistan, ⁦دعب رادید ات ⁦ Spoopy2001 (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

تا دیدار بعد Spoopy2001 (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 37

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 37, November – December 2019

#1Lib1Ref
Wikimedia and Libraries User Group

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Private universities in Bangladesh

A tag has been placed on Category:Private universities in Bangladesh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 38, January – April 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020

New partnership
Global roundup

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020

Library Card Platform
New partnerships
- ProQuest
- Springer Nature
- BioOne
- CEEOL
- IWA Publishing
- ICE Publishing
Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice - general sanctions for BLP articles

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jazmin Chaudhry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bengali (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cleavage (breasts), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gujrat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cleavage (breasts)

Hi Adiyta, hope that you're well whereever you are based. I want to leave a short message on your talk page. Firstly, thanks for your edits to that article! It's great to have someone interested and improving the articles around here. I saw your request for some additional editors at WT:ANAT, so I have also dropped a message at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. Cleavage is a complex article that I feel probably requires more than one editor to get an appropriate nuance - I hope you don't take this the wrong way, as it looks well on its way to a good article status and I can see how hard you are editing on it. You probably also saw my message at Talk:Intermammary cleft. Again, I hope it is not taken the wrong way if I disagree with you. Happy to continue discussing at that page. Let me know if there's anything else that I can help out with - I'll be sure to keep cleavage on my watchlist and will have a look at it from an anatomical perspective within the next week or so. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Though it was a it difficult for me to see why "I hope it is not taken the wrong way if I disagree with you" was needed. Disagreements are the lifeblood of Wikipedia, as long it doesn't comprise only of reverts and complaints and avoiding discussions (which was Iztwoz's way of disagreement here). BTW, I also have posted to WP:WPMOS, WP:GUILD and WP:MED for help. I intend to seek more help as things progress, inclduing WP:HIST and Wikipedia:LGBT. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War

Hi, guess you are already preoccupied. Could you take a look at the discussion here if time permits? Thanks. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DS Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Stop edit warring on Bangladesh liberation war. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You first. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Bangladesh map

You undid my edit by removing Assam Province (current Northeast India). Well here Assam means the current Northeast India. Due to an act in the Indian constitution, states were formed on the basis of ethnicities.

Even in "The Bengal borderland: beyond state and nation in South Asia" - the citation used in the article has mentioned that - "Assam, a state (province) of India, gradually broke into several smaller states: Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland (See Appendix Figure 2)"

And this demand is as old as East Pakistan. During 1947, West Pakistan leaders (including Jinnah) & East Pakistan leaders were expecting Assam Province as a part of Pakistan. Moinul Haque Chowdhary the Private Secretary of Jinnah, who after Independence became a Minister in Assam and later at Delhi, told Jinnah that he would "present Assam to him on a silver platter". So, I see no reason why you would undo my edit. Tizen03 (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tizen03: Thanks for raising the point. Since the time that's covered in the line is about Assam, and not about the parts Assam would break away in future, mentioning a long list of subsequent provinces is not just redudandant, but misleading too. You could also look at WP:SYNTH. One more thing - I think this discussion should happen at the article talk page. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing and battleground mentality

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.

Referring to this gross violation of WP:CANVASS, be mindful of WP:BATTLE and stop ridiculing exisitng contributions as "nationalistic POVs". Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I did something somewhere that made you very upset. I apologize for hurting your feelings. But I am a bit mystified about the allegation of "leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote". The diff you posted doesn't really cover that.

It was done on the discussion itself, and that in an RfC, which is a request for comment. Therefore it is prudent to invite experienced and uninvolved editors with a good standing from relevant workspaces. Not one was invited out of IPA or MILHIST articles, as the article in discussion belongs to those projects. And, I have never been in contact before with most of the editors. It is not called WP:CANVASSING, it is called WP:COLLABORATION. If you are not convinced that it was the proper thing to do, then you may try taking this to WP:ANI.

