Snthakur

Thakur (Hindi surname)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Thakur (Hindi surname), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Thakur. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thakur (Hindi surname)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Thakur (Hindi surname), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Rajput. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Please refer the Articles "Thakur", "Thakur (Hindi surname)" & "Thakur (Bengali surname)" respectively, thereafter intrepret deletion, if any.

Thanks & regards, - Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Anil Chatterjee

A tag has been placed on Anil Chatterjee 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 that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. DFS454 (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

On your recent edit of the Calcutta University article

Hi,

Thanks for adding the list of colleges to the CU article. However, you might wonder if that is at all necessary, as the Template:University of Calcutta has all the relevant details, and as most of the colleges do not have individual articles for them. It might be a better idea to separate the names of its famous alumni.

I do not wish to sound condescending, but then who cares for Sovarani Memorial College anyway, unless one of its alumna ends up in Stanford. Likewise, Hingalganj Mahavidyalaya or Harimohan Ghosh College are unimportant, even irrelevant, unless their alumni end up at Harvard, either as student, postdoc or faculty.

Think about it, bro...

Sincerely,

Patoldanga'r Tenida (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

A request

Since you have edited the University of Calcutta article in the past, could you address the issue of why one of the editors is constantly reverting to the ad tag, repeatedly, without bothering to edit the article. See Talk:University of Calcutta for details.

Regards, Patoldanga'r Tenida (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

reviewing

The reviewing process has already started here. 89.206.5.2 (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thakur (Indian title)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Thakur (Indian title), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Thakur. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia–Wikimedia Meetup
Kolkata, India

(view · edit · changes)

Proposed deletion of Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math

The article Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources cited

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Wikid^as© 10:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I firmly believe that the proposed deletion of this article - Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math is nothing but a biased attitude of some user/person who probably prefers ISKCON or A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada over it (this article). In fact, the Hare Krishna Movement started from Nabadwip - the birth place of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu - where Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math is situated, it is also known as “the mother of the Gaudiya Maths” and it was founded by Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Goswami, who was a disciple and follower of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura and a notable friend of A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada too (a Krishna follower brother of Bhaktivedanta Swami). A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami founded ISKCON after going to the West so he become notable, as it appears, even than his Guru or teacher and also than his Krishna follower brothers! Here 'notability' appears to be a relative word.

However, irrespective of what the google search shows but the above mentioned facts clearly reflect said Math's status and position in Hare Krishna Movement by the Gaudiya Vaishnavas.

It may be noted that since the Math is the mother of the Gaudiya Maths where the truly religious administrators (monks) of this Math devotes them more in religious activities rather than endeavouring to market their movement/religious activities in the West, unlike A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (the ISKCON founder did, so it (the Math) may not appear in google the same way ISKCON does but this incident certainly does not mean that it is a non notable pilgrimage site! I have personally visited the Math and it is huge, during "Nabadwip Parikrama" thousands and thousands of devotees eat, rest and stay in ths math.

Even after this, if this article is deleted then that would be an act of prejudice and also an un-thought act. Nothing more I wish to say about proposed deletion of said article.

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no prejudice you claim. The deletion process is an opportunity to prove nominator wrong and produce WP:RS -- reliable sources that are valid and approved by other editors. Please use this opportunity and find some sources. There is no dispute that building exists, just that it does not meet the requirements of WP:NOTABILITY. Wishing you well, please produce good sources on the discussion page for deletion. Wikid^as© 21:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

---

I am definitely being stopped from expanding the article Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math, The said article has been deleted prejudicially, without proper considering it's notablity or importance. I challenge anyone who says that the said article does not have proper source to establish the fact that it is not worth keeping in the Wikipedia. The Math was established in the year 1940. Please refer the following content that supports my statement here:-

Refer Source Book:ISBN 81-86737-56-1 9000> 9 788186 737569

Relevant Pharases/Keywords: "Sri Devananda Gaudiya Matha", "Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti", "Sri Gaudiya Patrika", "Shri Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti".

Name of the Book: Sri Navadvipa-dhama and Prominent Holy Places of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas in Sri Gauda-mandala.

Authored by: Sri Srimad Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja.

See Chapter and Page: Sri Devananda Gaudiya Matha, Chapter 5 - Sri Koladvipa - Page 143 to 145.

Description about the Book: In this book Sri Srimad Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja, describes the numerous sacred places of Sri Navadvipa-dhama and introduces many of the holy places in the surrounding area of Sri Gauda-mandala.

Virtual Tour of the Math is available here: http://360darshan.com/en/place/31

Content about Sri Devananda Gaudiya Matha in the book:

Sri Devananda Gaudiya Matha is situated in he middle of Koladvipa. In 1940, after jagad-guru Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura Prabhupada entered aprakata-lila, one of his intimate associates, Srila Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Gosvami Maharaja, established Sri Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti in a rented building. He did this to fulfill his spiritual master's innermost desire. He later purchased an extensive piece of land on which he established a matha with a beautiful temple. The following deities preside in the three chambers of the temple:

(1) Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura Prabhupada, (2) Sri Gauranga and Sri Radha-Vinoda-bihari, and (3) Sri Koladeva, or Varahadeva, the presiding deity of Sri Koladvipa.

