User talk:Aditya Kabir/Archive 3

Re Articles for Deletion - Booty
Hi - I decided to post a reply here to this discussion in AfD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you find the sources in the next day or two, I think the article has a chance of survival. Good luck. --DaveG12345 07:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you so very much. This is what I have found to be greatest strenght of wikipaedia - the oneness of attitude. I really hope there would be someone out there who would take notice, cut through the crap and come up with solidly useful solutions. Thanks again. I think I have a direction now. (Aditya Kabir 04:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC))
 * No problem, good luck with the changes and remember to post a comment back at AfD when you have made changes, so that people can check out the article and maybe reconsider their position. --DaveG12345 10:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I forgot to mention - if there were users in the AfD who said Delete and you think they may reconsider their verdict based on the new version of the article, remember to leave a note and a link on their user discussion pages, politely encouraging them to go back and maybe take another look. --DaveG12345 10:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Dwight Hooker
I have nominated Dwight Hooker, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Dwight Hooker. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. CIreland (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Regarding your comment: "Cresix and Nightscream, please, discuss on the discussion page, no need to form a tagteam". First, we HAVE discussed on the talk page. Secondly, two editors can disagree with you without it being "tagteam". That is assuming bad faith and a personal attack. Accordingly: Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My apologies. No need to template a regular, though. Would you, please, take part in the discussion or address the issues raised in the discussion now? Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. Yes, for personal attacks, regulars should be templated. Personal attacks are never a minor issue. If you didn't deserve a template, you wouldn't have made the attack to begin with, especially since both editors that you attacked had already contributed to the discussion. Now, I have in fact responded to the latest discussion. You and I have a disagreement about whether a source is reliable. Your opinion is no better than mine on that issue. So seek resolution instead of constantly reverting. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That exactly is my recommendation regarding reverting. But, as for reliability of a source, I think Wikipedia has policies and practices quite firmly in place, no matter what you or I believe. And, I would rather follow that. And, I am happy that templating have served some purpose for you. Aditya (talk • contribs) 16:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Cite the policy that specifically states that the source cited is unreliable. Not your opinion; the policy. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

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

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jazmin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Social impact of thong underwear for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Social impact of thong underwear is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Social impact of thong underwear until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Toddst1 (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

bikini
i agree with your edits on bikini. i think this edit is a personal attack against you and he should apologize for it. well see. Bouket (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a personal attack. Toddst1 (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In which way it's not a personal attack? Aditya (talk • contribs) 08:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Any way you choose. Toddst1 (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

December 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Bikini. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Toddst1 (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * I posted for a discussion User talk:Beyond My Ken, Talk:Bikini and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. and I did request for discussions every time I reverted, which didn't happen. I did post my concerns before reverting, while the other party went on to revert my other edits without participating in the discussion. It was natural to assume that the other party isn't interested in discussion, and okay to make another revert. The other party's answer to his talk page, which ended in - "I'm not interested in hearing from you, since your interest seems entirely selfish and not focused on improving the encyclopedia" - made that assumption even more natural.


 * You seem to have forgotten the very beginning of the relevant guideline - "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." (WP:WAR) I also have noted with some curiosity that while you templated me, you have done no such thing to the other party. I also was quite curious to see that you didn't find - "You've done it to Bikini and Bikini variant and Thong (clothing)-- which I didn't revert because it's already garabage. You apparently think you know what a good image is; you're wrong, but I can't be bothered to spend the time necessary to tutor you about what is a good image and what is bad" - to be a personal attack, especially because the relevant guideline is summarized as - "Comment on the content, not on the contributor". (WP:PERSONAL)


