User talk:Anupmehra: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:38, 9 December 2014

19:33:32, 1 December 2014 review of submission by 209.188.118.107

209.188.118.107 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Indian House (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

209.188.118.107 (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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,

209.188.118.107 (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Tony Isaacs209.188.118.107 (talk)[reply]

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)[reply]

Re: username policy for Gabriel Polsky Productions

Hi!

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!

Best,

Gabe Polsky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel Polsky Productions (talk • contribs) 20:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Jennifer Hudson

Hello,

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

The page i linked to: http://weightlosscelebrities.com/jennifer-hudson/ 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 92.53.44.2 (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks, Dear

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Epitension

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Afc

Dear Anup,Subject to your review- Could you please consider moving this draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vappala_Balachandran into the Article space.Reaching out.Thanks.(Suntug11 (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

@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)[reply]

Thank You so much for this.(Suntug11 (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks.This is my first article.Have tried again.Kindly review when you get the time.(Suntug11 (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Prithviraj Chauhan

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

@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)[reply]

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

Dear Anupmehra, Thank you for your answer about my request to update the edit-protected area of the reflist of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurtosis . 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: http://biomet.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/1-4.toc 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 http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.skewness.html (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 http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html E-mail: petitjean.chiral@gmail.com (preferred) or michel.petitjean@univ-paris-diderot.fr