This Wikipedian is deceased. Respectful comments of remembrance may be left below.

I expect to have extremely sketchy access to the Internet for the next week or so. Obviously I will not be very active or present. Anyone trying to block or ban me or something will have to either wait a week or so, or go ahead anyways without me.

Archives · Newsroom · Tip Line · Single-Page

vulnerant omnes, ultima necat...

Read · Write

Sunday

15

December

06:13 UTC

Welcome to my talk page

If you don't mind, I prefer to respond to your talk page

You can, if you prefer, send me an e-Mail

State of mind

Read before you write My comments on Wikipedia are works in progress subject to the Thread-mode Disclaimer. I am always on editor review. You are welcome to comment on my edits there. I do make mistakes, plenty of them. Please, assume good faith. Otherwise, I sincerely don't give a fuck.

Archives Discussion tracker User talk Article talk Wikipedia talk

News post | watch

Policy post | watch

Technical post | watch

Proposals post | watch

Assistance post | watch

Miscellaneous post | watch

I think it would probably be a good idea to start an RfC on the talk page instead of continuing to revert on the article. It's nearing 3RR territory for both you and Foxhound03. {${\displaystyle \mathbb {JPG} }$} 22:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacob Gotts: An RfC was already there at the article talk page. Which was ignored by Foxhound. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes I am still around, although extremely infrequent. Somehow (probably from my watchlist) I landed on an RfC in which you have been commenting. I was also surprised to see you active! Then I found your latest fascination and could not control participating ;) --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, miss the old days. Of course, not much free time either. Ragib's updates-- we get in facebook. --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bengali–Assamese script, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bengali script.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Population table, the column with current populations is all mixed up. David notMD (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: Fixed. I failed to notice that it was not in alphabetical order like the other tables. My bad. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aditya Kabir! In order to keep the discussion/RfC (or whatever it has become LOL) in the Project page on focus, I want to digress here on your talk page, if you allow.

The basic problem is at follows: ideally, languages evolve and diversify continually and gradually in time and place. The tree model captures this by establishing reference points from which a subset of members have evolved. This tree like-structure mirrors relative positions, but not absolute/discrete levels and categories. So you can e.g. say that out of a set {A,B,C,D,E,F,G}, {A,B,C}, {D,E}, and {F,G} form subsets based on common features. If all varieties from A to G are mutually unintelligible from each other, then usually we would call A to G "languages", and {A,B,C}, {D,E}, {F,G} "subgroups". If however each subset contains mutually intelligible members, then {A,B,C}, {D,E}, {F,G} would be called "languages", and the individual members "dialects" (e.g. A is a "dialect" of {A,B,C}).

Now, the first problem is relativity: there is no sharp measurement for when to call {A,B,C} "one language with three dialects" or "one family/subgroup with three language". If they are very similar, the former makes sense, and if they are very different, the latter. But there certainly is a grey area (cf. Talk:Ainu language).

Things get even more messy when the "army and navy" thing comes to play, or in the South Asian context, "script and literary tradition". If {A,B,C,D,E,F,G} all were "tribal" only spoken village vernacualrs, the question of language vs. dialect is quite irrelevant. But the situation in NE South Asia is different: imagine that A, D and F have a literary tradition and can claim "language status". Speakers of B,C,E,G would then resort to A, D, or F as literary language. Naively, we would expect that speakers of B and C choose A as their literary language, and consequently consider their own speech a "dialect of A"; and dito for E choosing D and G choosing F.

This is not what happens in the Bengali-Assamese dialect cluster. A is so dominant for historical reasons, that not only B and C, but also E and G use A as literary language. So B,C,E,G are all called "dialects of A", while D and F are separate languages. As a result, sociolinguistics cross-cuts "pure" linguistics.

Translating the abstract example into NE South Asian reality: A=Bengali, D=Assamese, F=Sylheti. B and C would be close dialects of Standard Bengali, while E=Rangpuri, G=Chittagionian.

I hope this little digression restores your faith in language classification :) –Austronesier (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: Thanks for taking the time and effort to explain. You really write beautifully. And you definitely have restored my faith in practitioners of linguistic classification. But I can't say the same about the classification itself.

While I understand the logic, I still am mystified by the lack of measurement in defining things and their relationships.

