User talk:ChamithN/Archive 25

Please comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)== This week's article for improvement (week 14, 2016) ==

Please comment on Talk:MMR vaccine controversy
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:MMR vaccine controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week&thinsp;: nominations needed!
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven   Talk  for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 3
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

About image size
(About the page stereophonic sound )

Thanks for informing me.

I expanded the graph to maximum size, and aligned it to the centre, because it seemed to me that, it could give a better visualization about what's goes-on in a stereophonic sound. And the other image, was slightly increased than default; just because it is a diagram.

Not only for this page, where-ever in Wikipedia I encounter diagrams, whose labelings are not visible at-a-glance, or difficultly readable, I try to increase the image size. I didn't knew well about wikipedia's terms and conditions about image size (i'm not experienced user), and i don't know whether those edits by me are being maintained or not.

While reading a scientific text, clicking on the diagrams all the time (to read the labelings), is quite irritating.

In-fact many critical things actually may remained unnoticed if someone read a scientific text, not matching it with the diagram. And also, several times while reading Wiki pages i've noticed i've missed a diagram (didn't click on a diagram), Just because i couldn't read some labelings of the diagram at-a-glance, so didn't realize the importance. (think about a person trying to understand a phenomenon, thinking, scribbling on paper, flipping pages of books & websites, obviously be benefited if the person could realize, clicking on which link would reach to stronger answer.  Or  think about  a non-expert, say a kid, is reading a topic. Normally it could fail to decide click on an image, and thereafter correlating the thought with text. (especially on a topic like stereophonic sound ... about which, the kid may be already preoccupied with a lots of popular misconceptions like stereophonic gadgets contain 2 speaker to increase loudness  et cetera. )

However I've nothing to do if the sizes flouted rules and regulations. But, I always think, diagrams should appear in properly readable sizes. Surprisingly, there exists a trend to show photographs in larger size and diagrams in smaller size. But the thing should be opposite (with exceptions also). RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I too agree that visibility matters when it comes to diagrams. However, the thing is, forcing image size like this often causes accessibility issues for mobile users. And, frankly, these guidelines aren't employed in some articles (whereas they should be) due to less scrutiny and overall article quality. In any case, if you think the guidelines regarding image size is unreasonable, you can always start a discussion at Village pump to change the current consensus. Cheers! -- ChamithN   (talk)  14:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * To mean "like this" You cited a revision that was too old. But in latter revisions, i adjusted them. though the graph was kept big, the diagram made much smaller than the white space. Such as in the last revision did by me (that i found in contrib list) it was like that.  It was happened because I took time to learn use of preview, sandbox, etc. I did the edits on the article's page in several steps, quite non-seriously and i'm sorry for that.

'''However, how to start a discussion in vlllage pump? Earlier i asked questions and lodged complaints on village pump, but i don't know about that consensus or discussion'''.

Thanks.

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As you can see, the images are still too large for the lead (in terms of Thumbnail sizes) in this revision. On a different note, it's quite OK to save edits contiguously as long as they are not test edits.


 * Regarding Village pump, you just have to select the specific section where you think is the best to address your issue, and initiate a discussion (e.g: If you want to discuss about a change to a policy, then Village pump (policy)). To do so, click new section from the toolbar and state your concern(s). Once you have done that, keep track of the discussion by adding the page to your watchlist. You'll know when it has reached a consensus. --  ChamithN   (talk)  16:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Second law of thermodynamics
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Second law of thermodynamics. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Nvidia
Hi ChaminthN,

Thank you for your edits to the NVIDIA page.

Please can you be bold and help update the NVIDIA wiki page with up-to-date information.

The page has out-of-date financial information on it. It shows earnings from 2014, based in an SEC filing from March 2014. It makes sense to have the 10-k from March 2016 that reflects the most recent annual earnings.

