Amartya ray2001

Hello!!!

Hi, this is Jobin, a new wikipedia user. I came to understand that you have an interest in Computer and related topics. I am working on a few articles related to Programming in C. Therefore, I kindly request you to help me on these topics

• inttypes.h
• tgmath.h
  
  

You may also drop your valuable suggestions on other related articles on my talk page. Jobin RV (talk • contribs) 11:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Jobin RV 12:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the ANI discussion

Just a friendly note, as one non-admin to another. Please note that I have no opinion about the article under debate at all, nor the edits that were made. I think, though, that you misunderstood the problem that was raised at ANI. No one there was in the least concerned with the actual edits being suggested to the article (except for Zuggernaut, Britishwatcher, and yourself). The problem was what Zuggernaut did in trying to resolve the problem. See, he had an issue with the article, and he wanted to get more people across the Wikipedia community to take a look at it. That's fine, and perfectly appropriate. However, if he chooses to do so, he is explicitly required by the policies found in WP:Canvassing to be sure to ask people on all sides on the issue, and to ask them in a neutral fashion. In this case, the edits are about India, so it makes perfect sense that he asked at Wikiproject India. The problem is that, in addition to that, he asked at WikiProject Irish Republicanism and Wikiproject Ireland. Those are some very unusual choices for an edits to the British Empire about India. First, he should have, unquestionably, asked for input from Wikiproject British Empire, as well as all of the other Wikiprojects at the top of that article's talk page. He should probably not have asked at either of the Irish Wikiprojects, because they have nothing to do with this particular edit. It seemed like he was specifically asking at places where editors would be more likely to support his point of view, instead of, as he is required to do, asking people at places that are both likely and unlikely to support his point of view. Biased canvassing is simply not allowed per Wikipedia's rules. Now, maybe that wasn't his/her intention, but now that this has been explained to him/her, he should have gone ahead and notified the other projects, apologized for not knowing policy, and moved on. Instead, the concern is that xe hasn't admitted any fault, and still thinks it was appropriate to canvas only one side of the issue. This is the issue of concern, not anything about India, the British Empire, or the edits in question. I hope this helps explain the issue, and helps you know that no one was being racist or trying to bully Zuggernaut (at least, not at ANI--I can't speak for what's happening on the article's talk page). Qwyrxian (talk) 08:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article India

Thanks for your support on India. You can help most in adding relevant content to the India article by not getting banned. This can be avoided by learning about the basic Wikipedia policies. The discussion at WP:ANI is a frivolous complaint against me for "canvasing". IMO, its an attempt to stifle the mainstream POV held in India about the topic from getting in to the article. Read more about it here WP:Canvassing. There is no one particular admin. You can learn policies, stick around for months and become an admin yourself. People generally don't talk about taking things to "Wikipedia management" although some of them are users right here - just like you and me. One such example is User:Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. Like you, I haven't been around too long on Wikipedia either but I have never seen people take any disputes to him at about such trivial things. He does have a talk/discuss page where anyone can converse with him. WP:Dispute Resolution is another link you might find of interest. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 08:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Amartya - your basic idea about expanding the article is right but I can say this whatever I know - every addition/deletion to an FA is debated so much that it will become a very difficult task to have a "consensus". There's nothing wrong in adding material in a step-by-step fashion. My primary interest for now is to get the famine stuff in and I will support that actively. I will also support future and other ways to improve the article. Your drafts make perfect sense and there's no reason to leave this or that out at all! BTW, what did you think of the Sen source? Zuggernaut (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to India

This is reference to your this edit. Please note that very sentence you are talking about was added by me in the first place. So, your edit summary was rather pointless. --King Zebu (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

State Farm Insurance

I'm guessing you had a bad experience with State Farm! :) [That leadoff comment was intended to be funny.] Adding the "expert needed" tag is fair. Putting "citation needed" on items that are already cited is silly. It's well-known that the Farm is America's largest car insurer. If you have a problem with specific figures, go research them independently and see if you can counter the Farm's figures. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, which editor are you alleging has a conflict of interest? If it's me, you had best remove that tag, as it would be a personal attack - I have never been employed by State Farm or any company remotely connected with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong ... I'm an Indian and don't have statefarm here (to the best of my knowledge)... I therefore cannot have any bad experience with it. Moreover, I'm not meaning a particular editor. I don't have the time to go through the details. I don't see any reason for u to feel guilty, dear friend! Amartya ray2001 (talk) 11:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the article, State Farm operates in US and Canada only. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel any guilt. What I feel is that you've gone overboard. If you can't cite specific evidence of COI, you had best remove that tag. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That is an available template and I found it appropriate because of all the citations! An available template is there to be used! I think this is an misunderstanding and at best be forgotten about! I did not mean u! But that template won't be removed! Amartya ray2001 (talk) 11:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Calling for an expert review is fair, as it would be better to have independent verification of what we already know is true, i.e. that the Farm is America's largest car insurer. Posting a COI tag, with no evidence, is not fair. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"Truth" in wikipedia depends of the citation backing it up! We cannot accept what statefarm.com says about itself in an article about itself! Like suggested earlier, this article needs to be deleted! Amartya ray2001 (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Then find better citations. To claim the items are "uncited" is false. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

As long as better cations are absent, the article does not deserve to be on wikipedia. We need to delete the article, find better citations, and then post it back in! Amartya ray2001 (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Where are you getting these ideas from? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

From my brain! what kind of a question is this? Amartya ray2001 (talk) 11:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise known as "original research". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to change my mind based on ur aggressive personal attacks. I'll do whatever I think is appropriate for betterment of wikipedia. This is the last conversation with u in this page. If u want to talk, please use the take page of Statefarm! Amartya ray2001 (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll see you at WP:ANI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll appreciate that.. :) Amartya ray2001 (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The entry is now posted if you'd care to comment there. I'm not totally sure ANI is the right place to bring this up, but it's a good starting point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Amartya ray2001. You have new messages at Talk:India.
Message added SBC-YPR (talk) 06:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute

As a participant to previous discussions at the South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute talk page, you might be interested to participate to the following poll. Thanks, --Pseudois (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2012 Contest

Hello friends, we are a number of editors from WikiProject India have got together to assess the many thousands of articles under the stewardship of the project, and we'd love to have you, a fellow member, join us. These articles require assessment, that is, the addition of a WikiProject template to the talk page of an article, assessing it for quality and importance and adding a few extra parameters to it.

As of March 11, 2012, 07:00 UTC, WikiProject India has 95,998 articles under its stewardship. Of these 13,980 articles are completely unassessed (both for class and importance) and another 42,415 articles are unassessed for importance only. Accordingly, a Tag & Assess 2012 drive-cum-contest has begun from March 01, 2012 to last till May 31, 2012.

If you are new to assessment, you can learn the minimum about how to evaluate from Part One of the Assessment Guide. Part Two of the Guide will help you learn to employ the full functionality of the talk page template, should you choose to do so.

You can sign up on the Tag & Assess page. There are a number of awards to be given in recognition of your efforts. Come & join us to take part in this exciting new venture. You'll learn more about India in this way.

ssriram_mt (talk) & AshLin (talk) (Drive coordinators)

Delivered per request on Wikipedia:Bot requests. 00:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC) The Helpful Bot 00:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:3882426 amartya.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)