User talk:Prabhat1729

Welcome!

Hello, Prabhat1729, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Diagnostics Group, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Cntras (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Diagnostics Group[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Diagnostics Group requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Cntras (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Wikipedia's criterion for having an article is called notability, and is not a matter of opinion but has to be demonstrated by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Significant means more than just listing-type mentions; reliable excludes Myspace, Facebook, blogs, places where anyone can post anything; independent excludes the subject's own website, affiliated ones and anything based on press releases. The test is, have people independent of the subject thought it significant enough to write substantial comment about?

Experience shows that individual groups or departments within a university or institution are not often notable in this sense, and are better covered by a mention within the article on the man institution, in this case the Institute for Plasma Research. See Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines#Faculties and academic colleges. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:SST-1 Tokamak.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:SST-1 Tokamak.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Bal Gangadhar Tilak, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Please explain your edit in the edit summary to avoid confusion. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fabricating facts[edit]

This edit at Veerappan (2016 film) where you draw a conclusion that a 5.6 user rating on IMDb qualifies as "mixed to negative" critical response is not well thought out. We don't use user-ratings at all because we don't care what random people on the internet think. We only care what professional reviewers from mainstream publications think. Further, the WikiProject Film community despises the phrasing "mixed to ____". Poke through the discussion archives a little when you get a chance. If you're going to edit film articles, you should familiarize yourself with our Manual of Style for film articles. This represents community consensus for the type of content and tone of content in articles. Any deviation from that is almost certain to result in your edit being reverted. If you endeavor to summarize a film's critical response, you should be citing a specific reliable source who describes it as "generally positive" or "generally negative" or "mixed". Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Cyphoidbomb. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging onto this, I've reverted your personal attack. I understand there were decent responses to something which happened, and by no means am I preventing you from saying you have an issue with Cyphoidbomb's actions, but most of your message (including the title) was an unnessesary personal attack. Please be calm and civil, and compose a more "to the point" reply -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read both of your misguided, attacky diatribes, here and here. Since you seem to be begging for edification, here you go:

We don't use anonymous online polls because they can be deliberately skewed one way or another and there is no shortage of dishonest opportunists who would be pleased to do so by creating one-time accounts and voting their brains out. There is already rampant corruption in Indian cinema, and if producers are dishonest enough to send paid marketing zombies to Wikipedia to inflate some articles and deflate others (sadly, this happens) then you'd be wise to assume that the same thing is happening at IMDb. Unscientific polls should never be used to gauge actual sentiment. This is something that a DRDO scientist should appreciate. Academic polls, like the ones conducted by CinemaScore are acceptable to the community. As a general rule, we do not accept any user-generated content at Wikipedia. That means we broadly do not even accept IMDb as a reference, let alone as a source of audience sentiment. We also don't care what blogs say because anyone with an internet connection can start a blog and call himself an expert on any subject. We don't accept posts from discussion forums, or even unverified Twitter accounts. We focus on what mainstream reliable sources, which have established reputations for fact-checking have to say. That's not my personal edict, that's community consensus.
I'm very amused that in one breath you lectured me about not being elitist (from an erroneous premise that I've cleared up for you in #1), noting that "egotistical individualism" is a bad thing, but then followed it up with an elitist statement that you "contribute to society as a DRDO scientist, [in] a more real and tangible way." Hilarious! "Don't be an egotistical individual--Everyone is important and contributes in their own way, except for me, I'm a DRDO scientist, so I contribute in a more real and tangible way." The rest is not worth responding to, since I derive genuine amusement from people who form baseless assumptions about me.
Your perception is incorrect: Wikipedia is explicitly not a democracy. If you choose to respond to this, you're free to do so here--I've added your talk page to my watchlist (it's easier to keep track of a conversation when it's in one place) but please stick to commenting on content, not on the contributor. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Samtar. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited University Grants Commission (India), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University Grants Committee. 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) 09:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

Thanks for pointing it out. I've rectified it.

Reference errors on 17 September[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the National Human Rights Commission of India page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Prabhat1729. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Prabhat1729. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Prabhat1729. 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)[reply]