User talk:Alex Pinkerton

New message from CASSIOPEIA
 CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Problem with your custom signature
You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. A change to Wikipedia's software has made your current custom signature incompatible with the software.

The problem: Your preferences are set to interpret your custom signature as wikitext. However, your current custom signature does not contain any wikitext.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, or you can fix your signature.


 * Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
 * Remove anything in the text box.  (It might already be empty.)
 * Click the blue "" button at the bottom of the page. (The red "" button will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)
 * Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
 * Click the blue "" button at the bottom of the page.

More information about custom signatures is available at Signatures. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. 05:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Warning
This is a warning for disruptive editing. Page moving without consensus in the talk page is a kind of vandalism; and you did this more than three times now. UserNumber (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand. Although it seemed time consuming. Anyway, the way you spelled the word Dhakaiya is not right, as it includes an unnecessary 'y' in the middle. I get it, it's how it has been going on over the years and nobody ever tried to talk about it. Ask yourself pronouncing that word in Bengali—is not the 'i' in the middle sufficient enough to do the job?
 * Unnecessary inclusions only weaken logical standpoint of a thing's overall construction.


 * And also, you're making বাকরখানি sound as বাকারখানি in English with the way you titled that page. These ways of transcribing/transliterating names from languages that fail to showcase an unaltered pronunciation just as they are in the original language need to be addressed. Even if a great amount of time has been passed and nobody ever raised any attention. Weed out-er (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know what you mean that Bakarkhani should be spelt as Bakorkhani, but this is in Bengali. English transcription takes it from Hindi/Sanskrit unfortunately, and so in the English language, Bakarkhani is the default. Sadly we can't change that, if you search Bakarkhani in Google it gives more search results.
 * On the other hand, Dhakaiya spelling is right. ঢা (Dha) + কা (ka) + ই (i) + য়া (ya).
 * If you want it to change, you can start a conversation in the talk pages.UserNumber (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? Isn't 'Bakorkhani' a cuisine originating from Bangladesh? If so, then taking its transliteration from the Hindi/Sanskrit counterpart would be ridiculous. And it doesn't matter what Google searches speak about that, as Google search offer nothing more than showing what has been going on for ever since, like a 'trend' (like as much as any blind 'tradition' or 'customary'), and needless to say, this can never be a logical way to establish the validity of facts.
 * But if it is the other way around, by which I mean, if 'Bakorkhani' is originally not a Bangladeshi cuisine, then it can be 'Bakarkhani', or something else. It must follow the language of the country where it originated from, to acquire a valid romanized name in English.
 * And now speaking about the other matter, the Dhakaiya matter – If your analogy was right then 'বুয়েটিয়ান' should have been spelled as 'Buetiyan', which is not. It is 'Buetian'. To provide more support for my analogy, take a look at how 'Australian', 'Brazilian', 'Russian', 'Italian', 'Spaniard', 'ASEAN', etc. are spelled as. What you are doing is simply making things complex by bringing another 'y' to do the job which 'i' has already done before that 'y' even made its appearance.
 * Just pay a look and simply think in an analytical way to grasp the concept. The English alphabet 'y' is logically brought in to construct transcriptions or romanization of a word only as an alternative of 'i' in some cases to do the same job as 'i'—which is the job of showcasing the sound 'ee-' (International Phonetic Alphabet: ɪ) being followed by an oppositional vowel. As a simple example: Yard.
 * With due respect, brother, you might require some extensive study on the field of linguistics, to see where I'm coming from, if not yet. Weed out-er (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is ridiculous. But I don't make the rules here. UserNumber (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ~ sigh ~ Weed out-er (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)