The temple's nine towers each represent one limb of navadha-bhakti, the nine types of devotional service: hearing, chanting, remembering, serving the Lord's lotus feet, worshipping, offering prayers, engaging as a servant, serving as a friend, and completely surrendering oneself.

The matha is divided into the following nine parts (khandas): (1) Paramartha-khanda - the printing press where devotional literature and magazines are produced. (2) Kirtana-khanda - the place where sankirtana and lectures on Bhagavatam and other scriptures take place. (3) Upasya-khanda - the temple where the deities of Srila Sarasvati Thakura Prabhupada, Sri Gauranga, Sri Radha-Vinona-bihari and Sri Koladeva are worshipped. (4) Sevaka-khanda - the place where the residents of the matha live. (5) Bhoga-khanda - the storehouse and kitchen. (6) Govardhana-khanda - the cow shed. (7) Vaisnnava-granthagara-khanda - the library. (8) Udayana-Khanda - the garden. (9) Jnana-khanda - the bathrooms and latrines.

These sec tons are divide on the basis of activities favourable to bhakti, which are to be accepted and those unfavourable which are to be avoided. Jnana and karma which are devoid of bhakti are always to be rejected just as one rejects stool. For this reason the bathrooms and latrines of the matha are called Jnana-khanda.

It was Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami's long-held desire that a deity of Sri Koladeva be established on the Ganga's western bank in the old Kuliya-nagara. To fulfill this desire, Srila Bhakti Prajnana kesava Gosvami Maharaja has manifested the service of Sri Koladeva at the place. Profile of the Matha:

---

Shri Devananda Gaudiya Math (Shri Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti) Teghori Pada, Nabadwip, Dist:- Nadia, State:- West Bengal, India, Pin - 741302 Founder Acharya:- Srila Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Gosvami Maharaja Next Acharya:- Srila Bhakti Vedanta Bamana Goswami Maharaja present Acharya:- Srila Bhakti Vedanta Paryataka Maharaja Present Secretary:- Srila Bhakti Vedanta Acharya Maharaja Deity:- Sri sri Guru Gauranga Radha-Vinodbihari Jiu, Sri Sri Kakshmi Baraha Deva Jiu, Sri Sri Jagannath Deva Visiting Place:- The holy Samadhi Temple of Sril Bhakti Prajyan Kesova Maharaja & Srila Bhakti Vedanta Bamana Goswami Maharaja Accommodation & Prasadam:- 100 rooms available by any donation. For prasadam Rs. 20 for lunch (lunch time 12 pm, confirm before 9am) & Rs 15 for diner (diner time 8:30, confirm before 5pm), Contract with Srila Bhakti Vedanta Paryataka Maharaja.

http://gaudiyadarshan-mng-eng.blogspot.com/2010/08/shri-gaudiya-vedanta-samiti-shri.html

Online Book available about the math: http://issuu.com/360darshan.com/docs/sri_navadvipa-dhama/171?mode=embed&layout=http://content.issuu.com/themes/basicGrey/layout.xml

Other Links:

VNN Editorial - We're Never Defeated... http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET9910/ET01-4839.html

“The mother of the Gaudiya Math” http://www.cintamani.org/hari-katha/the-mother-of-the-gaudiya-math/

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted not because of the effort of biased ISKCON Wikipedia editors, but because you didn't provide any reliable sources. The websites you've found are not reliable sources. If you present such sources, the article can be restored.Gaura79 (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math

Hello Gaura79,

Definitely, the deletion of the article Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math was the effort of biased ISKCON Wikipedia editors. Otherwise, how can they ignore a source even from a reputed publisher who published the following Book?

ISBN 81-86737-56-1 9000>

9 788186 737569

Name of the Book: Sri Navadvipa-dhama and Prominent Holy Places of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas in Sri Gauda-mandala. Authored by: Sri Srimad Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja.Chapter and Page: Sri Devananda Gaudiya Matha, Chapter 5 - Sri Koladvipa - Page 143 to 145.

00:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that there's some bias on the part of some ISKCON Wikipedia editors, but in this case you really didn't present any independent sources. To establish notability independent sources are required. Please read Wikipedia:Notability and also Wikipedia:Independent sources. The book in question may be a reliable source but it is not an independent source. Try to look for sources in Bengali, maybe something will come up.Gaura79 (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math Continued...

Hello Gaura79,

Now that you have agreed, there were some bias on the part of ISKCON editors where I believe that it was NOT only 'some bias' but they are fully biased editors and misused their power as editors. Besides, the article Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math presented not only verifiable, Wikipedia:Notability sources but also Wikipedia:Independent sources.

e.g, Wikipedia:Notability:-

Maharaja, Sri Srimad Bhaktivedanta Narayana (2005). Sri Navadvipa-dhama and Prominent Holy Places of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas in Sri Gauda-mandala. @ Gaudiya Vedanta Publications. p. 143-145. ISBN 81-86737-56-1.

and Wikipedia:Independent sources and other sources  :-

• Navadvipa: Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math, Navadvipa Tourist Places to Visit for Religious
• Sacred Sites of India - 47 Navadip; Dhameswara Shri Chaitanya temple, Devananda Gaudiya Math
• New Zealand Hare Krishna Spiritual Resource Network

• Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math, Navadvipa tourist places to visit for Religious...
• Broadcasting International Television - Isckon in Devananda Gaudiya Math with Srila Narayana...
• Sri Devananda Gaudiya Matha Srila Gurudeva arrival

So, I strongly expect that the article Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math be justified reasonably and un-deleted immediately so that I can restrain myself to be harsh against such editors..