On the flipside, you post here is very aggressive, abusive on the verge of threatening, and looks verry comabtive. May be you would also want to review your own conduct. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above template is taken from Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace/Single-level templates. FWIW, Wikipedia:Canvassing has been linked above and you should read Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification. You were canvassing some users after selectively picking them because "Not one was invited out of IPA or MILHIST articles", as you think your "discussion needs military historians, not nationalistic POVs."[2] It is inappropriate canvassing. If you are canvassing, then you have to ping other side as well. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I only pinged editors who have no sides in this discussion. If you want me to ping a "side", just let me know which editors belong to that "side". I promise I will ping them too. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE

Hi. You've posted your comments in the admin section on Aman.kumar.goel's AE complaint. Instead, make a new section "Statement by Aditya Kabir" under my statement and post the material there. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for disruptive editing. See this ANI thread, specifically my comment there. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 10:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: Thanks for reminding how important it is to keep a cool head. I hope you have also taken a look at what I have receiving. Taking that bait has definitely resulted in taking a fall. Though it makes me sad to see how unfriendly Wikipedia has become, where the spirit is buried beneath the letters, making it easy is to game the system. May be one can learn to live with it. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aditya Kabir (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe this block decision was a bit too hasty and was done without looking at the case closely. The complaint (which may have been a reaction to the discussion but to an arbitration request, where similar behaviour of the complaining party gets only a slap on the wrist) was made of a handful of cherrypicked misrepresentation of diffs, like:

"are you afraid of uninvolved (and non-Indian) editors" [3]

In reality the comment was "Why are you warring here when we can get more people to discuss? Are you interested to get to WP:MILHIST or are you afraid of uninvolved (and non-Indian) editors taking a look at this?" which followed "I see. You did not get the point. That's okay. {{ping|Kmzayeem}} {{ping|Aman.kumar.goel}} {{ping|Orientls}} Let's take this to a bigger forum - WP:MILHIST" ([4]) and was answered with a refusal to talk to MILHIST "Those editors frequently involved with (regardless of nationality) Afghanistan, India and Pakistan related articles will anyway do better here than WP:MILHIST in general." ([5])

"By the way, the Indian editors here seem to lose interest in discussion" [6]

In reality the comment was "By the way, the Indian editors here seem to lose interest in discussion because their version is live. I believe they will rejoin the discussion the moment their version is changed." which was met with "If you believe that people would be willing to repeat themselves all the time and entertain discussion involving "American Revolutionary War as French victory", "France or Canada didn't fight in Japan, the US did", "Japanese Instrument of Surrender", or any other violations of WP:NOTAFORUM then you are indeed driving editors away from the talk page. You will also benefit from reading WP:STICK" ([7]) though another editor observed "The discussion started on 1 August and the opposing side didn't respond till 7 August, only after I made that change in infobox, so Aditya Kabir's suggestion on the lack of interest in discussion by some editors as long as their version is live is not really unfounded." ([8])

"Two Indian editors pushing for a certain version" [9]

In reality the comment was "Two Indian editors pushing for a certain version and five Bangladeshi editors not agreeing to that version is not concensus. One side of the debate refraining from discussion and constantly being incivil is not consensus building. Since there is no consensus and no effort to build consensus is in sight, I think I am going to revert this back to the only WP:NPOV version (i.e. this version) we had. Until a consensus is reached we need to have a both-sided verion live."

"Our Indian friends are having a hard time" [10]

In reality the comment was "Our Indian friends are having a hard time believing that Bangladesh could have a victory while India had a victory. It "needs" to be an exclusive Indian victory, though NONE of their sources say so" which followed a number of sources that illustrated the point. Incidentaly the large number of sources, cites and quotes were met with ""Indian victory" is the only thing the infobox can meaningfully say and it is NPOV because it is supported by reliable sources. It can be violation of NPOV only if it is a fringe view or it is meaningfully contradicted by credible sources. I clearly don't see evidence for any of those reasons." ([11])

"Please, help. This discussion needs military historians, not nationalistic POVs" [12]

Well... I really can't see what's wrong with that one, even in a cherrypicked quote. A military historian is good, nationalistic POVs like "it can only be India" or "it can only be Bangladesh" is bad.

