User talk:Anupmehra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contribs —— Home —— Talk —— Email —— Identity —— Usercheck

Busy desk.svg This user is busy in real life and and is going to be on Wikipedia in off-and-on doses. This user may also respond to talk page messages or e-mails more slowly than usual, your patience is greatly appreciated. If you are a new Wikipedia editor and needs help with editing English Wikipedia, you may ask it on your user talk page by typing your question followed by the {{helpme}} template or live chat on unofficial English Wikipedia help IRC channel hosted on Freenode, Wikipedia-en-help. You may also look at Help Contents, ask at the Help desk or the Teahouse, or check the FAQ. Thank you! SFriendly.svg
The Signpost
10 December 2014

Be polite, assume good faith and avoid personal attacks.
Sign and date your posts typing four tildes (~~~~)
Put new text under old text. Click here to leave me a new message.

19:33:32, 1 December 2014 review of submission by[edit] (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Anupmehra,

Thank you for the time you took to review my submission. I think you are correct that there are not very many third party sources written about Indian House. I have never been very much about seeking publicity. We do have a number of scholarly reviews about our recordings which are listed, and a few more which are not listed. I haven't bothered to attempt to re-write my submission according to Wikipedia guidelines, because if there are not enough notable sources, no amount of re-writing will add to those sources. (At the request of the late Dr. William Sturtevant I did write an introductory section about Indian music recordings for the Smithsonian's Handbook of North American Indians, but this is slated for the Index volume of the series, which will be the last volume published, whenever published; it is not about Indian House, but about all music recordings.)

Again, thank you for the time you took to review my submission. For your stated reason of not enough published third party sources about Indian House, please withdraw my submission.

With best regards, (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Tony Isaacs209.188.118.107 (talk)

  • I think, I can take another look at your draft (not now but sometime soon). My previous view was, It might be notable, but notability is not well established in the draft. It was (still is) also poorly written in terms of encyclopedic manual of style and tone. We prefer Wikipedia articles to based on third party reliable sources. Primary and affiliated sources, do have an obvious bias towards themselves and that may not help us to write a neutral article. Well, the draft has been declined and if it is not edited for 180 days, it'd automatically be deleted. If you want to work on, I may help with that. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: username policy for Gabriel Polsky Productions[edit]


I appreciate the concern regarding my username. Gabriel Polsky Productions is a sole proprietorship run by myself, Gabe Polsky. As such, I am the only person using this account. For the sake of ease, can I please keep my username as is?

Thank you for your time!


Gabe Polsky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel Polsky Productions (talkcontribs) 20:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Gabriel Polsky Productions: Unfortunately, not. Please take a look at our WP:Username policy (in particular section 2.3), that clearly says that 'Usernames that represent the name of a group, company, organization, etc. are not permitted'. If you want to relate yourself to the company/organization, then you may choose a username such as, 'Gabe At Gabriel Polsky Productions'. This way, it'd represent an individual working for entity not the entity itself. Hope, it does help. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Jennifer Hudson[edit]


The link i left for Jennifer Hudson was marked as spam. Can i know why?

The page i linked to: is certainly not what you describe it to be - no ads nor anything suspicious, but an article that covers Jennifer's weight loss, diet and exercise routine. Perhaps you should review the other references on that page, because there are many that are *less appropriate* than what i referenced.

Can you please review it once again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If you believe there are one or many unreliable/spam sources used in any Wikipedia article, please feel free to remove them clicking "edit" on top of the article in question. I don't see any such anymore in Jennifer Hudson article. If I'm missing something, please correct me. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 04:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Dear[edit]

I am thankful for you for correcting and showing the correct way of editing done by me. I am sorry, I was really very aggressive and it is but natural that I was so inclined toward DB article that it looked like doing partisan activity. I being declared DB, I have disadvantage and I should have taken extra care of that factor before doing any editing that I should avoid making comments which depict doing favours without any Wikipedian proof, and now after succession controversy, I should have learnt that I don't have now any rights to do good faith editing on DB articles at least.

