User talk:Jayanta Sen

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! (SEWilco 03:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC))
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Do leave a message for me if you have any questions regarding the LLN etc. Best Regards, JS (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2010 (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.

& (Drive coordinators)

Delivered per [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bot_requests&oldid=481419438#Message_to_take_part_in_Assessment_Drive request] on Bot requests. 01:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC) The  Helpful  Bot  01:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Reading Content
It appears none are reading what the article is saying: it is a clear outline presentation for a closed-form solution to the n-body problem (Equation 10). Secondly, it is just a simple application of statics (i.e., quasi-steady loads). I don't understand why Dr. Mark can't see this (please read it again, if you have any questions in regards to the physics, please ask). It is true it does open up new possibilities. There is one Ph.D. Physicist who has read it (he wants to generalize it -- read his comments on Rudrene's Talk Page); a college mathematics professor had no problem in reading it; and two more Ph.D. Physicists I have been told are scheduled to critic it too (more acid tests). At least let them review it before you do a roll-back. How sad you don't understand what is written there. What was written prior to my editing was mostly wrong and not very understandable. Also, I'm almost finish with the clean-up. Thank you for your criticism and interest.Rudrene (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Equation 10
Someone over the last couple of days removed Equation 10, the key equation for calculating n-reaction forces owning to an applied load. Also they removed the inertia calculations in the Numerical Example. This was the reason for the protection request.

Also, I just saw you note. There are three, not counting Mark, physicist currently evaluating the content of the n-body problem page. I would be more then willing to work with others in beautifying this page and making it more clear. What part of the physics don't you understand? If my grammar and sentence structure is wanting, then please help. (Please answer back on Rudrene's Talk Page.) Thank you for your note.Rudrene (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

JS's Edit
I have to add just one more note (I'm trying to understand you position):

I wrote: ''"One of the physical phenomenon he had to contend with was how odd it was that all bodies fell at the same rate regardless of size, mass, weight, volume: the distance traveled by all falling bodies are strictly a function of 1/2 the time squared and the force of gravity g = 9.81 m/s2. This mechanism effect of gravity it is conjectured, is a result of an atom's electromagnetic energy, which just barely keeps the valence electrons in their orbits, not stopping at the valence orbit's boundary, but continuing on, attracting other nearby electrons in other atoms (this is not a chemical bond).  It is the sum of the total attractive energy of the Earth's electron mass that manifest gravity. As a result the gravity field pulls on the electrons of a body, regardless of their mass, etc., and all bodies are pulled down equally, falling at the same rate.

"Newton's Law generally is considered as mainly applying to celestial objects, but is equally useful for Earth science (calculating Ocean tides, calculating the 13-mile high ellipsoidal budge at the equator, calculating the fuel requirements verses weight for rockets, etc.). For those applications there is the "Laws of Weight",[12] which is a modified form of his equation. Another odd phenomenon about gravity is expressed by this latter Law. It says bodies weigh most at the surface of the Earth of course. Below the surface the weight decreases as to the linear decrease of the distance towards the Earth's center; above the surface the weight decrease as to the square of the distance increases (Newton's Law)."''

In your edit you removed these key statements. Newton's physics looked so good and powerful, why not proceed, everybody apparently historically thought, with his Universal Law. Here I am giving background to the classical solution to the n-body problem, backed up with references. Please, I ask, what, if anything, is wrong with these super-key statements?

You also apparently removed Equation 10? Again, thank you for your patients.Rudrene (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

n-body problem
You left a message on my talk page about the status of the article n-body problem. I see your point but feel such matters should be discussed on the article talk page. If you post it there please be gentle, I see your point but the current heavy editor seems to be rather new to WP and to be trying in good faith to improve the article. RJFJR (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Besides the talk page I also posted to the discussion on the Wiki Physics project. I agree that the editor is acting in good faith. Thanks, JS (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Critiquing N-body Problem
I read what you and Mark had written on the Wiki Physics Project page. Thank you both for the critic. Please, isn't there some physicists in addition to Dr. Mark in Wikipedia land capable of understanding and giving a simple nae or yea on the physics given in the n-body problem page? If not, then I think I am wasting everyone's time, including my own: do your roll-back. Thank you.Rudrene (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