"POV combatants are not really good for a consensus. I guess the combative POV pushers are trying very hard to resist such editors from coming here."[13]

The full comment was "I am still working on getting more "experienced" "uninvolved" and "reputed" editors who know about similar stuff to voice their opinions. POV combatants are not really good for a consensus. I guess the combative POV pushers are trying very hard to resist such editors from coming here. But I still believe that on Wikipedia collaboration and consensus will win over POV pushing." And, again, it is difficult to find what's wrong with it, unless someone synthesizes it with many other things.

The blocking admin, who quickly applied the block (in 6 hours, and before I get to present my case), said in her/his statement:

"This selective group ping is bad."

May be. But WP:APPNOTE does approve such notifications of "limited posting" of "neutral" messages to a "nonpartisan" audience in an "open" and transparent manner. The action was also repeatedly explained:

"It was done on the discussion itself, and that in an RfC, which is a request for comment. Therefore it is prudent to invite experienced and uninvolved editors with a good standing from relevant workspaces. Not one was invited out of IPA or MILHIST articles, as the article in discussion belongs to those projects. And, I have never been in contact before with most of the editors. It is not called WP:CANVASSING, it is called WP:COLLABORATION. " ([14])
"I am still working on getting more "experienced" "uninvolved" and "reputed" editors who know about similar stuff to voice their opinions..." (([15])]
"I only pinged editors who have no sides in this discussion. If you want me to ping a "side", just let me know which editors belong to that "side". I promise I will ping them too." ([16])
"I frankly don't know where their sympathies lie (for example, I don't know yours). But all are experienced, uninvolved, in good standing, and is knowledgeable about similar articles." ([17])

"This attempt to value editors' input according to their nationality goes against everything Wikipedia stands for, and certainly implies WP:CIR problems as well as a battleground mentality."

The comment was ""Two Indian editors pushing for a certain version and five Bangladeshi editors not agreeing to that version is not concensus." Well, I happen to be one of the five Bangladeshis. It is about the POV stand, and not nationality, as becomes apparent in the fact that many of the people I pinged I believe are Indian in nationality or ethnicity (LouisAragon, Kautilya3, Worldbruce, BrownHairedGirl, and AshLin, who served in the Indian Military). This is a very sad judgement for someone who belongs to the Indian Wikiproject and has created, collaborated with, and improved dozens of articles on Indian topics, and who claims many Indian editors to be his close Wikifriends (BTW, I did not ping my "friends").

"This childish insult is just depressing."

The comment was "{{ping|Orientls}} Meta:Don't be a jerk. Everyone can quote essays." And it came after the intended audience/editor posted the following:

"Falsifying statements of other editors is not going to help you with your erroneous WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. What Aman Kumar Goel added back is completely supported by WP:RS. Since you have failed to understand such a simple fact, I would recommend you to take a look at WP:CIR." ([18])

This I answered with "No, dear Orientls, you may be wrong, and I am refraining from asides about your rather strange and WP:INCIVIL comment about "falsifying statements of other editors"... Thanks. I hope both of us will be more CIVIL to each other the next time." ([19]) Alas, it did not work.