Aggressive actions by a specific editor has given me opportunity to learn the fact, but I also thanks him also for teaching me a lesson, but let me warned him that Wiki have system and fellow editors like you, Quwertis, occultzone , any many more including admin involved, will not allow him the activity which he started doing aggressively after 29th Nov, deleting well sourced material of his dislike and adding material of own controlled partisan websites ofhis favour.--Md iet (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I thank and respect your willingness to co-operate with the sanction imposed and positive and promising attitude towards Wikipedia. I'd advise you to move on and show the community a year of good editing practices on non-db related articles and appeal the sanction thereafter. I'll really be more than happy to flag support for you. In the meanwhile, you may choose to watch the articles, you've been asked to not make any edits on and if you believe something there is not in accordance with Wikipedia standards, may ask me on my talk page about. I'll assure you that any changes not in spirit of Wikipedia would certainly be undone and if required discussed and editors repeatedly making such changes met with Wikipedia's guidelines. Let always me know, if I could be able to help you someway. Happy editing! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that there are millions of articles where Md iet can contribute, he can pick any other Islamic sect and edit without getting into any conflicts. About 2,000 - 10,000 edits would be enough. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 05:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind advices and wholehearted support, I am of opinion that there should be no need for appeal, our actions are being watched, and Wiki is such a good democratic system that truth and just will prevail, it can take instant if justified and can takes years to implement if it is unjust. I am also busy person like Anup and you all, don't get much time, but I have intereset in Fatimid topics, and try to petrol them to correct link in between and aid some material if I can. Count of edit is not at all important for me.

Sorry dear, I can't 'let always' you 'know' on the activities I am most bothered, and which a specific fellow doing purposely. I made a general request in good faith as per above and got advices, which I respect as a true Wiki fan and will see that if wiki don't recommend it, it is not to be done, if it is violating Wiki rules than it is not to be further disobeyed.

My request to my fellow Wikipedia editors is just watch this fellow X, he is doing aggressive editing now as he got chance to do as per his will. He has specific motives which were discussed at length during various complains and discussions. Deletion of material of his disliking, phrasing the material with his importance, putting them in lead Para, adding material of his choice even from sources which are purely from the websites of his Kingman are a normal practice for him. He has made target of Shia Islam to achieve his individual egoistic agenda, and made comments which are derogatory and not at all acceptable to Shia as a whole, and used a platform like Wikipedia. He has used all the means he can to achieve his agenda.

All the system, societies, religions has some short comings, some are specific and some are common. Efforts to be done for positive improvement but not to dishonour or make issue out of it in neutral platform like Wiki. They have finally come to that tactics and got an issue in hand which is a real issue and definitely need attention but in a democratic manner. This fellow got sympathy and found a way to get trapped others editors who have deep knowledge of subject. There is no real opposition, hence no democracy, no objections. Now some third party editors like you have all responsibility to make him abide the Wiki rules and not to allow use Wiki for his personnel ambitions.--Md iet (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Anup, As usual Summichum is bent upon doing disruptive activities. As per wiki guidlines I am not allowed to participate in this process, may please visit 3RR notice board. If you feel that Summichum activities are not as per wiki guidelines, may please like to act accordingly.--Md iet (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


Not sure Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epistructural tension should have been closed. Speedy keep #1 (for when the nom withdraws) is only valid when there are no other deletion arguments. czar  02:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Czar: -I was a moment skeptical on taking this one. I didn't really close it as 'Speedy Keep', but 'Nomination Withdrawn'. As, nomination was withdrawn and article in question had already been merged to the target/proposed article leaving original a redirect a day ago, I didn't see a reason to let the afd open. If anyone had a possible problem, the merge could have been challenged or a point has been raised into afd, but there was none such activity. However, if you think, I made a mistake, please feel free to revert me. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
"Nom withdrawn" isn't a closure rationale, though—it would be SK. Anyway, I don't care too much for process for its own sake, but I would have at least confirmed with the one "delete" !vote because there wasn't a clear consensus to end the listing. AfDs are left open all the time when someone withdraws but other deletion rationales remain. czar  17:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I think, Nominatin withdrawn actually is closure rationale. However, I should have mentioned 'Snow' somewhere in my closing rationale? There actually was none deletion rationale, original was withdrawn and other delete !vote was a little vague as, "Promotional and they have no time to perform merge". Another person had time to fix and they did it. And, it was not contested by any person. This is actually why I did close. Perhaps, I'm more clear now. However, I'm not claiming anything, whether it was right to do so or not. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


Dear Anup,Subject to your review- Could you please consider moving this draft into the Article space.Reaching out.Thanks.(Suntug11 (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)).