As biology started becoming more sceintific, it discarded the family-genus-species system of classification and restructured classes and clads. Suddenly dinosaurs became birds and not reptiles, and relations changed radically. Now it is less open to interpreteation and more based on meseurable differences and similarities.

No such luck with lingustic classification yet. The methods are even more speculative and even less precise.

I study history and I am quite acclimatised with that kind of speculations and interpretation. But history has no pretention of being a science, though it is hardly any less rigorous than linguistics. In fact the study of history employs lingustics, genetics, geology, anthropology and a lot many other disciplines to develop hypotheses.

I hope I have managed to explain my discomfort. By the way, I may be a layman, but I surely can claim not to be an ignorant. I do believe that I have an acquitance with sceintific methodology, and, yes, some amount of lingustics. And I am super-suspiscious of the Vangiya supercluster.

Thanks again. This has been very enlightening. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I admit that stringent methodology is the key to the credibility of every discipline. The analogy to biology is very helpful, both in where it works, and where it fails. The analogy works well in the quesion of the relativity of cladistic hierarchies. Family-genus-species clades still exist for convenience, but biologists don't bash their heads anymore about absolute levels. The species-subspecies threshold still exists in theory based on the possibility of having fertile offspring, and the linguistic analogy to this would be the language-dialect threshold based on spontaeous mutual intelligibility.

The major difference is the measurement of distance: in biology you can quantify it (in principle; but there is always the question of weighing competing criteria). In linguistics, quantitative methods are frowned upon, and qualitative evidence is favored. There was a historical stage (largely overlapping with the structuralist period in anthropology) in comparative linguistics when quantitative methods like "lexicostatistics" were employed, with exact measurement of distance, which allowed to establish exact cladistic levels. However, these methods often failed to reproduce subgroups based on a conventional analysis of qualitative data (e.g. sound changes, lexical innovations), and linguists were more willing to abandon this failed attempt to "ape" exact sciences, rather than to discard the traditional "subjective" assessment of qualitative evidence.

One of the reasons that quanititive methods fail in linguistics is that languages are behavior, and not morphology or genetics. Lamarckism abounds: languages do actively "adapt to their environment", i.e. they take over features from unrelated neighboring languages. Without methods to recognize and weigh these facts, a quanititive analysis will fail to distinguish between genealogical relatedness and convergence through contact. Still, there are some promising attempts towards quantifying qualitative evidence as "hard data" (e.g. Historical glottometry).

As for the sociolinguistic component, there was a time when some linguists would see the language-dialect threshold based on spontaeous mutual intelligibility as dogma. Some would say "languages A and B are actually not distinct languages" because they're mutually intelligible, or vice versa "A is actually a language, not a dialect of B" because they're not mutually intelligible. Most linguists are wiser now, and acknowledge the fact that speaker communities sometimes perceive things in a different way than we do from the outside perspective. If we could really understand their language, I expect dolphins would "self-identify" as fish... :) –Austronesier (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cleavage (breasts), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burka.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This is Mohd. Toukir Hamid. There has been some problem with Bangladesh Liberation War page. Srijanx22 always trying to focus on Indian victory and changed former all editing. His emotional comments and editing vandalize Wikipedia rule. Thank you.

Not at all. Srijanx22 is discussing and collaborating to reach a consensus. And, please, sign your comments with four tildes. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some scrumptious baklava for reaching a consensus through the constructive debates that we had in [1].😊 Srijanx22 (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I think that was a mistake. Did you really intend to remove the text? Chaipau (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is the difference between Bengali script and Bengali-Assamese script? [2], [3] Chaipau (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no difference, then the article name should be "Bengali script" per WP:TITLE, instead of adding text about Bengali script and images about Assamese script. Either we find actual mentions of Bengali-Assamese script, or it's just lipstick on a pig. If we fail to persue Bengali-Assamese script without synthesizing Bengali script and Assamese script then no amount of masking will render notability to the article. Wikipedia requires significant coverage of the subject in sources that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention." Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and not every name, epithet, jargon etc. used to denote subject is entitled to an article.