"But will you deny that you are attempting to mention "Bangladesh" before "Indian victory"? Where does your echo any words like "Bangladeshi victory" or even "Bangladeshi-Indian victory"? Ironic of you to cite "WP:CIR" when you are struggling with your numerous behavioral issues and showing a continued failure to understand WP:PRIMARY." ([20])
"Undid revision 971679493 by Aditya Kabir (talk) revert WP:TE per talk page" ([21])
"We don't WP:SYNTH statements of army generals due to WP:PRIMARY. Your personal translation of an unknown and unverifiable page number (see WP:VERIFY) isn't convincing." ([22])
"So everyone who has opposed your WP:OR is ultimately an "Indian"? See WP:BATTLE. If you believe that people would be willing to repeat themselves all the time and entertain discussion involving "American Revolutionary War as French victory", "France or Canada didn't fight in Japan, the US did", "Japanese Instrument of Surrender", or any other violations of WP:NOTAFORUM then you are indeed driving editors away from the talk page. You will also benefit from reading WP:STICK." ([23])

I understand that "Telling someone "don't be a jerk" is generally wrong – especially if it's true. It upsets the other person and reduces the chance that they'll listen to what you say," (Meta:Don't be a jerk) but it did reduce the essay-bombing a bit, and hence sidetracking of the discussion.

Finally, according to the statement by the blocking admin, one of the reasons for blocking me is WP:CIR. May be another way to look at it is WP:CIRNOT, especially if the targeted editor has been involved in improving dozens of articles to FA and GA status, has been key in mediating a number of disputes, successful nomination of admins, and even revision of policy. The two CIR points that possibly could apply may be:

"the ability to read sources and assess their reliability. Editors should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's guidance on identifying reliable sources and be able to decide when sources are, and are not, suitable for citing in articles." - I certainly hope these sources are not an indication of failing to assess realiabilty of a source. I could also use examples of other instances, if needed.
"the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus." - Judging my own comment at the discussion - "I would prefer to err on the side of caution. Disputes like these has a way of recurring back. A bulletproof consensus, as opposed to an half-baked consensus like the one quoted above, may be better for continued stability of the article. Besides, if someone wants disrupt a fair consensus in future it will be easier to defend the article through WP:ACDS." - it seems a bit far fetched that I don't get consensus, which has not been achieved at the discussion as I write.

It took me some time to respond to this because I expected better investigation before an admin action (though, of course, admins are not perfect, and thet may not even reply to a politely hurt comment on the block) aginst a long stading editor, and having to delve into this type of lawyering is really depressing. I would rather read sources and improve articles (may be a recent example of my collaboration would illustrate a few points in that direction). But, well... sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do, even if a 48 hr block does not mean the end of the world. Hence this appeal. Otherwise a sub-par blocking would remain the outcome of a nasty war of invicilities and stonewalling. Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just found out that I was blocked for "disruptive editing" though neither the complaint nor the blocking editors statement has any proof of that. Is that a mistake? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is too long, no ones going to read that, especially for just a 48 hour block.CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please don't take this the wrong way - but you may want to signifigantly shorten that appeal if you want a reviewing admin to read it before your block expires. SQL ^{Query me!} 13:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SQL is right. No one is going to read the appeal and it will be declined. Also, in the spirit of SQL's "don't take this the wrong way", Bishonen's block is not without reason and your options are to either sit it out (a couple of days is no big deal in this age of pandemic) or to acknowledge the reasons behind the block and hope they reconsider. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean, I blocked 'before you got to present your case'? Before I blocked, I looked at your contributions and saw that you were editing, without showing any interest in the ANI report you had been alerted to. You made six edits at various places after your ANI alert and before my block. I don't know how long you expected me to wait before you got round to replying at ANI, considering you were editing? Not sure who you are accusing of "lawyering" either, could you be more specific, please? Bishonen | tålk 14:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Apologies. I didn't want to accuse you of lawyering, though reading again it does seem so. I was accusing myself, as digging through dirt did feel like a lawyer's work. It is pretty clear to me that this is something I have no skills for. May be it's just ranting, but it does take time for me to figure out what to write and how to present a legal case. As you can see, I still figured wrong.

