Talk:Ashok Mittal

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ashok Kumar Mittal.jpg


 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ashok_Mittal_LPU.png seems to be usable on Wikipedia. This is not the same image as deleted previously (not uploaded by me). The image is also intact on the telugu version of the page. Is it ok to use the file. Why it got deleted when I uploaded it? Awsib (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Primary source and copyrights violation
@Awsib You have again restored your edits based on Primary sources and copy paste from news sites. The latter is not allowed. Please remove your edits and add only secondary sources. Venkat TL (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Awsib this discussion needs to happen here. Venkat TL (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Awsib I have removed all the WP:UNDUE additions from Self published and primary sources. Please discuss your edits on the talk page. You should not add it without consensus. Venkat TL (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear Sir, I just did some research and mentioned those points on the wikipedia. if wikicommns photo is not uploadable, if news pieces published in almost all major newspaper are not to be pointed out ,what to contribute then? If no website mentioned the award of Phd degree except the one awarding the degree, where can I get a secondary source from? As far as I know we verify any certificate from the issuing authority (primary source) themselves.
 * None of my statements are made up. Whatever came to my notice and I felt should come in public domain, I tried to compile.
 * You are free to take actions as per Wikipedia policy you feel appropriate.
 * Primary source reference can be removed not the entire previous edits.I provided them just as a proof that those statements can be verified at least somewhere.
 * Those references were cited only where there were no claims made by the subject which needed scrutiny.
 * If there is a need to arrive at a consensus for even articles published in leading newspapers, I feel myself incapable of any further contributions.
 * I know articles should be neutral but in an attempt to forcibly make it so I cannot keep on searching for positive news even if I don't find any. If any other can they should do so.
 * wikipedia says:-
 * Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue. Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense. A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one. Even a given source can contain both primary and secondary source material for one particular statement.
 * Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
 * A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings
 * Regards Awsib (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Awsib Please strictly follow the rules of WP:BLPSOURCES for this article. If you want to add anything, please present your draft below and get WP:CONSENSUS before adding to the article. If you believe that I have wrongly removed something that is allowed by policies, copy that content below in new section so that we can discuss and reach a consensus. your edits are available in the WP:PAGEHISTORY. Venkat TL (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Achieving neutrality
 * Shortcuts
 * WP:NPOVHOW
 * WP:ACHIEVE NPOV
 * See the NPOV tutorial and NPOV examples.
 * Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems. Awsib (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Are Spouse and Children	appropriate in info?
In profile description, are Spouse and  Children  necessary or even appropriate for an MP ?

Also does opening an university for making profits makes him an educationalist?

Awsib (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)