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sri Devananda Goudiya Math and Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Devananda_Goudiya_Math_and_Sri_Devananda_Gaudiya_Math

Re:deletion of Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math

Any article deleted via an afd is automatically eligible for csd deletion regardless of what is or is not on the page. In accordance with this position I deleted the above mentioned article, and protected the page to keep it from being recreated so as to avoid future instances of a csd eligible article reappearing on site. The only option you have open to you to get the article back is to bring the article up at Wikipedia:Deletion Review and outline the reasons you think it should be allowed to exist here. If the consensus emerges that the deletion(s) were bad they will be overturned and the articles restored, at which the existing pages will be unlocked and recreated with the previously existing material. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the Article Wizard. Repeatedly creating an article under different titles to get round page protection is not acceptable. Doing so from different accounts is also not advisable, as it is likely to give the impression of attempting to avoid scrutiny, even if that was not in fact your intention. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Your Highness,

Your authority have wished me to stop my disruptive editing in Wikipedia. However, it should have even been okay with me if your highness would have ordered me NOT to come to Wikipedia to make any more edits here. It is my pleasure to abide by the orders made by your highness and also not to come to Wikipedia any more.

I have started believing SO since, I was being stopped from expanding the articles Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math or Sri Devananda Goudiya Math by some biased Wikipedian administrators - who preferred ISKCON than it's root like Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math - and further when they have prejudicial deleted said articles without proper considering my submissions about it's notability or importance. Besides that, there is no mechanism in Wikipedia by which I can raise my voice against those prejudiced Wikipedian administrators rather, abiding by whatever their decisions are.

I thank you for your order sir.

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of C & F Agent for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article C & F Agent 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/C & F Agent 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. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Article C & F Agent or, Clearing and Forwarding Agent, has a specific definition as per Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 (of India) - see Section - 65. Clause - 25 - Definition of Clearing and forwarding agent. Clearing and Forwarding Agent is a widely used term applied in the tax law of India but definitely not a term exclusively applicable only for a dictionary entry.

- Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Snthakur. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JamesBWatson (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Maharaja Rao Vidyadhara

Hello Snthakur,

It seems to me that an article you worked on, Maharaja Rao Vidyadhara, may be copied from http://www.apnabundelkhand.com/medievalhistory.html. It's entirely possible that I made a mistake, but I wanted to let you know because Wikipedia is strict about copying from other sites.

It's important that you edit the article and rewrite it in your own words, unless you're absolutely certain nothing in it is copied. If you're not sure how to fix the problem or have any questions, there are people at the help desk who are happy to assist you.

Thank you for helping build a free encyclopedia! MadmanBot (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Article requests

Hi! Do you do Bengali article requests?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Sir,

Please describe, "Bengali article requests",

and yes, I am from Bengal.

"115.241.107.102 (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the page User:Snthakur/Limited Liability Partnership in India, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition was deleted under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text—which means allowing other people to modify it—then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License." You may also e-mail or mail the Foundation to release the content. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more.

While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

== Attitude Problem ==

I do appreciate your deletion of the User page User:Snthakur/Limited Liability Partnership in India for the alleged legal reasons, since I am yet understand if there was a difference between the user page and an article. Can I re-describe such legal definitions in my own words? A lawyer knows about it better.

But, for obvious reason, I cannot really appreciate you for appreciating my contribution to said user page and re welcoming an old user to Wikipedia. I strongly believe that in your message 'I' pronoun should have been appropriate for you to use than using 'we', I feel for you not really representing all the Wikipedia's administrators else, it should have been deleted long ago.

Please do not consider said page was my contribution rather it was more of a user page. A considerable time has elapsed since its creation.

I thank you & good bye.

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for re-welcoming a user who has been here since 2006. That was the result of using a pre-formatted message rather than writing one of my own. I know that some of these templated messages are not always appropriate for established editors, and for that reason I very often do write my own messages, but in the case of speedy deletion for copyright reasons, there are so many points that need to be made clear that writing my own message from scratch every time would take a disproportionate amount of time. Maybe I should write my own copyright-deletion message just once, and store it for re-use when necessary.

The use of the word "we" also came from the templated message, but it seems to me entirely appropriate. The message was not expressing a private opinion of my own, but rather passing on the established consensus view: indeed, the fact that there is a ready-made templated message demonstrates that. Wikipedia welcomes constructive contributions from anyone, but cannot accept material which infringes copyright. I was passing on that community position, and it would, in fact, have been rather arrogant for me to have said "I appreciate your contributions", as though I were in some sort of position that gave me the right to decide such issues myself.