@Suntug11: -Okay, not now but sometime soon (perhaps in next 24 hrs?). I need to sometime to take a look at the sources cited in the draft. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank You so much for this.(Suntug11 (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC))
Thanks.This is my first article.Have tried again.Kindly review when you get the time.(Suntug11 (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)).
Yes check.svg Done -However, it'd better if you rename 'Positing held' section to 'Career' and write it in a prose. Happy editing! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 07:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank You so much for this.(Suntug11 (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC))

Prithviraj Chauhan[edit]

Why to go by neutral point if the info is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angeldeviltanya (talkcontribs) 18:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Angeldeviltanya:-because "Neutral Point of View" is one of the Wikipedia's core policies by which contents within Wikipedia articles are managed and developed. Another one is "Verifiability". In short, Verifiability policy states that information present in Wikipedia articles should be based on information present in secondary, independent and reliable sources, and NPOV policy, that the same should be written from a neutral point of view.
Out of interest, please remember to sign your talk page messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Kurtosis page -Let's talk! 13:19, 9 December 2014[edit]

Dear Anupmehra, Thank you for your answer about my request to update the edit-protected area of the reflist of the page . Actually I do not know how to edit the protected area reflist and I do not want to do attempts without permission. If I understand well, my rights does not permit such an edition (or I do not remember). If my right permits the update, please just recall me how to change reflist. Anyway, here are the details for the talk. About the actual ref 4: Pearson, K. (1929). "Editorial note to ‘Inequalities for moments of frequency functions and for various statistical constants’". Biometrika 21 (1–4): 370–375. doi:10.1093/biomet/21.1-4.361 (1) The toc of Biometrika 1929, 21(1-4) is at: I failed to find this paper of Pearson on this toc, and I failed to find it with ZMATH. The doi redirects to the paper of Joanes and Gill, "The Statistician" 1998, vol 47, part 1, pp. 183-189. Indeed it deals with skeweness and kurtosis, but it does not cite Pearson and it does not give a general proof of the inequality valid for any random variable distribution. Anyway there is disagreement between the doi and the ref to Pearson. (2) The 2013 paper is publicly available on (see ref. 2: "download pdf paper"): see the result top of p.3 and eq. 6. The proof of the more general inequality for random vectors is in my paper: "From Shape Similarity to Shape Complementarity: Toward a Docking Theory." J. Math. Chem. 2004,35[3],147-158. (DOI 10.1023/B:JOMC.0000033252.59423.6b), see eq. A10 in the appendix. I cannot load it on the web due to the copyright. Only one assumption: the moments of order 4 must exist (so, it is not restricted to samples). I do not claim to have discovered the sharp lower bound of the kurtosis, even in its more general form, and I do not care if my 2013 paper is not cited. However I was the first to mention it on the Wikipedia page, and at first glance my own proof seems to be original. I just say that the reader should be directed to a proof valid in all cases, e.g. via a valid source. If the ref works only for samples, the text should be updated accordingly. To conclude, I give you the hint for the full proof for random variables (for vectors, see the 2004 paper), available to anybody aware of math expectations: X1 and X2 are random variables, translate X2, calculate the translation minimizing the variance of the squared difference of the random variables, and look at the expression of the minimized variance: it should be a non negative quantity, hence the desired inequality. Please feel free to email me if you like. Best regards. Michel Petitjean E-mail: (preferred) or — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I pasted the wrong doi of ref.4 (mouse catched the doi of the line above). In fact the Editorial is appended to the paper of Shohat. I cancel my request. Please accept my apologies for the inconvenience caused. Thanks for your patience. Michel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Michel, the article in question Kurtosis is open to be edited by any person. However, I do admit that listing of sources under references section may appear a little tricky at first glance. Actually, sources that appear under "References" section are not really there but in the body of the article, as 'inline citation(s)'. For example, citation #3, the biometric one under References section, is cited in the body of the article as third source. It displays, " details" under References section, it means this particular citation that is the third source has been cited three times (a,b,c) in the body of the article. If you click 'a', it'll lead you to the sentence it is cited for, similarly for 'b' and 'c', and for others if any.
To edit a particular source, -there are two ways. First, click on the source you want to edit/replace/remove, see where it points (the sentences), next click on "edit this page" (that appears on top of the article), find the line where did the source point in step 2, you'll see the particular source as inline citation there, now you may edit, replace or remove that particular source and once you hit "save", you'll see the modified source under "References" section. Second way that I personally use, Just click on "edit this page" that appears on top of the article, CTRL+F and look for the citation using details that appear under the 'References' section, find, edit and save. That's it. In Kurtosis article, citation #1, is used as inline citation at the end of first line of lead of the article, citation #2, at the end of first line of second paragraph of lead, citation #3 is used thrice (a,b,c), two times in the third that is also the last paragraph of lead and one time in the end of the last sentence of section #6 (Estimators of population kurtosis).
You may also find the Wikipedia's guide on inline citations helpful in understanding how does 'References' thing work on Wikipedia (see in particular, examples under section 3.1.7). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm closing the 'edit-request' on talk page of Kurtosis article, I think, now you should be able to edit what you want to. Please consider leaving an edit-summary before hitting 'Save' about changes that you make in any Wikipedia article. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


