User talk:Kkm010/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

You've got a message waiting for you!

Hello, Kkm010. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_India/Collaborations_of_the_month.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AshLin (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

?

My policy guideline for Wikipedia:Newcomers is being edited by you. I can not understand what you are trying to do, but it looks like you added your sig three times. any help? Walex03 (phone?) (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I just did for fun that's it.--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 04:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You're a vandal.

Walex03 (phone?) (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bahujan Samaj Party.PNG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bahujan Samaj Party.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: About List of Indians by net worth

Lihaas did give a reason for the name change in his edit summary. This list is not based on publicly available salary figures -- it is based on the Forbes estimates of the net worth of individuals. So, the title should include 'Forbes'. This is in line with other 'rich people' lists such as the List of richest people, which redirects to Forbes list of billionaires (2011). utcursch | talk 04:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm OK with Forbes list of Indian billionaires. utcursch | talk 04:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Microsoft SQL Server

Hello, Kkm010. I see that you have used a self-published source ("self" refers to the author, not you) to assert that Microsoft SQL Server is written with C++. Well, I am afraid I do not see why should we trust this author and not the many other Wikipedians who just assume MS-SQL is written with C++. After all, how could a third party know?

According to WP:RS, a reliable source should be reliable from three aspects: Author, publisher and contents. Well, the author is unknown, the publisher is virtually nonexistent (no editorial supervision) and the contents has no reliable bearing on the source of knowledge.

Fleet Command (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, you did the right thing.--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 14:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. When you recently edited S&P CNX Nifty, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ACC and DLF (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) 10:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:BM&F Bovespa

Hi, Kkm010. There seems to be some kind of problem with Template:BM&F Bovespa as the tcker does not list to the listed company, but to the list of all listed companies. Beagel (talk) 05:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Quotes in citations

Before you delete the quotes from the citations in Dennis Ritchie again, please discuss your edit and gain consensus at Talk:Dennis Ritchie#Quotes in the citations. Msnicki (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There is no reason for removing quoted material. There are fields in citation template for quotations, and no valid argument given for removing anything. Yworo (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree.--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 03:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Leah Jaye

If you check the logs, you'll see that the Leah Jaye article has been deleted a few times because notability couldn't be established. As it stands now, the article still does not establish notability. Dismas|^(talk) 05:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with U, that a personality is not notable and its hard to find sources, please keep it and lets see if someone find credible sources for this article.--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 05:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I object to several of your "minor" edits

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Debashis Chatterjee, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks for reminding me.--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 03:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

West Bengal tagging

Please provide objective needs of sources, not just vague "This article needs additional citations for verification" tags. I am removing that. While I agree with you that for "perfection" more sources may be needed (after all, we are striving towards perfection!), please be more objective. FYI, "lead" section may not need references if the information provided in the lead are backed by citation in the rest of the article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. You remove that tag.--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 04:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Your signature

It is clear that you have copied every single part of the signature from Bwilkins (talk · contribs). May I know the reason why you have copied another user's signature? It is frowned upon. Please read WP:Signature forgery. — Abhishek  ^Talk 10:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm deeply sorry. Actually this particular signature had been copied a long ago. I will change it as soon as possible. --(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 10:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

...and at least properly attribute where it came from :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Continental AG (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Auto

Michelin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Auto

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Tagging

Can you please use inline tags/section-specific tags or provide a reason in edit summary or talk page when you are tagging entire articles? You have tagged several articles recently without reason. Eg N. R. Narayana Murthy has 35 references which is very good for a 15 KB article. Nearly every sentence in the article has a citation. But you still added a refimprove tag dating back to 6 months! You have been doing this to many articles providing vague edit summaries as "for further improvement" or "for significant improvement". You have to explain the specific reasons for tagging articles. Eg Cyrus Pallonji Mistry has no original research or but you still added original research tag. I can present more examples but you get the idea. Not saying you're some kind of bad guy but providing reasons is necessary when you are defacing articles with tags like "advert". 124.123.203.87 (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Those are specific biography article and they aren't written properly neither adequate sources ha been provided. Therefore that tag is actually given to ensure that adequate source as well substantial improvement is requited.--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 03:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Repost of Leah Jaye

A tag has been placed on Leah Jaye requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). 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 discussion 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. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Infosys

I knew I was wading in pretty deep water with my substantial edits to this article y'day. Your reclamation of the history section, which I've just glimpsed and which had nothing to do with my work y'day either way, is major, fills a big hole. Does it change the need for the "multiple issues" header template? More later.