The fact that the page was not deleted long ago is almost certainly because nobody both noticed it and realised it was a copyright infringement. A page in user space can easily stand around for years without being noticed, but I can assure you that most if not all administrators would have deleted it if they had seen it and realised it infringed copyright. Your comment about "a difference between the user page and an article" suggests that you are one of a surprisingly large number of Wikipedia editors who think that somehow copyright doesn't apply to a page in Wikipedia's userspace. I can assure you that nowhere that I know of has a copyright law that I makes such a distinction, and certainly the law of the United States doesn't. If a copyright holder were to sue you for breach of copyright, no court would accept as a defence "Ah, but the page where I copied the content had the word "user" at the top of it, so copyright law doesn't apply".

You are right in saying that a considerable time has elapsed since the page was created: a little short of a year, in fact. During that year there was no sign that the page was going to be used in any way connected with building the encyclopaedia, and it looks rather as though you were simply using the Wikipedia servers as a free web host to hold content for your own use, not connected with working on the encyclopaedia. If that is so, then that would itself have been sufficient reason for deletion, even had there been no copyright issue, though it would have been necessary to nominate it for deletion and allow time for discussion, if anyone had reason to contest the nomination, rather than summarily deleting it without warning. For the same reason, the answer to "Can I re-describe such legal definitions in my own words?" is "No", if you merely intend to store it in a userspace page for your own use.

You have not made it clear what you mean by posting the words "Attitude Problem" at the top of your message. However, it looks rather as though you meant it to indicate a criticism of the attitude I showed. If so, then I suggest you may like to consider whether that was the most civil way of expressing your concern, and if not then you may like to consider clarifying what you did mean, to avoid giving that misleading impression. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Clarification of Attitude Problem

I was not really in a willing mental state both, come back and login the Wikipedia's editor account and to reply a message. However, giving value to the effort such of a lengthy message, also to address the quoted request, "you may like to consider clarifying what you did mean...” I was more compelled to come here and reply the message than coming here willingly. I hereby do so:-

(1) That in my last message I have mentioned, “I cannot really appreciate you for appreciating my contribution to said user page and re-welcoming an old user to Wikipedia”.

In response, you have apologized and clarified that the template messages are not always appropriate but to save time you have used a pre-formatted message. I realize that you have been generous enough in replying with a lengthy message and asking for the apology,

But at the same time I, being an editor, regret my inability to do anything against an administrator for using inappropriate template message where, an administrator have the ability to delete the edits indiscriminately, without warning, after a long time it was created. The top words "Attitude Problem" of my message actually countered the top words "Copyright problem" of your message. Indeed, I have criticized the attitude you have showed to me since the last few edits. The impression is very clear and need no avoidance.

(2) My statement, "You are not really representing all the Wikipedia's administrators", in reply, you have stated that it would have been rather arrogant for you to say "I" but used the word "we" as it was entirely appropriate for you to use. Since, you have been passing on the established consensus view of Wikipedia and Wikipedia cannot accept material, which infringes copyright.

In this context, I would like raise this question, "was it indeed an infringement of copyright"?

It is not. The reason being, mentioning about Limited Liability Partnership in India is more about mentioning relevant Acts and Rules of the Limited Liability Partnership Act 2008 rather than attempting to infringe any copyright. The purpose of any copyright mainly is to protect the financial interests of the original copyright holders but keeping the concerned user page should not have injured anyone financially, so the question of giving protection to a copyright holder does apply here. In fact, prevailing Acts and Rules, related to something expected to circulate widely for the general awareness of the public instead of hiding them in the name of copyright. Where, as an administrator, you are empowered to delete such a user page while I, being a mere editor, have nothing to do against it but to see such indiscriminate deletions, as a mute spectator.

(3) My statement, "the user page should have been deleted by other administrators long ago", you have mentioned that the page was not deleted long ago is almost certainly because nobody both noticed it and realized it was a copyright infringement.

Please note that your statement is not going to sell that easy. When new user page/article are published in Wikipedia, it comes to the immediate attention of the Wikipedian administrators so that they can give it a prima facie look and moderate it or suggest about it for the necessary changes. Nevertheless, if it was indeed a case of clear infringement of copyright, any one of the administrators concerned likely deleted it immediately or at least some sort of objection might have arisen against it, much before the time you have deleted it.

Impugned, your interpretation about my thinking that somehow copyright does not apply to Wikipedia's user space is nothing but irrelevant, improper and baseless statement. There is no relevance in it.

There is no copyright in the content of the deleted user page, therefore, no question arises of breach of copyright, and I never need to consider a defense for it before any court. I have intense respect for the Honorable Courts by default.

Therefore, it rather needs to go through the proper scanner to establish the fact that your action was not biased by any external influences. Until then, your action of speedy deletion will remain doubtful and questionable.

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anil Chatterjee, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chaowa Pawa and Ankahee (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) 09:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, DPL bot,

I thank you very much for raising the above mentioned issue in my edit Anil Chatterjee, accordingly I have corrected the specific issue and re-linked them to the appropriate articles.

I thank you again.