That's okay. There was a lot of sccreaming all around, and there was one editor clever enough and experienced enough in such things has figured out how to take away the one editor fighting for outside opinion. I should learn to keep my cool (and I do thank you for reminding me that, though a tad too harshly IMHO). But the damage has been done to her/his cause. Outside attentions has been achieved. Now the discussion and the article hopefully will take care of itself. I lose, but Wikipedia wins. Works for me fine. I can only rest my case. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Tough times, let's have some beer and reminisce the good ol' days. If it's worth anything, you had a great impact on my transformation from a noob to a regular contributor. Last few days have been nasty but I'm sure you'll come back stronger. Cheers! Zayeem ^(talk) 18:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resumption of talk page disruption

It seems that right after coming off from a block you have resumed your talk page disruption.[24] I would note that the next block for similar edits will be longer than what you had seen earlier. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 00:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this was disruptive and this was not. How so? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A person merely sharing his comment in a critical tone in a heated conversation isn't something very new and you are also aware of it. See WP:REFACTOR, and you will know how striking does not apply here. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And this is not diruptive? How so? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Kabir, you are inching toward an IPA topic ban of your own. You need to stop acting disruptively and tendentiously. El_C 22:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I have not edited any page that's in dispute of any kind in days, not even the talk pages. The same applies to any IPA article at all. I have rather learned about the 30 days stipulation of RfC, by enquiring on relevant discussion boards (without pushing any opinion on any content, or making any complaint against any editor). Currently I was in the process of learning about a warning posted to my talk page for something that was done previously done by the warning editor her/himself.

Please don't take it the wrong way, but I would like to know how I am acting disruptively and tendentiously, so I can refrain from it. Especially because I have plans to edit one or two IPA articles (all completely without disputes). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 22:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The diff in the opening of this section is what I'm referring to. How does striking through the IP's comment make any sense? Strikethrough almost always indicates a user's own self-correction — it's highly misleading of you to do so to another user's comment (without noting the action in any way alongside the now-stricken text). El_C 22:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: This was done several days earlier in accordance with another action made on that very page shortly before (diff above). And that is exactly the action I was seeking an understanding of by asking the warning editor. It was a quite enlightening enquiry, and an answer was recieved satisfactorily. Does this constitute continued disruption and tendentious edit to award with a topic ban? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 22:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your assertion that this was done in accordance with another action made on that very page shortly before (diff above) — I'm not sure I quite understand your argument. Please explain the connection. El_C 22:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: On that page another editor posted an attack a few days earlier, and it was removed, later reinstated with a strikethough. No big deal. I have seen this happening elsewhere. So I see another attack and strikethrough several days ago, later reverted and a warning was posted to my talk page. So I make an enquiry to the warning editor, and learn that the first poster was topic banned. Does this constitute disruptive and tendentious edits? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 23:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your first link does not show a strikethrough — are you sure you linked correctly there? Anyway, you are failing to address my point about WP:STRIKE — namely that striking text that is not your own is misleading. El_C 23:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: You are right. It does not show a strikethrough, it shows an outright removal. It was striked through when reinstated. WP:STRIKE was explained already, several days before. And eversince no such edit was made by me. Does that constitute disruptive and tendentious edits? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 23:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. Anyway, who reinserted it? You are failing to provide that diff, still. El_C 23:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Are you looking for who inserted it or are you checking if I am able to post a diff or not? Either way I think you have made your point, and I have made my explanation (probably inadequately) and recieved my answer (also probably inadequately). "Who inserted" doesn't seem to be important. If it was then the diff was in the history of that talk page, a few edits down the diff posted here. For an "important" diff it is too easy to find. So I guess it isn't after all. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 23:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So just link it — what is this? El_C 23:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Really interesting to see that you coudn't find this on your own, but you still could provide a lesson on topic bans. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 23:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "really interesting" — because that was your WP:BURDEN, not mine. And looking at that particular strikethrough, it does have an accompanying note, which your strikethrogh critically lacked. El_C 23:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. It did not. Because it seemed no big deal, as I explained to you several times already. And it did not happen again, or anything similar in several days, something that can't be called disruptive and contentious by the links you provided. And providing diffs for every trivial thing is not covered by the burden link you provided. So I still find this quite interesting (and that's not banned by any policy). And you have made your point. Now I believe we can stop wasting our time. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 23:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying "several days," but the edit was yesterday. Anyway, if you stipulate something or other on the basis of evidence, the burden is on you to provide the link to that evidence. I should not be expected to dig for that diff. El_C 23:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. If you say so. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 23:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than reflecting on my warning and subsequent correction to you, you are deflecting, Aditya Kabir. It's not optimal, but whatever. El_C 00:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Kabir, you've been on Wikipedia long enough, longer than I have been, to know that editing dispassionately is the best way to get your point across. I'm honestly surprised by the combative way you're dealing with issues on the Bangladesh Liberation War page and even more surprised by the way you've handled El_C's, imo legitimate, questions. Getting the right content on Wikipedia takes a lot of patience and time but it usually does end up in the right place so try not get frustrated and lash out at good faith editors and admins because the way you're headed now does seem to be in the direction of a topic ban. As a long standing editor on Bangladesh related topics, that would not be good for Wikipedia.All that said, I actually agree with you that that particular IP edit was not useful, and worth striking out. Just not by you because you're an involved editor. For these sorts of situations, I'd suggest pinging an uninvolved admin to take a look. (ADDENDUM: I see that El_C has already redacted it.)--RegentsPark (comment) 01:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And just because I have been here a long time it really surprises me to see the current trend of pushing editors around. And honestly, this kind of editor and admin conduct is a bit beyond my comhrehension. Perhaps the encyclopedia has become too large with too many people and events, and patience about building an encyclopedia more important than patience about those who build it. I hope I can learn to live with this new unfriendly community, where most people have agendas, power plays and strong prejudices. Time has come to reconsider two core policies - AGF and BOLD. I may actually end up proposing that someday. As for legitimate, the questioner did not even need it for anything, just showing some muscle. Not appreciated. BTW, Did you know that the admin who blocked me also had my IP blocked, for a longer period? I had to apeal for an IP unblock. Also, I am trying too keep in mind that pinging someone can get an editor blocked, even after explaining it over and over again. The current investigation techniques, I have seen a few in last few days, leave a lot to ask for. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cleavage (breasts), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Free Love and Paraffin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August