Many thanks, Sam aka EndeavorTwo — Preceding unsigned comment added by EndeavorTwo (talk • contribs) 18:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Psychology sidebar
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Psychology sidebar. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 May 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eidetic memory
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eidetic memory. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Untitled
Apologies for any edits that are incorrect or such, but in relation to the film The Gallows (2015), a slasher film defined here is put as- In Games of Terror: Halloween, Friday the 13th and the Films of the Stalker Cycle, Vera Dika defines the slasher as having a repeated plot structure, theorizing that all slasher films adhere to the following formula in one way or another.[2] According to Dika, the plot of a slasher film is always influenced by a past event in which the film's community, often teenage characters, commits a wrongful action, or the killer experiences some sort of severe trauma.[2] The present day plot typically involves the opposing objectives of both a killer and a hero/heroine. Slasher films often begin with a commemoration of this important past event[2] - an anniversary that somehow reactivates or re-inspires the killer. Often, the victim in a slasher film survives, but is maimed somehow by their experience with the film's killer.[2]

The Gallows plot follows four high school teenage characters, stalked and killed one by one by a masked, costumed male ghost killer brandishing a hangman's noose as a weapon, additional characters are killed, two off-screen and one additional officer character on-screen is that enough to categorize The Gallows as A)An American Teenage film, B)American Teen Horror Film and C) Slasher film?

Thank you for taking the time to read this message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.251.90 (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have to admit that I wasn't aware that the plot revolves around 4 teenagers. Anyhow, was the target audience teenagers as well? If so, you could cite a source in the article to justify the categorization. As WP:CATDEF says, Categorization of articles must be verifiable. Combining multiple sources to reach a conclusion of your own is not acceptable per WP:SYNTH. Also, defines itself as a list of "teen films," movies centering around the lives of teenagers, with teens as the target audience. Hence, it's pretty clear that both points must be addressed in this case; not just "movies centering teenage characters". Cheers! --  ChamithN   (talk)  06:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The Gallows Teen Target Audience
https://www.inverse.com/.../4508-the-gallows-delivers-the-year-s-most-illogical-scares

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Film-Review-Grisly-horror-flick-Gallows.../story.html

https://slashcomment.com/movies/the-gallows-review/

Thank you so much for responding, above are three sources of critical reception for the film which cites it's target audience of teenagers to young adults as well as the negative reception on it's broadcast of tired slasher film tropes. Would it now okay in accordance to the category submissions guidelines on Wikipedia and from the provided sources to categorize The Gallows with the categories of American Teen Horror Film, Teen film as the movie centers around the lives of the four primary teenage characters (three of which among the body count of seven victims in the movie, and the fourth teenage character a secret antagonist working in conjunction with the film's masked, hangman noose wielding killer) and Slasher film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.251.90 (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you check those links again, please? None of them seem to be working. Nonetheless, that second link doesn't appear to be leading to a reliable source. -- ChamithN   (talk)  08:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Links that are broken and missing
My apologies all three links are now damaged or missing, here are some working link sources stating in review and analysis of the film it serving as a found footage teenage slasher film.

http://moviepilot.com/posts/3354106 http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=17678 http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Film-Review-Grisly-horror-flick-Gallows-fails/story-26891970-detail/story.html http://collider.com/the-gallows-20-things-to-know-about-the-horror-thriller/ http://www.moviefone.com/2015/07/07/best-teen-horror-movies-ranked/

I can find more substantial sources if you wish, but the film in review, analysis and it's own promotion by Warner Bros is fashioned a found footage slasher horror film, the sole focus of the film is four different teenagers, three associated with each other in terms of friendship and a relationship, and one by romantic interest. The film following the death of the masked, killer antagonist at the beginning who himself died at a teenage age at the same high school goes in duration as the found footage of these teenagers lives prior to their Beatrice High School entrapment, and eventual deaths by Charlie Grimille. The source collider.com and their article on the film contains extracts from interviews with the directors/writers Chris Lofing and Travis Cluff stating their inspiration from slasher films in making The Gallows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOhBFz80-Ek