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

::{{unblock-auto|1=115.242.100.108|2=<nowiki>Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Telitnetwork". The reason given for Telitnetwork's block is: "Username policy violation".|3=JamesBWatson|4=4865735}}</nowiki>

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I have edited the Article Anil Chatterjee even a while ego, since then the user Snthakur in no way acted against any of Wikipedia's policies therefore, auto-blocking the user Snthakur does not make a true sense. I request to unblock the user Snthakur for the said reason. Thank you in advance. Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Accept reason:

These autoblocks will sometimes activate if you log in to that old account. Please do not do so in the future. I've removed the autoblock for now. Kuru (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rosogolla, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oriya. 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) 09:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello User:DPL bot,

I thank you for indicating me the error while I have been editing Rosogolla and mistakenly added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oriya, instead of pointing it to the Oriya Language page. Please be informed that by now, said error has been rectified.

As a matter of fact, I had added said link, expecting it pointing to Oriya Language, but without verifying where it actually pointed.

However, now the link is pointing to intended page.

I thank you again,

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Content forks

Please do not create content forks of existing articles like you did at Rosogolla, especially when you are in a content dispute on the main article. —SpacemanSpiff 08:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

(1) You should not have deleted the article Rosogolla immediately, and before giving an opportunity to the editor of the article concerned to be heard. This is not a reasonable act; an administrator should do without consensus. Indeed your act is unreasonable.

(2) Reasonably, The question of content forks applies when the main article itself is perfect in nature, however, in the instant case the main article Rasgulla is not perfect in nomenclature, for the reasons stated below.

(3) Rasgulla is a colloquial name, mostly called by the other language speaking Indians. The formal name of the desert is Rosogolla as per the dictionary and other reliable books - those I have referred in the deleted article Rosogolla in question. Unfortunately, the main article should have named Rosogolla but it is representing an imperfect, colloquial name, for the obvious reasons.

(4) However, to avoid impugned disputes with some biased editors or administrators of the article Rasgulla, the Article Rosogolla was created to represent its formal name. The article should have stayed in Wikipedia but you have arbitrarily deleted it, that too without a prior discussion or providing a notice in support of your probable deletion.

(5) Therefore, considering the above stated fact and circumstances, please address the above stated issues (1) to (4) so that the article Rasgulla could be enriched in quality and perfection.

A reasonable and consensual reply from you shall enable me to decide further course of action regarding this.

Thanks

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The Syrupy Sweets in a nutshell. - Rosogolla, a fact.

• Khiramohana or, Kheer Mohan is a creamish sweet popular & invented in Odisha since the Jagannath Temple, Puri came into existence. The sweet, offered to the goddess Lakshmi during the Rath Yatra of the temple. Now, the sweet is though made of chhena and cooked in sugar syrup but there is no concrete evidence that chhena, which we know today, existed at the time of the sweet's invention. It is very unlikely of its existence then.

• Pahala Rasgulla, the descendant and an alternative name of Khiramohana , is a yellowish brown, crumbly, syrupy sweet popular & available only in Pahala region of Odisha.

• Rosogolla is a light spongy white ball of chhana stewed in sugar syrup (rasa). The form of Rosogolla that we know today is different from Khiramohana of Odisha in various aspects. Evidenly, Nobin Chandra Das of Kolkata, West Bengal, discovered the sweet. Its alternative names are Rossogolla, Rasagolla & Roshogolla, and its variations are Kamala Bhog, Raj Bhog, Roso Malai etc. The name of the sweet is anglicize to Rasgulla, after many non-Bengali speaking Indians started calling it by this name.

• NB 'Kheer' in Kheer Mohan, suggests a condensed milk pudding, is not chhena.

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Please confine your content comments to article talk pages. Posting the same response on multiple pages is both unnecessary as well as disruptive. --regentspark (comment) 23:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, understood.

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

regentspark However, known to us that a question of disruption does not apply to counter another disruption. Then the question would be who commits it first. repeating same comment on a user talk page sometime considered as getting a notice acknowledged.

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Snthakur, I think you should not get so much personally involved in this issue, it is less likely that article name will be changed, so don't try so hard for that, it will just hurt you. I will give example, Rabindranath Tagore's real or original bengali name is Rabindranath Thakur but still he is widely known as Rabindranath Tagore thats why his article name is Tagore not Thakur. One can get thousands of sources that his original or real name is 'Thakur' but still we can't change his Wikipedia name. Same case is happening with Rasgulla. I think you have explained yourself enough, I think you take a break for a while, let some other people comment on move discussion. OR if you have different info about "Rosogulla" then add it to article in relevant section, also you can discuss about adding name in intro line. Like, also known as Rosogulla. Thank you. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  04:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015Send WikiLove

Hello Human3015, Grateful that I can feel your anxiety for my probable loss of personal involvement as the issue is unlikely succeeded! Again thankful that your goodness cautioned me from a loss of toil, prepared me for a cause of pain! So I would like to assure your goodness that my heart do not generally overrule my brain, so it is very unlikely of my heart suffering a probably injury for my brain will come to its rescue in the event it tends to fail.