Thank you for improving Cleavage! - MP 24 August has one of "my places" (click on August) pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Gerda Arendt: You are obviously as awesome as ever. MP24 is nice too.

A cup of tea for you? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 23:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for words and tea, nice to start the morning! There's a related discussion on my talk, look fo Atsme's name, - then I don't have to repeat how I was taken by redirect to cleavage and cut the link because it looked unhelpful. Now I can restore it! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythm Is It! - I expanded that stub on my dad's birthday because we saw the film together back then, and were impressed. As a ref said: every educator should see it. Don't miss the trailer, for a starter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

.... during the Bangladesh Liberation War

(Posting by banned user removed. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

I have looked at his edit history on that article. And I have been pretty impressed by his long standing gurdianship, despite so many editors throwing OR, SYNTH, WAR and ABUSE all around. Future Perfect at Sunrise may not have been the most patient or diplomatic admin/editor, but his hardwork and commitment to quality is beyond question. I respect his stand, though he probably has some room for improvement in his actions. I believe when he says he was not invloved he means that he never actually was a contributor to the article, rather a guardian.

By the way, what was that about some Swiss woman? We aren't supposed to discuss each others identity, unless we volunteer the identity on our own (mostly through userboxes). Also, real life identities mean nothing much. Three of my favourite Wikipedians were: a 70+ Hawaiian Grandmother, an early teen Japanases-Canadian and an Anglo-Indian accountant in his mid 30s. All of them helped me to improve myself here.