 * I have posted this to my talk page as well. I'm really surprised at this action. Can you, please, explain where I'm wrong? Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit warring is edit warring. Toddst1 (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And, no edit war is no edit war. Aditya (talk • contribs) 08:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Explanation: if you disagree with another editor about something, it should only be reverted once. WP:BRD, while not an official policy is good advice. After the reversion start a discussion on the talk page. If you can't come to agreement and think you're right, try to get more editors to participate using some form of content WP:DR like WP:DRN or WP:RFC. Nobody Ent 13:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * hi aditya. toddst1 doesnt think you understand that you were doing edit warring. i think according to wikipedia it counts as edit warring no matter who is right. you didnt actually edit war since you didnt break that 3RR rule but i think its important to him that you understand that you AND beyond my ken were both edit warring or about to edit war or something. even though you were right, the correct procedure is that you get consensus on the talk page and get other people involved, when you have a problematic behavior like beyond my ken did. i think so anyway. Bouket (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bouket, I' don't think you're helping here and in fact you are dead wrong. From WP:EW


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

Please notify involved editors that you bring to administrative noticeboards
Apparently you missed the giant orange box at the top of the editing screen for ANI:  Please be more careful. Toddst1 (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about this page? Where did you find giant orange box? Please, be more civil towards other editors, even when they don't have the blocking right. Aditya (talk • contribs) 11:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Nobody is being the least bit uncivil towards you - the warning(s) above are pretty standard. As per the big orange box on ANI what you see when you try to EDIT that page, and per the notification at the top of the page to begin with, you MUST notify any editor you report.  ANY editor, including an admin, would be fully within their right to put the exact same warning on your page.  For crying out loud, you've been here over 3 years - you're no newbie, and you've been templated before! ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I seriously hope you know what you are doing. Aditya (talk • contribs) 12:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You should get this: [] when you click the "Edit this Page" tab and the box shown above should be at top. Is that what you're seeing? Nobody Ent 13:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Aditya, this is a real issue and yes, we are very serious. We do know what we're doing and as BWilkins said, nobody is being the least bit uncivil towards you.


 * However you have transgressed a number of policies back to back and the kindest way I can think of to describe your lack of notification here is "very discourteous." I strongly suggest you start looking at your own actions much more closely, stop trying to project these problems onto others and take responsibility for your actions.  Toddst1 (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I like that "we" part. Aditya (talk • contribs) 02:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