As I continue reading your example, suddenly those words scanned through my mind, reminding of my involvement in editing Thakur and concerning Tagore articles long ago, and that thought of mine also indulged me to sense about your goodness certainly trying to explain the word “anglicize,” - not using the very word but through words, those explain it. I would like to confirm your goodness that not only the very word known to me since long with its proper meaning, as such, I have myself used the very word in my recent endeavour concerning said personal involvement that caused your anxiousness said. I have used the word ‘anglicize’ to explain my point of view to the other editor and that became an weapon against me! However, the word rosogolla now invalidated the anglicized word rasgulla through new and updated entry in the relevant publication Oxford University Press.

I have a strong feeling that the ground, for which the opposing editors, including some of you, disputed my endeavour said, is nothing else but an old entry of the word rasgulla, available in old publication of Oxford University Press however, recent and updated entry of rosogolla invalidated previous entry by now. The word rosogolla, stands valid now and the same word overrules opposing editors ground. The Universe is changing, as nothing is permanent here, where rasgulla is only a small word!

Thankful and I feel very nice to know about it that your goodness has accepted my explanation enough. I do agree with your goodness that it is certainly necessary for me to take a break to see opinions or comments by others for the ongoing request. I have recorded your suggestion about rosogolla since your last interaction with me. However, I would like to make it clear that your suggestion and my recent endeavour do not conflict with each other for the relevant reasons.

Before I remain, I would like to wish you good health, spirit and love.

I thank you again.

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The question is, a selective decision between the names Rasgulla and Rosogolla, as per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA.

Prevailing:

Wikipedia will not interfere into an administrative action, however erroneous, if not challenged on the grounds of contravention of appellant’s right, as described in the wikipedia policy.

Conclusion:

Considering Talk:Rasgulla#Survey and Talk:Rasgulla#Discussion, erroneous Acts of the administrative opposition, in renaming and moving the article Rasgulla to Rosogolla, not only violates the standards of creative skills, human relations and precise set of methods, such action also contravenes wikipedia’s naming conventions policy. If the instant appeal would fail to reach a reasonable consensus due to prejudiced acts of the administrators concerned, instant appeal must escalate.

Decision:

In my signed statement dated 21:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC) under title Talk:Rasgulla#Discussion, I have categorically proved, how naming of mispronounced Rasgulla has been improperly decided, in violation of standards of creative skills, human relations and precise set of naming methods. Further, my signed statement dated 13:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC) under title Talk:Rasgulla#Survey, flawlessly suggest that, I have established the Rosogolla as a commonly recognizable name by showing reference from the Scholarly English language sources that predominantly use the name Rosogolla. Page 580 here of The Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets by By Michael Krondl, Eric Rath, Laura Mason, Geraldine Quinzio, Ursula Heinzelman from Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-931339-6, strongly establishes Rosogolla. This is the latest, updated and corrected Scholarly and valid English language source from Oxford University Press, used for commonly recognizable name as per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, and the only source that invalidates other previous sources, irrespective for the names of both articles.

Action: Pending as on date.

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Advice

I remind you of the message above from Human3015 which, among other things, said "I think you have explained yourself enough, I think you take a break for a while, let some other people comment on move discussion". You have put an enormous amount of effort into stating your case, writing more than all other participants in the discussion combined. It is very unlikely that adding yet more text, either to the article talk pages or to editor talk pages, will materially shift opinion towards your point of view. It would be better to just accept that you have made your case, and now leave it to others. It is even possible that writing more may be counterproductive, as it may seem to some other editors that you are continuing past the point where posting more of the same becomes pointless and tedious, which may make them less inclined to take notice of what you say. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@talk,

Hello, it is nice to see you again after so many years.

And yes, I am following exactly what you suggested.

However, I have to prepare myself in the event I have to escalate the the matter before the arbitrators.

My Final preparation has been done today. Now I will wait and watch what happens next.

I Thank you.

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed move would benefit the wider community. (My Copy)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary but an encyclopedia, therefore, the content and title name of an article there, necessarily needs to be encyclopedic, not as in the case of dictionaries. The naming of the sweet cannot straightforwardly choose as Rasgulla. However, the naming in Wikipedia appears to be followed only the Oxford dictionaries, as an anglicize name loaned from a foreign country. But the name obviously misspelled there, as the dictionary mentions rasgullā originates in Hindi – so the name to be disambiguated to avoid confusion with Rosogolla for the reasons many reliable English-language sources mentions the sweet name Rosogolla, The Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets describes Rosogolla is primarily associated with West Bengal, then Bengal in British India. The fact establishes the origin of the sweet is in Bengal - a part of greater India, not Hindi, in Bengal the sweet is called Rosogolla since its initial usage.

Nevertheless, here rises a question, whether Wikipedia must stick to its current naming when the naming is misleading or inaccurate.

As per description of Wikipedia, the naming the sweet should be seen as goals, not as rules. Whereas, considering the deleted article Rosogolla's naturalness, consistency, prevalence in many reliable English-language sources, as well as its usage around 250 million Bengali people in Bangladesh, West Bengal, other states in India and world over, the name Rosogolla has come into majority use. The Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets highlights Rosogolla, and describes often-spelled Rasgulla, it is a very new edition published in the United Kingdom and the US. The name Rosogolla has been preferred in several publications in United Kingdom and the US. Some of these books are (1) Milk - Beyond the Dairy: Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on Food... by Harlan Walke, Page 58. (2) Strategic Management: Formulation, Implementation and Control, by PEARCE, Page 179. (3) Food Culture in India, by Colleen Taylor Sen. There are too many reliable English sources in United Kingdom and the US those mention the sweet as Rosogolla. A confusing entry in the Oxford dictionaries cannot really overlook Rosogolla’s merit as a title name from the reliable English-language sources.

