User talk:Dimpionly

January 2015

Hello, I'm McGeddon. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Talk:Biswas without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! McGeddon (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Biswas page structure

You said "Few days back the page Biswas was arranged in a very systematic way by categorizing the personalities having title Biswas according to their respective fields. Unfortunately you have revert the same." - I've never made such an edit and as far as I can tell the list of people on the Biswas article has never been categorised. Perhaps you are thinking of a different article. --McGeddon (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Please check: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biswas&diff=669873705&oldid=669873676 It is still in Archieve.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimpionly (talk • contribs) 20:52, 20 July 2015‎

Okay, so User:Biospeleologist categorised it without explanation earlier this month (and put cave researcher Jayant Biswas in there again) and User:Ekdalian reverted that edit the same day. I didn't touch it.

Are you trying to argue that the page is better if it's categorised, or just that you'd prefer it to avoid the word "notable", so that you might be able to list (as you requested at Talk:Biswas) a non-notable cave researcher? --McGeddon (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

If you think it is okay without categorization than no problem. You may remove Jayant Biswas no problem, I am not advocating anybody's name here. It is surprising that only a handful people with title Biswas is found notable in World history.