I am a bit pressed for time at the moment, but I do intend to address and correct the very valid issues Fut.Per raised. All of them are serious concerns. If I can't do that, I guess the article is destined to be delisted. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the anon poster above was long-time abuser User:Vote (X) for Change, who just likes to piggyback on any situation they find me involved in, posting their incoherent complaints. Please just ignore them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. I surely am not intrested in anything incoherent and/or aggressive. But I like to keep the eccentricities on my talk page intact. They put some colour to my life.

Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not going to press this point further in your case, as you have been friendly and respectful throughout our recent contacts, but let me nevertheless say that I don't normally take kindly to these kinds of things. This is not just about "excentricities", it's harassment, and the only correct response to harassment is revert-block-ignore. I usually reserve the right to be quite uncompromising about removing this stuff. The policy side to this is WP:BANREVERT: once a banned user's postings have been reverted, you are allowed to reinstate them only if you are prepared to take full ownership of them – i.e. be treated as if every single word of the posted material had been written originally by you. It doesn't really matter whether it's on your own talkpage or somewhere else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I totally am not contesting your right to remove this strange comment. But... I guess if you take another look at it, the comment is seriously funny. It makes no sense at all, is placed in the wrong place, probably trying to get to you on my talk page, addresses Gerda for no reason whatsoever, and advises me to take "this" (whatever "this"means) to ANI, while, I believe, I agreed with you on most things... all that together, I guess, makes for violation of about a dozen policies. The incoherence... is hilarious. That's exactly why I would love to keep it, if you allow me to. It's just one of the things that make this community a wild wild place, and reminds me of the tolerence and patience you people (i.e. admins) need to remain sane.

A question: Couldn't find a mention of "you are allowed to reinstate them only if you are prepared to take full ownership of them – i.e. be treated as if every single word of the posted material had been written originally by you" at WP:BANREVERT, rather I found "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor". Did I get it mistaken? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posting by banned user removed. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Can I make a request here? Can you, please, keep your fight with someone else out of my talk page? Take it to his/her talk page. Take it to ANI. Take it to admin review. Just try not to bring it here to my talk page. This is not your or anybody's boxing ring. Once is funny, twice is annoying, thrice would be a report-worthy disruption. Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Aditya, don't respond to this person. I asked you politely the first time: we don't discuss with banned harassers. We also don't politely discourage them, advise them, tell them to go elsewhere, or tell them they're funny. They are not, and weren't the first time either. They are a pest, and the only appropriate form of communication with them is the revert and the block button. Please don't reinstate these rants yet again, and please remove any new ones should they post here again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what you mean. Is this user banned already? That would be good for her/him. This person is in serious need of a therapist. And, if this happens again, I go to you or the ANI. A block is what this person needs. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've temporarily semi-protected your talk page. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Super thanks. I am really shocked at this obsessive compulsive sociapathy. User:Vote (X) for Change was banned 10 years ago, and his socks are still disrupting everything Fut.Perf. touches. In these 10 years I got married, had a child, changed jobs, got promotions, travlled to eight countries, made two movies, published a book, had a radio show, took part in 10 demonstrations... and this person disrupted Wikipedia. ~~What a wastage of a human birth.~~ For Fut.Perf. this must be like fly swatting. The more you swat, the more they come back. Sad to seee people becoming insects. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested indefinite semi-protection here. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected for a couple more days, for now. Sorry, indefinite semi of user talk is quite rarely done, and I doubt it will be necessary in this case; that pest usually loses interest in any particular user page after a short while. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is so weird. Definitely a psychological problem. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cleavage (breasts) c/e request

Hello, Aditya Kabir. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Cleavage (breasts) at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aditya, I've removed further text from a couple of sections; particularly the male and transgender cleavage section. i removed this content because I think it is off-topic and should go in another article. I have a couple of comments on the article. There are mixed citation styles, which doesn't really matter unless you want to nominate it for A-Class or FA status, in which case you should standardise on a single style throughout. You also asked about adding a history of male cleavage; I think a brief outline is fine but more detailed content should really go in a separate article.