Therefore, my goal is to move the article [Rasgulla]] to Rosogolla and the move would benefit a wider community.

16:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Move review for Rasgulla

An editor has asked for a Move review of Rasgulla. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Why are you posting to yourself? And why are you saying an editor is calling your cellphone - do you mean voice calls or are you just getting email alerts? Doug Weller (talk) 09:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Rasgulla, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. utcursch | talk 01:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Rasgulla. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Please discuss the matter on the talk page. utcursch | talk 01:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

If you've difficulty understanding, please see this image. utcursch | talk 01:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this edit (which has been removed by another editor because it doesn't discuss the article):

I've never called your cell phone, ever.

I'm not Odiya, or have anything to do with Odisha.

Your requested move failed, and your move review has also failed. So, please stop trying to find other ways to push your "Rosogolla" change.

utcursch | talk 03:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Rasgulla talk-page

I have removed your most recent post to the talk-page since it was solely a comment on another editor, and didn't address any content issue. More broadly: you have been discussing essentially the same issue on the article talk-page (and several other venues) over the last few weeks despite your POV not finding any traction with any other participant. Your lengthy posts, and recent edit-warring at the article itelf, is getting disruptive, as you have been told before.

Please start a formal dispute resolution process, or simply step back and let it go. Continued disruption is likely to get you blocked from wikipedia or topic-banned instead. Also, please try to make your posts concise, non-repetitive, and on-point. Abecedare (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Abecedare (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editor UtCursch

It is to mention here that Move review Rasgulla and the following edit attempts are different issues.

As per suggestions of JamesBWatson 12:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC) and Human3015 04:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC) on my Talk page talk I have made following revision attempts with the 1st edit summary "Redefined - Rasgulla, Rosogolla, Indian diaspora Bangladesh" follows:

→ "Rasgulla" & "Mauritius" → Snthakur 1st revision → "Rasgulla(hi)[7] or, Rosogolla(bn)[8][9]" & "Bangladesh"

→ utcursch undid above, and edits Rasagola → "Rasgulla, also known as Rosogolla (in Bengali) or Rasagola (in Odiya)" & "Bangladesh" (it was acceptable to me)

→ utcursch again undid above, and removes Bangladesh → "Rasgulla in Hindi, known as Rosogolla in Bengali or Rasagola in Odiya" & "South Asian"

→ utcursch again removes Rosogolla, Rasagola including Bangladesh, creates a section "Name'→ The dessert is known as Rosogolla or Roshogolla in Bengali and Rasagola in Odiya .....

However, (utcursch's act of removing Rosogolla (in Bengali) or Rasagola (in Odiya)" & "Bangladesh" is an arbitrary act and not with consensus either with talk and Human3015 and JamesBWatson

Therefore there was an obvious concern with disruptive editor utcursch for the above content issue.

Please suggest so as to what shall I do now?

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

1. I see that you have posted copies of this to my talk page and to User talk:Human3015. It is usually more helpful to post a message in just one place, and if necessary give links to it on other pages.
2. Since you ask, what I suggest you do now is exactly what others have repeatedly suggested that you do, which is to drop the matter. It has long since been 100% clear that consensus is against you, but instead of accepting that you persist, taking the issue to different venues, trying to find different ways of getting what you want when it becomes so clear that a method you previously tried is going to fail that even you have to accept it. Wikipedia works by consensus, and you need to accept consensus, even when your personal opinion is that the consensus is clearly wrong. Your persistent editing on this matter has long since become purely disruptive. Your stubborn persistence with this is achieving nothing except wasting time for other editors, who could be using that time on more constructive work, and that waste of time must now stop, whether by you voluntarily dropping the matter or by an administrator taking the matter out of your hands by blocking you. It has now reached the stage where if you post once more about this issue, in any manner, on any page, it is likely that you will be blocked to stop further disruption. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I posted the above message without having seen your recent posts at Talk:Rasgulla and User talk:SmokeyJoe. If I had seen them, I might well have gone ahead and blocked you immediately. You have had enough warnings. I suggest you may like to consider self-reverting, at least at Talk:Rasgulla. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Following the message I posted to this page at 11:07, there is no way that you could have thought that posting another copy of the same post to User talk:Abecedare would be acceptable. For the present, the block is for just 3 days: when the block is over, please don't return to the same disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• I just dropped by, first time since the above blocking, to reply that let others mind their own businesses and let me be like me.

 Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Snthakur. 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)

পশ্চিমবঙ্গে বাংলা পিডিয়ানদের নিয়ে মিনি মিডিয়া উইকি ট্রেনিং ও ট্রেন​-দ্য-​ট্রেনার কর্মশালা

নমস্কার দাদা! আগামী বছরের প্রথম দিকে (৭ ও ৮ই জানুয়ারী, ২০১৭ তারিখে) কলকাতা শহরে সকল বাংলা উইকিপিডিয়ানদের নিয়ে একটা মিনি মিডিয়া উইকি ট্রেনিং ও ট্রেন​-দ্য-​ট্রেনার কর্মশালা আয়োজনের পরিকল্পনা করা হয়েছে, যেখানে উপস্থিত সকল অংশগ্রহণকারীদের উইকিপিডিয়া ও উইকিমিডিয়া ফাউন্ডেশনের অন্যান্য প্রকল্পগুলিতে অবদান রাখা ও সম্পাদনা সংক্রান্ত বিভিন্ন বিষয়বস্তু নিয়ে আলোচনায় এনগেজ করা হবে। সম্মিলনের প্রসঙ্গে সেন্টার ফর ইন্টারনেট অ্যান্ড সোসাইটির কাছে প্রয়োজনীয় ফান্ডিঙের জন্য শীঘ্রই আবেদনও জানানো হবে। আগ্রহী থাকলে আপনাকে এখানে সমর্থন জানাতে অনুরোধ করছি। এই কর্মশালায় আপনার উপস্থিতি একান্তভাবেই কামনা করি। ধন্যবাদ। -- Mouryan​ (cHiT-ChAt! - Contributions) 19:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

ঠিক আছে Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math has been accepted

Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sulfurboy (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks! Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Rosogolla originated in West Bengal, rule GI authorities, finally rejecting Odisha's claim.

I have Requested the page move on 14 August 2015 Rasgulla → Rosogolla and prior to that and to this move request I have also given verifiable reasons in support of my submission said including others, the entire edit history of this page and other relevant pages created by this editor reflect/support in favour of above statements and now this editor hopes those declining administrators concerned now probably understand how prejudiced they were rejecting this editor's all relevant edits improperly, for the reason the GI Authorities now rule Rosogolla originated in West Bengal rejecting Odisha claim over its origin. Refer Rosogolla originated in West Bengal, rule GI authorities, rejecting Odisha claim

[page move requested on 14 August 2015] indicates the following, but prejudicial rejected.

Rasgulla → Rosogolla – Editor Snthakur has requested that this page be moved to Rosogolla stating, 'Rosogolla is the formal, original, familiar and most common name of this dessert.'

Regards

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not the most common name in English language sources. Do a Google Books search on both spellings. Or do a formal move request at Wikipedia:Requested moves but you'll need to prove you are right. I've added the GI information to the article, although it's still not clear if this is just for the West Bengal Rosogolla, which West Bengal says is different. Doug Weller talk 13:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! However, I would like to say that most common name is not decided on search of Google Books on spellings, or number of spelling result, it is rather decided on what actuality is. Let me tell you that, the daily usage of Rosogolla among the people in West Bengal alone, and in Bangladesh (both, who call the desert as Rosogolla) is much more among any other users/sources available in the entire universe. One may refer the verifiable statistics/report given on the issue in many of my earlier posts/edits/talk in Wikipedia.

Thanks again.

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

It appears that you are now repeating the same behavior from two years back. Please read and understand our policies and guidelines and abide by them. —SpacemanSpiff 13:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It is your discretion to discourage this editor not to come to Wikipedia, does not matter much to him, besides he nomore does come to Wikipedia since JamesBWatson's improper or authoritative blocking him on 11:20, 28 August 2015.

Today he came to convey said rule GI authorities over the article concerned. So now on don't expect him to see here that easy, before leaving here, he would like to say that you are none to preach him about behavior, besides, he is very much aware and understands Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and abide by them too, where all of his today's submission or talk are reasonable and well within acceptable limit but it is not known why irrelevant reminder of policies and guidelines. He too understands the Wikipedia neither his own property not yours.

Good bye!

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Snthakur. 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)

November 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for same disruption around Rasgulla spanning multiple years, warned multiple times.

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 ~~~~}}.  —SpacemanSpiff 13:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• If you continue using this talk page to further your agenda then your talk page privileges will be revoked. —SpacemanSpiff 16:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I strongly believe that neither I have breached any of the Wikipedia editorial policies nor I have done any damage or disruption to Wikipedia.

1. I am an Wikipedia editor since about last 14 years and there should not be any problem with my recent editing with an article named "Banglar Rasogolla" that I have created in my good faith considering the reason that the article item has received Geographical indication status and deserves Wikipedia article in its own name.

2. While there has been favourable suggestion that said article page be merged ([[1]]) with another article and there is support from the user Hzh ([[2]]) in favour of the article that too without any opposition, besides that there is favourable opinion from the user বাক্যবাগীশ to create an article ([[3]]) in the same name of the article created by me.

3. Unfortunately, said article “Banglar Rasogolla” has been improperly deleted before reaching any discussion/consensus from other users against said suggestion.

Also, as it appears to me that so as to punish this editor, improperly an indefinite block has been issued by Administrator User:SpacemanSpiff against this editor User:Snthakur for some invalid disruption around some other article that cannot deny creation of the instant article in the name of the item that has received Geographical indication status and hence deserves Wikipedia article in its own name.

4. Therefore, this editor User:Snthakur wishes to appeal against the improper block by User:SpacemanSpiff.

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you

1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.

Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Snthakur. 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)