User talk:Dixitsandeep

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why Makar Sankranti is not on winter solstice.

Hi. This is related to your recent edit in the Makar Sankranti page. Please see my replies in the talk page to Ms Sarah. Link : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makar_Sankranti#/talk/20 The actions of that editor are there for everyone to see. She(/He) is simply deleting whatever opinion she disagrees with. She feels any source in disagreement with her opinion is a bogus source. Even if it is from Calendar Reform Committee of Govt of India. And she threatens everyone she disagrees with edit-war template in their talk page. Johnrameshkhan (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Hello, I'm Joshua Jonathan. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Ms Sarah Welch#Edit war that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This specificially this remark "Apart from providing reference please edit what you understand. Do not go for subjects beyond your expertized." is not part of the standard templates, and not a constructive contribution tot he normal editing-proces and mutual cooperation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of discretionary sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

—SpacemanSpiff 13:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

You learned nothing diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical year

I have removed your citation tag from the opening paragraph because it looks like you're objecting to the wording, rather than any factual inaccuracy. If you can think of a better way to phrase it, please feel free to revise it yourself. Thanks. —dgies^t_c 20:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor, has reverted Woodstone, has this edit. I agree with the reversion. Your edit summary stated

Sidereal is one complete cycle of the sun against the stars' backdrop, so it is wrong to use that part in the tropical definition. The tropical year is measured by equinoxes or solstices.

Position against the star's backdrop is only one way to measure the position of the sky. As the rest of the lede, and the rest of the article makes clear, ecliptic longitude, which is measured relative to the ecliptic and the first point of Aries, is another way, and the way that is used to define the tropical year. It is unreasonable to demand that the first sentence in the article capture every subtlety contained in the entire article. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc3s5h @Dgies

First sentence in the article may not contain subtlety, but It should not be wrong.

Following statement is bluntly wrong about tropical year.

A tropical year (also known as a solar year or tropical period) is the time that the Sun takes to return to the same position in the sky of a celestial body of the Solar System such as the Earth.

I had asked for a reference to support the first sentence, the demand was removed. I was asked revise which I did.

Unfortunately, most people writing on wikipedia on astronomy topic lack clarity on this subject.

This is definition by NASA. The tropical year is the period of time required by the sun to pass from vernal equinox to vernal equinox. https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/calendar_calculations.htm#:~:text=The%20tropical%20year%20is%20the,46%20seconds%2C%20or%20365.2422%20days.

There is about 20 minutes difference in both the definitions of year. These are not two ways of saying same thing. It's funny to see people pushing hard without references. Also to see getting involved topics where they have no expertise.

That's exactly why I avoid writing on Wikipedia.

It was my mistake to spot the error and trying to correct that. Let's keep it the way it is now.

Good luck guys. Enjoy Wikipedia.

Dixitsandeep (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The NASA definition is false. Maybe the NASA employee preparing a page for pre-university education lacked expertise. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc3s5h @Dgies

If NASA is wrong, then other references could be provided. I did not know that Wikipedia itself is a primary reference.

Plus this discussion should have happened on Main articles Talk page.

However, As I said I am out of Wikipedia editing.

I can provide my opinion on my blog.

Dixitsandeep (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you have added Creative Commons licensed text to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Boyer–Moore string-search algorithm. You are welcome to import appropriate Creative Commons licensed content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Compatibly licensed sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any Creative Commons content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]