Thank you for making me a account on Wikipedia i do appreciate it also how do you get userboxs i want to put some on my user page its kinda empty.Thanks! Tru3 Republic (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Tru3 Republic

Hello Tru3 Republic and again Welcome to Wikipedia. We have a 'Gallery of Userboxes', where you may find one or many of your choice and may want to use them on your userpage. We also have a guide on 'Using userboxes' that you may find an interesting reading. Well, you may even create a new one of your choice using the Userbox maker. Happy editing! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks i made some and got some thank you very much Tru3 Republic (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Tru3 Republic

The Cinema band page[edit]


If you recall, we spoke a few nights ago regarding The Cinema's band page on wiki. You provided some suggestions on how I could get the page approved, and mentioned that you could review it for me once I was finished. I've made some changes, and would like for you to take a look at it when you get a chance. Here's the link:

In addition, if the band page is appropriate, would you mind reviewing a second page for the band's first album? Here's a link for that page:

Please let me know once you've reviewed them. I appreciate your feedback and help!

-Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I remember you. I had nice talk with you on Wikipedia help channel on IRC. I just had a look at your drafts and I think, I can accept them but would like to see some work done before I move them to the articles space. I may do it myself (wait for 24-48hrs?). Well, you may do it as well, remove all unreliable sources (that absolute punk forum ones in particular), use few sources from "Draft:My Blood Is Full of Airplanes" that has good coverage of "The Cinema", in the Draft:The Cinema and minor copy-edits per Wikipedia's Manual of Style, Verfiability and No Original Research guideline. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Anup,

Have you had a chance to review The Cinema's pages? If not, it's alright. I just wanted to touch base. Hope to hear from you soon!

-Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Metacompiler[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Metacompiler. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC United States same-sex marriage map[edit]

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 05:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Aloy Deb Barma[edit]

YesY Helped

Please help me in creating a new article.
Hello Aloy Deb Barma, and Welcome to Wikipedia. It appears that you are attempting create an autobiography on Wikipedia, what is strongly discouraged. Please note that Wikipedia is not Facebook, to write about oneself. It is an encyclopedia and selective about its subjects for articles. In general, subjects that have been written about in detail in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia. If you feel that you meet the Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, you may request an article to be created about you at Wikipedia's requested articles. If you don't meet the inclusion standard, I'd request you to not attempt to create an autobiography on Wikipedia. That way, you'd be wasting your precious time and may be blocked for repeatedly creating inappropriate pages on Wikipedia. Again, please understand that Wikipedia is not a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site. And, remember to sign your talk page messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Narkatiaganj, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. 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) 09:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixed -Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Rohit Rehan[edit]

Hello Anup Mehra,

I think I was writing about my self to let other know who I am. I was not being biased as it said in the policies. I was writing the actual facts. I had not completed the article yet. I was going to continue editing it tomorrow. Please let me know how can I do the same.