JS' Critic
Thank you for your good advice -- well explained -- and I will try to change those places (and more) you suggested should be changed, or re-worded or deleted; or add more references for some of those "opinions." Is it possible to leave what I have written there for a little longer before you do your roll-back, so others besides you three, can review and critic it? I'm so surprise you three critics appear not to see the forest for the trees: one mechanism of gravity has been suggested; hence Galileo's Law of Gravity has been explained based on the latter; the Potential Function has been suggested as a link for electromagnetism and gravity (I have done the analysis); the classical approach to the n-body problem has been (I thought) shown not to work (after explaining carefully what gravity is...); Kepler Laws have been shown to be misleading because of the Sun's wobble(Newton's error, Newton's toy); what others have written about the Restricted 3-body problem is wanting and I have tried to correct it; a closed-form solution for the n-body problem has been given (with computer program), which works and yes, is new; a solution to the classical problem for the forces associated with the Solar System has been presented; and the reference list is long and comprehensive. On a whole it would come down as a shock and hard core physics and to some confusing. Secondly, the college and university textbooks do not teach the above. And yes indeed, it all could probably be written much, much better and to your standards. That said, please be so kind as to leave what I have written there until others have a chance to review it too, before you do your roll-back. I don't think the three of you realize the deadening effect this will have on physics if you kill it. Let others read it. Thank you.Rudrene (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Rethink
I am writing to you since you seem more down-to-Earth and practical. The Article as it stands now is worthless; but the earlier version is just as bad as it fails to give a closed-form solution.

Dr. Mark said it was OR and Anagonist, not understanding anything he/she read, deleted the core sub-articles from the main Article, thus making it worthless. Turidoth is typical (and I give he/she as an example) of those who don't understand what was being written either: with a close-form solution finally available, it becomes readily available for applying it to physics or engineering applications; solutions are verified by calculating equilibrium (the acid test) of internal/external forces and moments (Q.E.D.), that's the reason for the numerical example and the only "proof" of method; that the Newtonian Universal force varies from point -to- point in an elliptical orbit say it is not valid for a general, closed-form analyses Turidoth, to say nothing of the Sun's wobble. Nor did Turidoth bother to get and read a copy of Cohen's article (which says the same thing) about Newton's discovery of Gravity, listed in the References (I can email you a copy). And importantly, Dr. Mark can't tell the difference between applied physics (analogous to applied mathematics) and original research: there is nothing, i.e., no research, in my paper per se that is outside the domain of current applied mathematics or physics: however, the applied physics application based on standard physics is new. And that does not mean or entail "research." I think Dr. Mark and Company don't want to deal with the verification of the complexities of a real-world, applied physics analysis.

One more time: those doing the critiquing either don't have the background to understand what they are reading, and/or misinterpret what is written, or both.

The essence of the Article (is so simple) is to calculate the n-body (n > 3) unknown (internal) reaction when subject to a single load. (And to give and explain some physics background.) My motive was to put this applied physics calculation on Wikipedia so all could see and use it. In trying to do so I have made many mistakes (should have written it off line first and uploaded it. And Maschen's right, some of the math was a mess, which I have since corrected.)  This calculation is a big step forward, not only from a practical perspective but from a scientific one too. Is it still possible to reach some kind of agreement?

I think maybe all need to rethink this situation before the effort is thrown away. If you collectively and rationally don't want what I have done, then I will stop.Rudrene (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Rudrene, thanks for your message. When you write "This calculation is a big step forward, not only from a practical perspective but from a scientific one too", I assume that this is theory/an idea/a solution that you have developed. My understanding is that first new developments have to be published elsewhere before they make their way to Wiki.
 * I will not make any changes to the article but will wait for the opinions of others. Maybe an editor who has not participated in the discussion till now will have something to say to clarify matters.
 * Best Wishes, JS (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Filters Yes
Hi. JS;

In the “Classical Mathematical Formulation” section I had written the conjectures:

“One of the physical phenomenon he [NEWTON] ''had to contend with was how odd it was that all bodies fell at the same rate regardless of size, mass, weight, volume: the distance traveled by all falling bodies are strictly a function of ½ the time squared and the force of gravity g = 9.81 m/s2. This mechanism effect of gravity it is conjectured, is a result of an atom's electromagnetic energy, which just barely keeps the valence electrons in their orbits, not stopping at the valence orbit's boundary, but continuing on, attracting other nearby electrons in other atoms (this is not a chemical bond). It is the sum of the total attractive energy of the Earth's electron mass that manifest gravity. As a result the gravity field pulls on the electrons of a body, regardless of their mass, etc., and all bodies are pulled down equally, falling at the same rate''.”

