User talk:Cdjp1

Nomination for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

Nominations for the upcoming Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

Voting for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. You can vote here. Voting closes at 23:59 UTC on 29 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Reversions in 'Portugal' page

You are wrong in reversing my contents invoking it a GA and whatever other pathetic rule which counts only to you lot. This latest sequence of events, adding to countless others, led to my decision, after 12 years of editing on Wikipedia, in good faith and believing to contribute to collective knowledge, to delete my account. Wikipedia is not reliable, nor truthful, nor does it contain quality content. Simply because it is controlled and manipulated by mediocre 'Administrators' and ignorant individuals such as yourself and the bunch of imbeciles associated with this kind of conduct, day in, day out. One reassuring fact remains: Wikipedia will not become a reputable sources of information in our lifetime - contributions such as this particular article will ensure that much. Melroross (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

@Melroross as others have suggested, reading the relevant policies and guidelines will help you. First of which, would be learning what administrators are, as you repeatedly call people who are not administrators, administrators. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

18 September 2026

@Cdjp1 Thanks for taking time to leave your statement at WP:AE § Gotitbro. I could not reply to your questions at AE because of the word limit. I agree with your views on R.C. Majumdar. There was a misunderstanding. Please see my last two replies at AE, where I explained that some diffs were misrepresented there. Some diffs were old, and that content had already been removed, so there was no need to bring up those old diffs. However there are some scholars like R.C Majumdar, Upendra Thakur, Dilip Patel, Gordon T. Bowles, and D.R Cornik. I am not sure if there was anything wrong with the words. Because the sources themselves use these terms at some places as Aryans/Aryan people/Aryan race/Aryan community/Aryan tribe. If the same words were used as mentioned in the sources, like Aryans/Aryan people/ Aryan race/Aryan community, was it right or not? I am not sure who is actually D.r Cornik; it is mentioned in the cited source that D.r Cornik claimed something. It is possible that his full name or or work is mentioned in footnotes in that source.MSTL (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I would point to the guideline WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and the essay Wikipedia:Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. As my comment pointed to saying a group are "Aryan" or an "Aryan race" can be very different statements. While journal articles are generally WP:RS, it does not guarantee they do not push bullshit. As an example there are still many papers published that push/attempt to push Race science into respectability. On the note of D.r Cornik, yes that report mentioned they said something, but who are they? What makes their opinion relevant? Do me have multiple sources showing they are someone worth noting the opinion of? Beyond that, as I pointed out, the reliability of that report may be questionable considering the claim of a literay jewel written by Majumdar, when he wrote no book with the title the report references. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Additionally on Cornik, It is possible that his full name or or work is mentioned in footnotes in that source while possible, the report does not provide such, the singular mention of them is in the paragraph that was quoted. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@Cdjp1 I found an answer to your question. There is likely a minor mistake in Tushita Pandey's source, which states that R.C Majumdar wrote the book "Race and cultures in India", although this book was written by D.N Majumdar, not R.C. Majumdar.[Tushita Pandey, pp:65] It is also possible that in the same source, name for Dr. Cornik is incomplete. Source was published by Tribal Research Institute Jammu and Kashmir in 2022 (source is not a journal article). MSTL (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm aware it is not a journal article, and yes, I thought the author may mean D. N. Majumdar's work, but as I couldn't have confidence, I removed comments suggesting such. It being D. N. Majumdar would line up more due to the views he espoused in his work in the academic milieu of the time, and this would make my commentary on two points even stronger. The first being the use of the report as a source, as if the author did mean D. N. Majumdar and not R. C. Majumdar, it shows we can not use the source for the claim as is written in the report. Second, D. N. Majumdar was very much writing within the racial views of the period, that is, it is not far from Nazi style racial categorisations and typologies, so the "Aryan" as used in text, is the pseudoscientific concept of the Aryan race, and not Aryan as in the Indo-Iranians.

When it comes to articles about people groups, while historical sources may be usable, it is important that we are careful and we contextualise the claims, if they are due for inclusion. While it is not perfect, one article I can point to is one I've heavily worked on, the Cagots, which requires the use of sources from the late 1800s and early 1900s, so they have many of the issues we find in D. N. Majumdar's work.

As I mentioned at WP:AE, you do have good edits to these sorts of articles, and I hope to see that continue, so this edits of concern could very well be mistakes due to not having the knowledge of where different considerations are necessary. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree with your views regarding D.N Majumdar, though I have not read his work yet. He was likely writing within the racial ideas of that time, similar to Nazi-stye racial categories. I think the author, Tushita Pandey may have confused R.C. Majumdar with D.N. Majumdar, or there may be a typo in the source. In any case, Dr. Cornik's identity remains questionable. Going forward, I will more carefully verify claims in sources, such as the claim that R. C. Majumdar wrote the book " Race and cultures in India" or who Dr. Cornik is. I'll remove Tushita Pandey's source due to these errors in the source. It was a pleasure talking with you. Happy editing! MSTL (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Special Response Battalion

Hello Brother, The RAB New Name is SRB Now. No new official website has been created for the SRB; the existing RAB website is being used as the official site for the SRB, and its address remains https://www.rab.gov.bd. Consequently, a separate reference for the official website cannot be provided. Furthermore, you have removed all references to RAB, yet the SRB's official website has not yet been fully finalized or updated. B.M.Taskin BD (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

rab.gov.bd currently resolves as a dead website (and checking through, this seems to be the case for attempting to access the website for near everyone), and all the latest archives show that it discusses RAB not SRB, so until citations are provided that show the information for SRB, we can not use old citations that do not discuss the SRB. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2026 (UTC)