The above link is for a TV spot for The Gallows in title cards fashioning Charlie as the new icon of horror with a signature weapon the noose, naming Jason as having his machete and Freddy as having his glove. Numerous taglines attributed to sites such as Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb such as: "This July Hang With The Cool Kids (also seen in the TV spot linked above", also the film itself in Bluray exclusive special features has Jason Blum interview Chris Lofing and Travis Cluff on the set of The Gallows and discuss the film, in which the target audience of western teenagers and young adults is stated and inspiration for Charlie and the structure of the movie derives from the golden age of scary, trapped in a psychologically testing setting slasher films of the 1970's such as Halloween (referenced in title) and Friday The 13th (1980) referenced also by title. The special feature I am referencing on the bluray exclusive special features of the film (searched online with Google Videos for it but could not find nothing but Google Search references to the feature) is entitled Charlie, Charlie. Would categorizing it with the three categories be okay please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.251.90 (talk) 11:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your detailed explanation, and also for finding alternative links. While some of them do mention that the movie is mainly target for teens, some don't; however, after doing a quick Google search I too was able to find a good amount of sources that indicate the movie is indeed targeted primarily at teens. So, all in all, I guess there is no harm in categorizing the article under teen horror. Make sure to cite sources where necessary. You don't have to cite categories specifically, but instead, you could attribute genre(s) to the above links (sources). If you don't know how to that, WP:REFBEGIN would be a good place to start. Best, ChamithN   (talk)  13:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Verifying the categories
Thank you so much for responding and verifying the categories of teenage film and slasher film. 58.108.251.90 (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. -- ChamithN   (talk)  21:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Finals
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Giraffe
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Giraffe. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox and children
This deletion surprised me. I've been here since 2003 and have never heard of this policy. We have myriad biographies which apparently violate it. Where is the policy? -- BullRangifer (talk)
 * It was this actually; it's not a policy per se. Anyways, in my edit summary, by "those" what I meant was children and relatives, not everyone. My mistake there. -- ChamithN   (talk)  04:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Notable and "notable enough to have an independant article of their own" are not the same thing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that too was a mistake on my part. Sorry about the confusion I caused. I was thinking of notability in terms of Wikipedia's WP:GNG. Nonetheless, as far as I can tell, Rose Dorothy Dauriac mentioned in the edit is not independently notable enough to be mentioned in the infobox. So, other than the confusion I caused with my edit summary, I believe there was no harm done.  --  ChamithN   (talk)  16:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keeping in mind WP:BLPNAME, I always give an expectation of privacy within Wikipedia articles to non-notable children of WP:BLPs. If they are only notable for being "child of {article subject]" then my rule of thumb is their names should probably not be mentioned within the Infobox. Shearonink (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually tend to agree with both of you. The mention in the body is good enough. It was the "notable enough..." part that surprised me, because that's not the way we have ever applied the guideline. We frequently list non-notable children in the infobox, but I'm uncomfortable with listing very young children there. I'm fine with things as they are in the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not want this please
I had a tough time last time I was here, its me I am working with WordPress cc 4.0 I think all I do is research articles and post with my opinion but I have many locations. Leearango123 02:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leearango123 (talk • contribs)


 * Sorry to hear that. But, you should know that Wikipedia doesn't publish original thought. Also, this is definitely not constructive. -- ChamithN   (talk)  04:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John Stuart Mill
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John Stuart Mill. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Question for you
How does one accept one's own edits on a protected article? Specifically, I'm automatic, but if someone who is not makes an edit and I make one afterward, my edit also will show as "pending review". This has happened a few times with Christina Grimmie; the only method that worked was to restore the previous accepted version and re-do my edit. TIA. &#128406; ATS /  Talk  20:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have PC reviewing rights. So, I can accept pending changes, including my own edits, on articles if necessary. I think if someone edits an article while there are pending changes to be reviewed, their edit(s) too will get flagged as pending, regardless of their autoconfirmed status. Provided that you've been editing Wikipedia for a long time (even longer than I have been), you could definitely get the rights if you request at WP:PERM/PCR. Cheers! -- ChamithN   (talk)  20:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Much obliged! &#128406; ATS /  Talk  20:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Emmy Noether
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Emmy Noether. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Serial killer
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Serial killer. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Wrap Up
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 July 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James Hopwood Jeans
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James Hopwood Jeans. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sigma-algebra
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sigma-algebra. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Windows 10
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Windows 10. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eidetic memory
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eidetic memory. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Borel regular measure
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Borel regular measure. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)