In that paragraph I had 1.) conjectured the mechanism of gravity; 2.) hence the cause of the manifestation of gravity; 3.) and explained, based upon that, why all bodies fall at the same rate.   Forgive me, but I think that is a beautiful paragraph: beautiful physics.

A little later I relate NEWTON's Universal Law, and define individual terms (distance, etc.). But earlier and between the two I had also related the weird equivalent Law relationship for bodies beneath the surface. Skipping G; I next related how the potential function m/r and q/r could yield both NEWTON's Law and COULOMB's Law, and conjectured this was the mythical missing link between gravitation and electromagnetism. I was surprised no one balked at this ― did they not understand? Anyway, the whole section up to this point was a very short legacy of most of the science about NEWTON'S Law and gravity.

Then I related one reason (the simplest) why using NEWTON's Law beyond n = 3 made the n-body Problem intractable (too many equations, too many unknowns). What I didn't say unfortunately in this section, but did later in the n-body's derivation, was the n-body problem depended only upon force and geometry and was independent of mass! It has nothing to do with NEWTON's Universal Law. A point everyone missed too.

In all of this there was no “OR,” and never was: the derivation was just an application of simple statics applied towards the solution of the n-body problem.

After reading HHHIPPO (Ph.D. Physics) statement: ''It seems like everybody agrees that we're dealing with original research here, and the only disagreement is whether that should be included in Wikipedia. Deciding that requires no PhD of any sort: original research, no matter how good or correct or brilliant or important it is, has no place in an encyclopedia.'' [Filter, after filter, after filter, after Filter, until nothing flows.]

“''Agree. It reads like a senior thesis, not like an encyclopedia article directed towards a broad audience.''” Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk)

Would you please remove all references to Rudrene everywhere on Wikipedia, including those deleted with undo's. Thank you.Rudrene (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Starting new sections
I noticed on Talk:Unexpected hanging paradox that you started a new section by opening the bottom section, then manually adding the section heading. There is an easier way: Click the "New section" link at the top of the page, less hassle. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and wish you the best for 2014! JS (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Haplogroups maps
Hi Jayanta:

Very sorry that I have not written to you before. I was on vacation about this genetic anthropology topic.

1.- About R1 map, I explain the following: I do not use my own judgment to define what is or isn't native. I use the criterion of sources. In the case of the Americas, they usually refer to the indigenous populations over 500 years old. But this is difficult to ensure because of the high admixture. I recognize that Northamerica is particularly problematic, as discussed here (R1* in North America) It should go to genetics paleontology to be sure of the true native American gene pool.

2.- Regarding the map: Human Migration in DNA-Y.PNG, haplogroup P represents the origin of their descendants R and Q. I put P between the Near East and South Asia based on Article Haplogrupo R ADN-Y that I wrote in Spanish, based on various sources. For the position of P I relied particularly on the distribution of R*, R1* and R2*. Maybe R originated in Pakistan but not India. If R was Indian, it would have expanded to the Far East, even in part, but did not.

3.- Picture is different from. The first one represents the oldest branches, 140.000-90.000 years for the south-central Africa region. Then, E1b1b colonized that region with the Bantu expansion. Maybe I need to place one more arrow to point it out. In contrast, the other image represents a more current distribution of E and this was after the Bantu invasion.