Rohitrehan (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Rohit Rehan

Trying to Understand the Logic of Being Chosen for Deletion[edit]

Hello. I'm not having the greatest experience as a Wikipedia editor, and I'm hoping to learn. I just tried to pursue more information using using the help IRC Channel, but it didn't seem to be working on my end (or I just couldn't figure it out), so I thought I'd try writing you personally. I've just had an article deleted on which I've participated as editor (Tyler Turkle), and I'm trying to understand the process a little better. Thanks for passing along the "Other Stuff Exists" article. I was helpful and makes sense. That said, there really does seem to be a LOT of "other" stuff existing out there. Can you help me understand the process of identification for articles flagged for deletion? Is the fact that special attention was drawn to this article just a case being very unlucky? Did the editor who used the word "hoax" ultimately succeed in removing the article for other more personal reasons? Lastly, assuming I'm able to find new or more citations, is it worth the time to try and repost the article? Thanks. Mycotn (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mycotn: The only reason for deletion of Tyler Turkle article was its ineligibility in meeting the Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. There was not really any special attention given to this particular deletion discussion. It was a simple process by which an article on which an editor had reasonable doubt on eligibility, was brought at deletion discussion noticeboard and found they were right. You may find many similar ones, at WP:AFD/T (todays' deletion log) and WP:AFD/Y (yesterday ones).
We perform BEFORE, before nominating an article for deletion. However, it is not the only way to nominate an article for deletion. An article may be deleted three ways. a) Speedy deletion, -These are who meets one or many 'criteria of speedy deletion' and are not worth to have discussion about. b) Proposed deletion, -Also called 'uncontroversial deletion', In this process one does tag (-{{prod}}-) an article for deletion and if it is not contested for a week, nominated article meets deletion. c) Articles for Deletion, commonly known as, AFD process, by which Tyler Turkle article was deleted. These articles are not eligible for speedy and prod has been contested or one thinks, it should be better to have a discussion and go with community consensus. The deletion discussion may appear so but really is not something like 'voting' and counting of number of 'keeps' and 'deletes'. We call it '!vote', a vote with policy-based arguments. The closing admin weighs in policy-based arguments to determine community consensus. We have essays on what kinds of arguments should be made and avoided in the deletion discussions, that you may find interesting. I think, you may also want to read essay on, 'how to save an article from deletion'.
One may assume that closing admin didn't weigh in arguments in the discussion properly and made an unjustified deletion of article. Otherwise, they have now answers for question they failed to answer in the deletion discussion, in these cases, one should file a Deletion Review. Sorry, for the lengthy reply but I hope, it answer your concerns. If there's something else, you want an answer for, please feel free to ask me. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response. I will investigate both userfication and potentially appeal for a review once I am able to document more citations. I'm not sure, however, how many citations will be considered "enough" by the relevant editor(s). Despite the directives in the deletion discussion, I was disheartened with the feeling that no amount of evidence would be sufficient enough. We'll see where it goes from here but in the meantime, I really appreciate your feedback! Mycotn (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, ideally ~3-4 secondary, independent and reliable sources having significant coverage of Tyler will suffice. FYI, interviews and institutions where Tyler has been or is affiliated with, will not be considered independent of him and may not contribute to establish his notability on Wikipedia. I'm glad that you found my answer helpful. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Untitled Sukumar project[edit]

Hi. I am not as experienced as you are on Wikipedia but i myself have some knowledge about the articles here, Thanks to my journey with this encyclopedia for just more than 1 year. Well, i saw you nominating the article Untitled Sukumar project for deletion because of which i could actually come to know about WP:NFF. I used to think always that when a film is launched, regular shooting would commence as on the day of launch, Production begins. That assumption turned wrong today because of your edit. Thus i would not mind the article being deleted as per you or redirected to Sukumar as per Kailash29792. But i would prefer the latter, as i neither used any non reliable sources nor it was of promotional or advertising nature. Proceed with the move you feel the best in this case after reading this message. Thank you. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)