But this discussion needs to happen at the article talk page. Not here. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has already happened in the Talk page there and Linguistics project page. The name is Bengali-Assamese and Bengali is a synonym, as in Assamese. Chaipau (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aditya Kabir! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Is there..., has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How the heck is History of the cleavage "not really" a duplicate of Cleavage (breasts)??? The four paragraphs of Cleavage_(breasts)#Ancient are exactly the same as the four paragraphs of History_of_the_cleavage#Antiquity, as are the other four sections. If you want to split a page, you need to properly use WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, not just copy-and-paste the content into a duplicate article with the same information. Reywas92^Talk 17:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92 The History of the cleavage article already has significantly more content than the "History" section of the Cleavage (breasts) article. Also both the articles are being worked on. Even the section that you mentioned has different content, though not a lot yet. Before gutting something on the fly, you probably need to read a bit more carefully. If you want a redirect, try posting a merger proposal, and discuss. Your blatant edit war and rude comments are not helping. You don't seem to have the minimum constructivity to inforporate the extra information from former article into latter when redirecting. That's really sad. Perhaps we need a community intervention to stop you from doing what you are doing. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 00:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"did you read the article?" Yes, I did read the article. You added about 1,000 bytes to a 91,000-byte page, that is certainly not "significantly" more content. Again, if you want to WP:SPLIT this content to be on a separate page, follow the directions! Please read WP:PROPERSPLIT! You have completely neglected step 6: You must also remove the content in the original article that was copied and pasted and then "Create a good summary of the subtopic at the parent article." Don't just leave it as duplicate content. Reywas92^Talk 00:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92 No you have not. You just checked how much new content was added to the new article from the diffs, counted paragraphs, and done a quick read of the first section. You do not know that I reduced "history" section of the old article too. Both are being actively edited. I know what a summary style is, but I don't think Wikipedia says anywhere that everything needs to spic and spam overnight, unless it is disruptive or contentious. I have internet connections for about two-three hours a day, spread through the day. I don't think I can respond to your personal WP:DEADLINE as fast. Please, follow Wikipedia processes as desccribed in the talk page of the forked article. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 00:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss at Talk:History of the cleavage. It is extremely difficult to have the same discussion over three talk pages. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 01:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I started the discussion at Talk:Cleavage (breasts). You're the one who decided to make it "extremely difficult" and move the discussion to the third page. Reywas92^Talk 01:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss at Talk:History of the cleavage. Should not be more difficult than blanking a discussion. And don't start on a WP:KETTLE. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 01:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have forgot to sign here. Might be a problem during closure. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to make changes in Udal of Mahoba, Alha and Banaphar since few days, but obviously English administrators cannot understand Hindi language, that's why I need help of any administrator who understands hindi language. So can you please help me. If you can than please see my reliable sources for making changes in Talk:Udal of Mahoba Sumit banaphar (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sumit banaphar: I think the problem is that Alf Hiltebeitel clearly says that all Banafars are of mixed Ahir and Kshatriya descent. So telling administrators that Alha and Udal were not of mixed Ahir and Kshatriya descent because they were Banafars is not working. The case becomes wearker when many of the links you post doesn't even mention Alha or Udal, and none of them refute the premise that all Banafars are of an Ahir and Rajput mix. I also think, you need a strong source telling that Banfars are not a mix of Ahirs and Rajputs. By the way Bani Prakashani is not a very strong source. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 01:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya thank you for helping me😊.aditya Alf Hiltebeitel is talking about banaphars means Alha, Udal,Malkhan, Sulkhan not about whole clan. And in page no.304 he said this "a mixed form of dialect of Bundeli which derives its name from Banaphar, a Rajput tribe" and in page no.133 he said that According to Grierson their is no proof that their mother is Ahir.

But if this not gonna work so why Alha khand is not a very strong source? because it follows the rules of reliable sources and the life story of Alha and Udal is on Alha Khand. Please guide me and sorry for this long message. Sumit banaphar (talk) 06:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to use Alha Khand, but from your link I can't read the pages. Do you have another link which helps to read the pages? Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 11:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya here is the link:-

Aalha Khand [4]

Alha Udal Ki Veergatha [5]

Sumit banaphar (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checked the links. I can only see the covers. Cannot see a single page inside the book. I cannot use something I cannot see. Can I? Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 00:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya I think you didn't scroll down so please do it and if you still can't see the book then tell me, i will give the link of the exact page. Sumit banaphar (talk) 05:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to scroll down to. At the bottom of the page I can see the name of the author, publisher etc. as is typical for Google Book search returns for books with only a snipet view or no view available. Nothing much else. Perhaps a link to the exact page would help. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 10:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then it may be a technical problem because I can see many pages.