Regards. --Maulucioni (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy notice
Nothing serious but I believe something went wrong with this revert. I have reinstated the old version, please let me know if that is not ok. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Bengal famine, shipping
Lack of shipping was certainly the official justification: "In early September Amery was informed by the minister responsible for war transport that he had 'an actual deficiency of ships' for the operational plan prepared by the military and approved by cabinet. A few days later, General Auchinleck, head of British forces in India, echoing Amery’s request, pleaded with the chief of imperial general staff in London that 'so far as shipping is concerned, the import of food is to my mind just as if not more important than the import of munitions' 33 . Later Amery tried the same argument: conditions in Bengal were becoming ‘a serious menace to supply operations and the movement of troops, and also very bad for troop morale'. To no avail: on 24th September the war cabinet decided that diverting ships to lifting grain for delivery in India before the next Indian harvest would not be possible." Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 08:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. Is there a cite for the above paragraph? JS (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This doesn't mean shipping couldn't be allocated for famine relief; it does mean that that was the official explanation. It's also true that shipping was tight for the UK at that time & in that area, but again, whether that means absolutely nothing (including American ships) cold have been allocated is debatable... Discussions of wartime transport logistics are extremely far from my field; I'm just a guy who's reading popular and academic literature. My general impression, however, is that: a) It's quite possible that the UK could have spared the shipping, but their reluctance to do so was not at all irrational or unreasonable. They were in a tight position. b) Having said that, the US and Australia could certainly have allocated sufficient shipping, but they were unable to do so without the UK war cabinet's permission. I saw a quote somewhere or other to the effect that the war cabinet did not want to ask because they were afraid the Allies would retask shipping rather than allocating additional ships. That would have reduced the military supplies etc. that were going to Great Britain... I could try to find that quote, but I will be offline for 4 days or so. Later.  Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This doesn't mean shipping couldn't be allocated for famine relief; it does mean that that was the official explanation. It's also true that shipping was tight for the UK at that time & in that area, but again, whether that means absolutely nothing (including American ships) cold have been allocated is debatable... Discussions of wartime transport logistics are extremely far from my field; I'm just a guy who's reading popular and academic literature. My general impression, however, is that: a) It's quite possible that the UK could have spared the shipping, but their reluctance to do so was not at all irrational or unreasonable. They were in a tight position. b) Having said that, the US and Australia could certainly have allocated sufficient shipping, but they were unable to do so without the UK war cabinet's permission. I saw a quote somewhere or other to the effect that the war cabinet did not want to ask because they were afraid the Allies would retask shipping rather than allocating additional ships. That would have reduced the military supplies etc. that were going to Great Britain... I could try to find that quote, but I will be offline for 4 days or so. Later.  Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply and the cite. Though I may not agree with some cite, if it is there and an editor wants to include it (could be you) then as per Wiki principles I will not contest it. Best, JS (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Re-initiating INCOTM
It's been almost an year since "Indian collaboration of the month" was active. Firstly we need to restart this as soon as possible for development of India-related articles to greater heights. The members page was blanked, where many of them are inactive. This mass message is to all the members of WikiProject India, about this and interested editors interested will sign up. After this message gets delivered, we'll wait for 7 days before we start a discussion under a thread on the collaboration's talk page, among the members. The discussion will include what to clean-up of sub-pages, a new set of guidelines for smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the collaboration etc. Please keep all the discussions under this thread only, so that it will easier for future reference. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Re-initiating INCOTM
It's been almost an year since "Indian collaboration of the month" was active. Firstly we need to restart this as soon as possible for development of India-related articles to greater heights. The members page was blanked, where many of them are inactive. This mass message is to all the members of WikiProject India, about this and interested editors interested will sign up. After this message gets delivered, we'll wait for 7 days before we start a discussion under a thread on the collaboration's talk page, among the members. The discussion will include what to clean-up of sub-pages, a new set of guidelines for smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the collaboration etc. Please keep all the discussions under this thread only, so that it will easier for future reference. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Indian military history
You are invited to join the Indian military history work-group, an initiative of the Military history WikiProject. This group is to exclusively deal with the topics related to Indian military. If you're interested, please add you name to the participants list. Ignore if you are already a member. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Indian defence services
You are requested to participate in the discussion of Wiki Loves Indian defence services on the talk page of WikiProject India. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!
For the kind words. Always nice to hear my work is valued. And if I make a mistake, don't be afraid to tell me! :D  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikigraphists Bootcamp (2018 India)
Greetings,

It is being planned to organize Wikigraphists Bootcamp in India, please fill out the survey form to help the organizers. Your responses will help organizers understand what level of demand there is for the event (how many people in your community think it is important that the event happens). At the end of the day, the participants will turn out to have knowledge to create drawings, illustrations, diagrams, maps, graphs, bar charts etc. and get to know to how to tune the images to meet the QI and FP criteria. For more information and link to survey form, please visit Talk:Wikigraphists Bootcamp (2018 India). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Supporting Indian Wikipedia Program resource distribution
In 2017 - 2018, the Wikimedia Foundation and Google working in close coordination with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Wikimedia India chapter (WMIN) and user groups will pilot a program encouraging Wikipedia communities to create locally relevant and high-quality content in Indian languages. This program (Code name: Project Tiger) will:
 * (a) Support active and experienced Wikipedia editors through the donation of laptops and stipends for internet access and
 * (b) Sponsor a language-based contest that aims to address existing Wikipedia content gaps.