hi
i tried to help out but i just made the people involved angry with me. i dont know what we can do here, but at least we got toddst1 to admit both of you were edit warring. i still dont know why he thought its ok for an established editor to edit war, but ok. lets move on. sorry i couldnt help more. are you going to continue to edit here? Bouket (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, I'll continue. Wikipedia foundation owns this encyclopaedia, and then it's owned by us, common editors. We create the articles, we expand them, we cite the information, and we cross-reference the content. It's us, and that is the whole idea of the project. It's the biggest bestest encyclopaedia ever because we don't give up or give in. Looking forward to working with you in a non-conflictive situation. BTW, I have no particular area of interest, and you can ask my participation for any article you are working on. Research and citation is what I do best (though there are awesome editors who surpass me by far in that area). Aditya (talk • contribs) 06:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * i dont edit a lot and i feel like editing less since now i think a user is stalking my edits. this has all been really discouraging. but maybe ill become positive again. i started editing because this site has such a bad reputation but has so much potential i wanted to see if i could help. nice to meet you though. Bouket (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * oh and thanks for your kind offer Bouket (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, dear. Don't be so discouraged. In fact, MBK has been a valiant editor making thousands of edits to improve Wikipedia and Toddst1 has been protecting the project from various kinds of maledits for a long time. Both are highly laudable editors. No one is perfect, and both may have been wrong or even abusive here and there without even realizing the mistake. But, Wikipedia works. Check this signpost article. And, hey, let's not keep grudges. What's a large community without a few conflicts? It's all part of the process. Cheers, and I mean it. Aditya (talk • contribs) 06:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * i guess but it feels so conrfontational when people should be trying to help each other instead Bouket (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Worry not. You'll be really surprised at the amount of help that's available here. Not all the time, not everywhere, but it's there. Wikipedia community is like any other big community. I have met the worst of jerks here, including admins getting kicked out of the project, and I have seen the best of golden hearted too, including people who learned a specific subject overnight just to help another editor. Keep faith, dear. Aditya (talk • contribs) 07:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Please rephrase your rude comment on a blocked user
Hi, I had welcomed this user and his talkpage was on my watch. I see that the new user had made some not so perfect edits on article(s) and may be had even shown some arrogance after which he was blocked. But Please understand that comments such as this will only fire up the situation, and is a good example of WP:BITE. That comment in my opinion is unnecessary, rude and inciting. Please rephrase it in a kind way. Please be kind to others in the same way as you expect from others on your User_talk:Aditya_Kabir/Editnotice, cheers-- DBig Xray   21:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. Thanks. Aditya (talk • contribs) 04:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad that you considered my advise.-- DBig Xray  05:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Extreme irritation, I guess. I have been seeing the same amount of stubborn non-reason quite a bit around the Wikipedia, often together with extreme incompetence/laziness. Stuff like that can really gets to you at times. Aditya (talk • contribs) 05:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But you cannot fight arrogance with arrogance, my friend. Admins are always there if issues get out of hand. -- DBig Xray  05:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * True. Aditya (talk • contribs) 10:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Re : For god's sake
It's been quite a few months since I made the edits in Template:Bengal Renaissance and those had been undone long before you posted this thread. Please don't make unnecessary or belated complains. As for the Template:Tourism in Bangladesh, you can give your valuable advice on the talk page of the template, my user talk page is not the only place where you can negotiate. Some of your threads in my talk page are repeatedly violating the Wikipedia policies such as No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, Harassment etc. Since you are an experienced editor here, I'm not reminding the negative results of these violations, thanks. --Kmzayeem (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: If you see it that way, I'll rather leave you to the community and the policies. Which, if you don't change your ways, will bring you more trouble.
 * I've already changed the way which I adopted initially but it seems it's your turn now since you are making redundant and belated complains which is severely annoying. My last edit in Template:Bengal Renaissance was on 4 May 2012 and it had been undone on 17 June 2012, more than a month before you posted the thread regarding this on ‎31 July 2012, see here. You have done a similar thing regarding the Template:History of Bengal. I admit I have committed some mistakes but bringing those past issues repeatedly can be termed as a severe violation of Civility. Besides, your metaphorical comments indicating me can be termed as harassment. Please don't post any philosophical comments or advice other than the technical issues. Your such behavior can discourage the relatively new users to edit here and ultimately damage the work of building an encyclopedia which will bring you the same trouble that you warned me. Hope you will abide by the policies. Please don't reply in my talk page. --Kmzayeem (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Bikini waxing
Please clarify how you think this edit improves, or benefits the encyclopedia?

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

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

Possible etymology section
Ms Kabir,

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


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

Now what's your problem? What happened to Wikipedia not being a battleground? For your information, I am not the type of person who engages in "puffery". My edits are very much in line with the facts.--Bazaan (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What are you referring to? Aditya (talk • contribs) 19:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

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


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

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

Muhammad Hamidullah Khan
Hi, I'm responding to your comments at Talk:Muhammad Hamidullah Khan, which I thought were well reasoned. An anon has added back the contentious material, reverting my edits. Do you have any thoughts about how to combat this? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining the Bangladesh War Of Independence 1971 situation. I've been seeing such changes recently but hadn't taken much notice because it is now a redirect. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

May be its raining again
You might want to keep an eye on. –  nafSadh did say 08:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sleeper alert? Look into Mr. Chy's contrib, just came back to restore R23's edit after two years! –  nafSadh did say 08:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Another duck? A handful of edits a couple of years back was all he did, not enough to have any experience. Let's see how much experience he shows. Without showing some expertise he can't get Bazaan/UCk/Rainmaker's work done, and with showing expertise he gets caught. Yes, let's keep and eye on him. Aditya (talk • contribs) 10:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger that. –  nafSadh did say 15:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is definitely raining. –  nafSadh did say 16:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

can we?
Can we give double or more vote on the same person?-- 115ash →(☏) 13:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. :( Aditya (talk • contribs) 13:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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


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

April 2015
Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Bengali people. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. ''I am not taking this insanity accusation lightly. Don't use fuck in edit summary.'' C E  (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Now I know who was messing up the codes. Thanks. Aditya (talk • contribs) 07:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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

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

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