Aalha Khand. page no:-19 [6]

Alha Udal Ki Veergatha. page no:- not given [7] Sumit banaphar (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a no preview for me. I don't think I will ever get to see those pages. You have provided links to the same book on the same site for some eight times. I don't think that is supposed to work. Sorry. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 12:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't know what the hell is going on because when I click the links i can clearly see the exact pages. I think so it may be technical problem.

And thanks for trying to help me. Sumit banaphar (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Worry not. I will find your source for you. Only that it might take some time. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 13:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, that's very kind and again, thanks for all your efforts you're putting to help me😊 Sumit banaphar (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aditya, sorry for disturbing but I have participated on the reliable sources noticeboard to ask that my source(Aalha Khand) is reliable or not. So you can check there may be you get to see the preview. If you are interested? Thanks Sumit banaphar (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still not luck. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 16:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this help to make changes

The Lay of Alha: A Saga of Rajput Chivalry as Sung by Minstrels of Northern India Issue 3 of Studies in Rajasthani folk-legends [8] Sumit banaphar (talk) 06:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I know I am bothering you, but if it is not necessary for me to make these changes, I do not bother you at all. It is very important for me. Sumit banaphar (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you busy? Sumit banaphar (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peyton Place.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Have a very happy birthday on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 41, September – October 2020

• New partnership: Taxmann
• WikiCite
• 1Lib1Ref 2021

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aditya Bhaiya. Thank you for still remembering me. How are you? :D I miss the old days. I've always wanted to contribute but never made a strong comeback. I will try to remain consistent from now on. --Tarif from Bangladesh (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tarif Ezaz How can forget one of the best magicians I have ever met? I took a look at your talk acrchive. Every signature there is a story to tell. Ragib, Arman, Dwaipayan, Niaz, Nahid, PK and so many more. BTW, I love your new signature. I have been looking around to find people to revive the BD wikiproject. We have so many articles that need collaborative development - Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangabandhu, Liberation War. Most of our featured articles have been delisted. Also most of our core articles are not even good articles. Arman also visits at times. Zayeem is very active. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 09:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it bhaiya. Yes, I have seen some of the concerns you have mentioned. To be honest, I am a bit scratchy about making newer contributions. But hopefully, they will go away with time. About these great individuals, yes, I always remember them. How we pulled of Bengali language movement is still surreal to me. But we have a lot to do and I am looking forward to get started. Please guide me where to focus next and please treat me as a newbie. --Tarif from Bangladesh (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tarif Ezaz Right now my Internet connectivity is not too great. Allow me a few days to come back and start on the collaboration. It would be so great to work with you after so long. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 16:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been contacted by Xerxes931 concerning this edit on Indian subcontinent. The RfC that you started showed clearly that there was no consensus among the editors to include Afghanistan on the lead. When WP:NOCONSENSUS exists, this ... results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. This would mean the exclusion of Afghanistan from the lead. Adding back this text with the "concession" of "albeit rarely" is not in keeping with the discussion and is not "per RFC closure". Editing against consensus is disruptive editing and attempting to force one's interpretation against the wishes of others after a discussion is tendentious editing. Attempting to restore a very slightly changed contested text after an RfC could easily be considered both. I suggest that you remove the text and accept the outcome of the RfC for now. Consensus can change but you should wait until attempting to see if a new discussion can achieve what you desire. There is no deadline on Wikipedia, after all so time should not be a pressure. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eggishorn I can happily accept the last version before I made any edit to the article this year, which was this - "Politically, the Indian subcontinent includes all or part of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Sometimes, the geographical term 'Indian subcontinent' is used interchangeably with 'South Asia', although that last term is used typically as a political term and is also used to include Afghanistan. Which countries should be included in either of these remains the subject of debate." Repetative, somewhat nonsensical, synthesized and doesn't really remove Afghanistan.