The objective of the program is to provide laptops and internet stipends for existing editors who need support to contribute more actively. 50 basic model Acer Chromebooks and Internet stipends for 100 contributors are available for distribution. Provided resources are the sole property of the beneficiaries and should be used for the betterment of the movement.

If you're an active Wikimedian, and interested to receive support from this project, please apply. It will take around 10 minutes of your time, and will ask descriptive questions about your contribution to Indic Wikimedia projects.


 * Apply at: Supporting Indian Language Wikipedias Program#Apply for support
 * Last date for submitting applications is 11th February 2018, 11:59 IST.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Project Tiger Writing Contest
In 2017 – 2018, the Wikimedia Foundation and Google working in close coordination with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Wikimedia India Chapter (WMIN) and user groups from India, are piloting a program encouraging Wikipedia communities to create locally relevant and high-quality content in Indian languages. This program will (a) support active and experienced Wikipedia editors through the donation of laptops and stipends for internet access and (b) sponsor a language-based contest that aims to address existing Wikipedia content gaps.

Phase (a) has been completed, during which active contributors were awarded laptops and internet stipends. Phase (b) will be a contest in which editors will come together and develop a writing contest focused on content gaps. Each month three individual prizes will be awarded to each community based on their contribution for the month. The prizes worth 3,000 INR, 2000 INR, and 1,000 INR, will be awarded to the top contributors for each month. The contest started at March 1, 2018, 0:00, and will end at May 31, 2018, 23:59 (IST). Useful links are as follows:


 * Sign up at: Project Tiger Writing Contest/Participants
 * List of the articles can be referred at: Project Tiger Writing Contest/Topics
 * Submit/report your articles/contributions at: https://tools.wmflabs.org/fountain/editathons/project-tiger-2018-en
 * For more details, rules, FAQ etc. kindly refer: Project Tiger Writing Contest

Looking forward your participation, all the best. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) at 22:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC).

blood-warming
Thank you for dealing with this. I am guessing it is an overly literal translation of a misunderstanding of a commonly used set of idioms, in the wrong language! I imagine it was originally intended to mean "stirring" or "inspiring". There are some British English idioms that mean the same thing, "heart-warming" is one of them but does not quite meet the sense here. Unfortunately, the original source does actually use this same phrase. But of course, Wikipedia should not use it. The whole clause is much too close to WP:COPYPASTE or close paraphrasing, so removing the adjective has helped reduce that problem. MPS1992 (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome :) JS (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Bengal. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It was copied from within Wiki, thanks for letting me know the correct procedure. JS (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject India
 WikiProject India

'Namaste'', Jayanta Sen. We would like to inform you about the recent changes to the WikiProject. As you may know, the old newsletter for WikiProject India ceased circulation in 2010. Now we have re-launched the newsletter in a new way. As a member, you are cordially invited to subscribe to the newsletter. Thank you.'''  Subscribe

Newsletter discussion

Contribute

Subscribe/Unsubscribe

Archive

Sent by on behalf of WikiProject India. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Citation
Instead of removing it and then going onto my personal page to complain, find a source which proves that the statement is incorrect. It's quite obvious from the casualties section that the Soviet Union suffered far greater losses. Instead of removing it, provide a source which actually debunks it. Reaper1945 (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Jayanta Sen! Your additions to Keir Giles have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Donating copyrighted materials.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. ''The article you copied from does have a creative commons license, but it's not one that's compatible with Wikipedia's license (CC-BY-SA 4.0). Although this work was not compatibly licensed, attribution is required when copying from works that are compatibly licensed, including other Wikipedia articles. See Plagiarism for more information.'' Thank you. — SamX &#91;talk · contribs&#93; 22:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)