Anyway, I hope the c/e has been useful. Good luck with the article. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Baffle gab1978:

Awesome... awesome... and one more time – awesome. Reads so much better now. BTW, I didn't want to add a history of male cleavage, it is already there in the "Male and transgender cleavage" section. I wanted to redistribute the history bits to another section (i.e. "History"). But that can wait till someone brings it up.

For now, my priorities are: (1) getting a nice lead; (2) getting the images and captions as nice as possible; and (3) formatting the hundreds of cites according to WP guidelines. Enough to keep me busy for weeks, I expect.

Here's a warm cup of tea for you. I am sure it will be of some use at the end of a long hard bout of work spread over days on a huge article. It's better than beer, you know. Sincerely yours in typos, verb confusions, ultralong sentences and inconsistent spellings. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; one does one's best and all... :) Yes, it was quite a challenge but I found it an interesting read anyway. I think what's in the male section is fine for now, though you might rethink it as you continue to develop the article. Thanks for the cuppa tea, just what I needed... :) Good luck and cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Hi again Aditya, I'm surprised to see this article back at the GOCE so soon. I note your copyvio concern and I took a look at the detected 67%-match source here; this seems to be a CC-BY-SA source that says:

"This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/), which allows others to remix, tweak and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms."

So I think you might be on safe ground here; a note in the edit summary would be attribution; it might even have been copied from Wikipedia but I haven't (and probably won't) check that. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Baffle gab1978: Super thanks. The attribution is on the article itself. Cool. Withdrawing. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 23:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I did just check the WP article's history; the material wasn't copied from us (diff of 10 August 2016), when there wasn't much material here on aesthetics or classification of cleavage shapes. A quick check of the other sources reveals direct quotations (fine) and only minor similarities, so I think your GA nom should be fine. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Let me know when you'll be done with your break and I'll withdraw the RfC. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an RfC can be withdrawn after comment has started. This one appears to have been running a long time and attracted a large volume of opinion. 94.175.136.75 (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Aditya Kabir/Archive 9. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Pi (Talk to me!) 06:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Cleavage (breasts)

added links pointing to Charles VII and Charles I

Greater India

added a link pointing to Pashtun

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upright vs size

I reverted you and ask that you read WP:Picture tutorial about upright and fixed sizes. Keep in mind that not everyone's monitor fits a particular size plus you have to consider the default that person has set for image sizes. Upright helps to eliminate those issues and keeps the images better aligned with the sections. You can always click on the image if you wish to enlarge it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: I made a small change to the revert. The sizes are all yours, apart from the lead image, which I put to default size, as recommended by picture tutorial. I also found that upright images generally should be used in default upright size (though I didn't change your edit). Didn't find anything to restrict sizes in a multiple image template. Am I reading the right policy? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya - I added a bit more to the lead. Since there is no infobox, it is better for the sake of consistency and flow to use upright in hopes the images will align with the respective sections. If the sections are expanded to the point alignment is out of kilter, then we can separate them from the vertical multi-image template. It is good that the lead image is separated, but it should not be oversized. As the lead is expanded (if and when it is), the image can be adjusted proportionately. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Size which is a bit more explanatory. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: Looks cool. Can I change the caption of the lead? Something like "typical modern maternity clothing"? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is not exactly "modern" - see MOS:CURRENT. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: Hmmm. Good point. I was thinking of the Modern age though, a histriographic segment of human timeline. But that probably doesn't come through (does linking modern to modern age, or contemporary age works? We have very nice entries for both). And we still probably should try to get a caption that's a bit more than "c. 1212 USA". That so reads like something right out of Terminator II

. Anything that is not in acronyms and numbers would probably be somewhat an improvement

. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CAPTIONOBVIOUS