Anyone can reinstate that part instead of "Geopolitically, the Indian subcontinent generally includes all or part of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, as well as Maldives. Albeit rarely, some authors also include Afghanistan and Myanmar. The terms "Indian subcontinent" and "South Asia" are sometimes used interchangeably to denote the region."

I am contentedly ready to accept my very first edit to this article this year as the starting point of the edit wars. And I notice that WP:NOCONSENSUS says, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit."

Will that satisfy the process? Or maybe some other version can be found. In that case, some instruction on which prior version to reinstate and/or which bold edit are we addressing will be helpful. From what I can see, a similar statement has been part of the article over a very long time. And that edit war ensued after it was removed. But, I would, as already said, happily accept anything to uphold the process. Just plain removing Afghanistan will probably not satisfy that. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 17:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In point of fact, the "last edit before you made any changes" is this. The article history shows that you have a history of multiple edit wars dating back to 2008. The version before your involvement in the article would be the text, "...countries on the continental crust (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Nepal), an island country on the continental shelf (Sri Lanka), and an island country rising above the oceanic crust (the Maldives)." Picking an arbitrary point where the text suited your point of view and declaring that to be the prior version is disingenuous. Further, the edit war to which you refer seems to be a continuation of prior ones over the inclusion of these two countries (e.g., in 2009, in 2010, in 2011, 2012, 2014, etc. etc. etc.) Your involvement with this article demonstrates a 12 year history of ownership and bludgeoning the article and talk to enforce your POV, against what appears to be all other editors, all the while accusing others of being "POV pushers". This is textbook WP:TE so no, I don't agree that your "Albeit rarely" formulation either follows the discussion or is in keeping with WP:NOCONSENSUS. The RfC statement was far too poorly-written to claim that there is anything like a silent consensus for inclusion and if you want to justify inclusion of your POV, you will need a much clearer and direct RfC that shows clear consensus. As it is, all the recent RfC has demonstrated is that the text is not widely-accepted. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging an Admin to read through this User: Barkeep49 Xerxes931 (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eggishorn Not even editing for years surely adds up to whatever claims being made here (ownership, tendentious edits, edit wars, bludgeoning and so on). AND, I don't think I asked ever to uphold whatever edit I made. RATHER, I very specifically said that I don't mind any edit compliant with the policies. That point is so moot. You want this version? Go ahead (though I am quite skeptical of how the decision was made in favor of that version). I don't own the Wikipedia, and I have released all my works as CC 3.0 and GFDL and agreed to all WP policies with the very first edit I made. If there's a problem with the content, its WP's problem, not mine. So, please, do whatever you see fit, whatever version version you want to reinstate, and whatever bold edit you want to revert (including every single edit I made, no sweat). Cheers. You can stop being hostile now, if possible. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 05:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mistake the situation. I have no dog in this fight. I do not care one way or the other what countries are included in the lead. I expressed no hostility towards you, only civilly explaining what I saw as the relevant policies and your edit history. If having these mentioned to you provokes such a reaction, I really don't know what to say. If, however, you are agreeing to stop editing that article's list of countries in the lead, I think that would help the article. At least I think that is what you are saying. If I am wrong in that understanding, I am fairly certain you will correct me. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User: Barkeep49, User:Eggishorn Aditya is continuing to edit war against the RFC consensus[9] and by that also again continuing his 12 Years long edit wars on the article. Someone seriously needs to do something against this, it’s going way too far. Xerxes931 (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read again. There was no consesus about the sentence on Afghanistan, I have taken that to another RfC. There was consensus about the sentence on South Asia (you agreed too). There is absoultely no reason to remove another sentence along with the sentence with no consensus. Anyways, taking that one to RfC as well. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 01:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure why I'm being pinged ot this particular discussion. But here I am. I think the revised Afghanistan wording might be able to achieve consensus. Or it might not. But immediately running to another RfC (and then doing a second RfC on top of that) is not a healthy sign of attempting to form consensus. Also nearly all of this discussion really should be happening on the talk page so that other content editors are aware of it. Aditya your editing is right on the edge between legitimate BOLD editing attempts to find consensus and disruption. I would recommend you focus more on using discussion to find consensus rather than BOLD editing for the time being. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 I believe an RfC is exactly that - working towards consensus through discussion. Nothing bold there, isn't it? Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 02:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've skipped a few steps. Discussion should precede an RfC. You've gone right from reverted edit to RfC. Twice. And one of those is an issue that just had a substantial RfC closed. Restarting a new RfC, without any intervening discussion, feels like an attempt to win the point rather than find consensus. I forgot in my first comment to say that I see the good faith in your efforts. But even good faith efforts can be disruptive. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Months of deiscussion, including a messy earlier RfC that ended in a no consensus closer, preceeded the current RfCs. Feel what you may feel, but this feels like RfC processes are meant to thwart consensus, not build one. And, I looked up the policies to see what is said against opening an RfC. Couldn't find the policy against the current RfCs. Can you help me to find it? Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 04:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that the primary reason the RfC was "messy" was because the RfC started with no less than four questions and also tried to mix in claims of behavioral issues preventing implementation of some prior consensus which did not and still does not exist. If the RfC had initially been formulated with greater restraint, this entire discussion probably would not be taking place. It is very close to disingenuous to create a "messy" RfC and then justify returning to the same issue immediately after the first is closed because the prior was unclear. I will return to a point I made earlier: There is no reason that the inclusion or exclusion of Afghanistan in the lead of the South Asia article has any kind of urgency. A civil discussion on the talk page prior to formulating a clear RfC is appropriate at this stage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 08:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eggishorn Please check if the new thread at Talk:Indian subcontinent is compliant to your instructions. Could not find any policy, guideline or essay to use as guidance, so I may have done it wrong. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 14:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear, direct, and concise. This is much better. The guidance you are looking for is at WP:RFCBRIEF and WP:RFCQ. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It was directly copied from the RfC that was closed immediately without a single comment for some violation or other by Barkeep49. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 22:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. I am glad those pointers helped. I hope that the question eventually gets resolved one way or another and the article is overall improved at the end of the day. Stay safe. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aditya Kabir! I don't think our paths have ever crossed before, but you seem to have a long history of valuable edits in this project. So I'm thoroughly perplexed by your recent addition to BKash, which I've reverted. That edit seems so out of character that I feel I should ask you to explain what was going on there. I'm a little concerned that you may have lost control of your account, please confirm that that is not so. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers Thanks. I saw your revert. You reverted a very bad edit anyways. I guess I just got impatient and edited prematurely. The content is still in development in a sandbox, but I hardly have gone around to the sandbox eversince the project was hatched quite sometimes back. Loads of sloppiness on my part. Sorry about that. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 16:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Kabir passes away, Daily Star, 10 December 2020.