Your reversion of my moving the "founder" and "major figures"+- lists out of the infobox I can certainly understand; I can maybe live easily with it (assuming updating). But I guess I'd start by asking if you noted my comments in the Edit summary and on the Talk page, as well as what I did with the lists in the (new) "Board of directors" section? The "major figures"+- was out of date. And the "founders" is now really not synonymous with management; and neither are standard in company infoboxes; they're OK, but certainly not required. So the (beginning of the) explanation of that history (which "your" history section may ... even duplicate) in "BoD" worked; did better; handled the complex evolution going on; for me.

On the Talk page is where I addressed the "multiple issues" template.

I'd be interested in your thoughts. I'm not sure if it'll be for me to work on more but I'll check back here and/or the Talk page. Thanks much. 15:57

ps Looking over the whole article now, I feel the visa controversy should be part of (sub-section of) History; and BoD should follow History. Any thoughts? Swliv (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Very tedious behavior

I am finding your editing behaviour increasingly tedious. If an edit of yours is reverted for good reason by an establishd editor who has made a large number of edits to the said article, and you really want to make the change - THEN TAKE IT TO THE TALK PAGE. Don't simply make exactly the change AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. Thanks.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I made my point at the edit history that IT as a whole is a diverse field, it includes from hardware to software even internet business. Therefore I'm reverting your edit. Thanks--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 15:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

So you are stating quite clearly that you are going to attempt to impose a reverted change without taking it to the Talk page and seeking consensus. I will therefore be reporting your behaviour. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Do it, because I'm very confident about my edit. That it won't be "Information technology", it would be "computer hardware". Get it--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 15:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Flextronics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Singaporean

Lenovo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Electronic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Mass Media/conglom merger

Say, Kkm, when proposing a merger you ought to give some rationale for your proposal. That is, please start the discussion. (See WP:MERGE.) Also, the templates should have the "destination article" talk page designated for the discussion. As it stands, you've got the talk listed on each article. --S. Rich (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Please add citation.

Your new addition to the Henry Ford page reads like promotional material.108.240.108.255 (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Salma Hayek

Please provide sources for "material which has been challenged or is likely to be challenged" (see WP:RS), particularly if reverting as you did at Salma Hayek. Please also always provide a clear edit summary so others understand both what you have done and why. Also, please do not add your opinion to articles, but stick to what reliable sources say. Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Please read and understand WP:C before continuing to add information to articles. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

CCI Notice

Hello, Kkm010. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. MER-C 02:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Industry

Industry is a technical term when describing a business. Most of the pages on wikipedia use the Industry Classification Benchmark or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottonsocks (talk • contribs) 21:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Star news india.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Star news india.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox company

Hi, in view of recent debates which we have had on specifying the industry given in company infoboxes, I thought that you might be interested in a discussion on the talkpage of the company infobox template about a proposal to increase the level of standardisation in this field (Template talk:Infobox company#industry (it's not actually my proposal but I broadly support it). Rangoon11 (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Mark Zuckerberg

Your recent editing history at Mark Zuckerberg shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You should be discussing your continuous changes to the infobox rather than stubbornly reinserting them. Edit-warring is not the answer to a content dispute. Bbb23 (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits are disruptive. There is NO consensus on the Talk page for your changes, and for you to assert otherwise in your edit summaries is not constructive. If you can't edit the article in an appropriate way, don't edit it at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

Your recent editing history at Mark Zuckerberg shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:XINGHomepage.PNG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:XINGHomepage.PNG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Talk:List of IIM Calcutta alumni

Hello Kkm010, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Talk:List of IIM Calcutta alumni, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Talk:List of Indian Institute of Technology Madras alumni

Hello Kkm010, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Talk:List of Indian Institute of Technology Madras alumni, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Online service provider vs Internet industry

Hi, I reverted your move of Online service provider to the title Internet industry. "Internet industry" is a much broader term than "Online service provider"; there are many types of companies that could be said to belong under the Internet industry umbrella, and online service providers are just one of these types. If you still think that the article should be moved to a new title, please start a discussion about it on the article's talk page, and get consensus for such a move. Thank you! --bonadea contributions talk 10:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)