User talk:Deepeshdeomurari

Hello, Deepeshdeomurari, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! – Ronz (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hi Please address your issues,concerns, feedback and suggestion here.

Talkback

Hello, Deepeshdeomurari. You have new messages at Timotheus Canens's talk page.
Message added 15:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

T. Canens (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Art of Living foundation

Sorry that it wasn't clear that the other discussions on the article talk page apply to your request. --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don't get the responses that you wish, don't feel you have any support for blanking sourced information. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader)

Hi!

Its good that you are interested in improving the "Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader)" page. Request you to align your edits with the Wikipedia:ORIGINAL and other related policies to ensure quality standards for an encyclopedia.

Unfortunately your recent edit got undone as it did not comply with the basic policies. Contributions conforming to the wiki policies, however, are always welcome.

Thanks Traintogain (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at WP:SOAP and WP:COI as well. Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

You might have something to say here when discussion starts [1] --112.79.39.144 (talk) 07:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Deepeshdeomurari/Sudarshan Kriya

User:Deepeshdeomurari/Sudarshan Kriya, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Deepeshdeomurari/Sudarshan Kriya and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Deepeshdeomurari/Sudarshan Kriya during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader). While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC) It is not promotional material. I have attached references ot it. I never mentioned details or give it promotional way. It was like overview of event happened for world peace. Deepeshdeomurari (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of critical response from Shivaay

Hi there, I don't understand why you removed so much critical response content from Shivaay in this edit. Your edit summary doesn't make sense. If Rediff felt strongly about the movie being bad, that should be included. If a site felt strongly about the movie being good, that should be included. Why have you unilaterally decided to remove negative reviews? Please feel free to respond below. In the interim, I have restored the content, with some changes to the way the Rediff information was presented. If you wanted more balance, your job is to find something good that Sen described, like the camera work, and balance that against criticism of the film. And sorry, but sometimes a critic hates a film and has nothing good to say. That doesn't mean we ignore the review. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your comments on my talk page: "You should discuss on talk page before reverting changes - I have to rectify your changes. Whatever you done is clear negative undertone. We don't include many reviews. However, this time I am not reverting all your content - but wiki page should be balanced. Check references of other movie reviews."

Per WP:BRD, the burden is yours to open a discussion when changes you make are reverted. I did that for you by opening the discussion above.
By reinstating your version, you are engaging in an edit-war, which is a behavior that can directly lead to your privileges being interrupted. You should self-revert and wait until this discussion settles and consensus is achieved.
"Clear negative undertone" is exactly what a critical response section is supposed to contain if there is a significant number of negative reviews, which appears to be the case here. By contrast, your edits not only hide the negative reviews by removing them entirely, but you took the extra step of moving Adarsh's quotation to the top, as if we're trying to promote the film. That is completely unacceptable and academically dishonest.
Neutrality doesn't mean that we only present 3 star reviews. It means that we present a snapshot of the film's overall critical response proportional to the distribution of reviews. If a significant percentage of reviewers are rating the film low and making comments that the film "is like watching a turd drop" or calling it a piece of shit, then it's certainly reasonable that the impression readers will leave with is that the film was not well received. Rather, to delete negative reviews like you did and place good reviews at the top is absolutely not neutral. India.com - 2.5 stars - praised the action, disliked the pace and plot. DNA - 3 stars - described the film as self-indulgence for Devgn. This is consistent with what Raja Sen of Rediff felt. These ideas belong in the article. Jupiter Ascending was a high profile American film that was critically panned. Look at how many quotes there are. 16 quotes and 14 reviewers mentioned. Not just 5 like you assert as ideal in your edit summary. And look at what kind of quotes there are. Have all the negative quotes been hidden? Did anyone move the good reviews to the top? No. Look at how big the reception section is at Casablanca (film), a Featured Article. Your complaints are without merit.
This edit is problematic for four reasons: Koimoi is not considered a reliable source. See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources. You may not copy prose like you did from India Today and present it as your own writing. That is plagiarism and a copyright violation. "Rocky patch" is obviously not proper encyclopedic tone, either. Lastly, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is not our place to attempt to predict the future financial performance of Shivaay. We only print what has been confirmed, not what has been anticipated.
Also, it is unacceptable that in this edit you added prose that says matter-of-factly that Times of India gave the film 3/5 "praising stunning cinematography". We don't present extreme opinions like "stunning" as facts. You're supposed to wrap opinions in quotation marks and make it clear that this isn't what Wikipedia thinks, but what the reviewer thinks. Times of India gave the film a rating of 3 stars out of five, describing the cinematography as "stunning". Or, leave out the "stunning". Times of India gave the film a rating of 3 stars out of five, praising the cinematography. I don't understand how you could complain about neutrality, then toss in a totally non-neutral term like "stunning" and pretend it's an indisputable fact.

If you choose to respond, please do so here, as keeping the conversation in one place makes it easier to remember who said what. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you don't seem available to respond, I have fleshed out the critical reception section the way we do for most film articles, providing context that demonstrates a consistency in the critical response. That is: if we have three or four reviewers who praise the cinematography, that gives us an idea of the overall response to the cinematography. Similarly, if multiple reviewers think the film is a puff-piece for Devgn and is written poorly, providing multiple perspectives gives readers a better idea of what the general attitude was toward those elements. I do, however, still think that your movement of the positive reviews to the top unduly weights the positive response, when there appears to be more negative reviews from reliable sources than positive ones. You should definitely get up to speed on WP:UNDUE if you're going to have discussions about our neutral point of view policy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Hello, I'm Delta13C. I noticed that you recently removed content from Homeopathy without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Delta13C (talk) 07:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you left an edit comment, but it was POV pushing on a topic that is well-established and cited. Delta13C (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Homeopathy. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 08:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC) PaleoNeonate[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: Please don't revert without discussing on Talk page. It will be further reported to Wiki Admins.

Notification

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Please note that Talk:Homeopathy has headers at the top of the page concerning "discretionary sanctions". Johnuniq (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest policy

Hello, Deepeshdeomurari. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Support

Hello Editor,

Have gone through your edits in Art of Living Foundation's Page. Can I request some support from you? Can we discuss over an email/phone call?

I can be reached on rs.nadimpalli@gmail.com or 8178649332.

Thanks and Regards, Ravi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddyrs (talk • contribs) 09:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]