Just noticed the sad news. Aditya, you were an amazing editor and I am not at all surprised to learn that you were a poet and a scholar as well. My condolences to your family and friends. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rest in peace, dear Friend! Your awesome contributions to Wikipedia will be remembered for ever. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your time and devotion to improving Wikipedia User:Aditya Kabir. May God rest your soul in eternal peace, Anupam^Talk 17:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You have been an undeclared mentor to me. Can't thank you enough for your contributions to Wikipedia. Rest in peace! --Zayeem ^(talk) 18:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rest in peace, sir. I can recall the fruitful conversations we had on Quora, and I regret not having the pleasure to interact with you here. Your contributions will be remembered. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rest in peace Kabir, you will be missed. MBlaze Lightning 13:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• My sympathies to Kabir family.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Vale Aditya. May you rest in peace. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• My condolences for the deceased to his family and well-wishers. I had limited interaction with Aditya Kabir during my time here, but he always came across as someone who was decent and respectful. Rest in peace. Mar4d (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• May his soul rest in peace. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rest in peace my good sir! Although you I didn't know you, you will never be forgotten! UpcomingPurse (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Condolences to those to whom this loss will hurt most. CMD (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You left us all too soon dear Kabir. Your contributions to Wikipedia and your memories will live on. You will be missed. Thanks for all the passion and time for Wikipedia. From a fellow wikipedian. --Arunram (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate you. Temperance Cook (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	Rest In Peace
	Rest In Peace. Temperance Cook (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Eight years!

You will be remembered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Bangladesh/back to main page has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jazmin Chaudhry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

―  ☪  Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 19:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]