User talk:Neurofreak

I'm trying to understand how this works. Lets try to avoid original research and stick to sources. We have a reliable source^[1] which says an institute is a state university. We have the Act^[2] which looks to me like any other university Act, but I'm not an expert. Is there any conclusive difference? Can an institute be both a state university and an Institute under State Legislature Act? We already know institute can be both a central university and an Institution of National Importance, so I can't say it would surprise me.--Muhandes (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

IuSLAs are established under state legislature act, empowered to grant degrees, although similar to state universities but operates with greater autonomy. These can be included in the list of state universities. UGC list of state universities should have included 3 remaining IuSLAs, if not, why selective on NIMS or SVIMS? MHRD did an 'All India Higher Education Survey' in 2011.^[1] The report listed these 5 IuSLAs (with name) and defines 8 degree awarding bodies. Besides, this report also cleared my by doubt regarding NIFTs, they doesn't fall under ANY category. Neurofreak (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I undid your edit since it goes against the source. Selection criteria for lists (with inline citations) are extremely important. The selection criteria for state universities is the UGC list.^[1] I know it is not always 100% up to date, but per WP:V it is more important to stick with sources than be up to date. If we go astride from this we will never be able to object editors who change the list. In a month or two the list will change and then we can update List of universities in India and of course List of state universities in India

--Muhandes (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed in this edit you did the same with another university. I'm not going to undo this for now, since I'm not as familiar with the list of private universities as I am with the list of state universities (which I'm working on). However, I suggest you reconsider and wait until the UGC changes their lists. They do it quite often now. --Muhandes (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

You reverted , saying " I did add a reliable reference". This is not the point. The point is the selection criteria. I do suggest you stop reverting edits while I try to discuss things. Per policy, you made an edit, I reverted, now we discuss, not edit war. --Muhandes (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The ICAR listed 61 State Agricultural Universities (SAUs) and 2 Central Agricultural Universities (CAUs). SHUATS was upgraded to SAUs recently. See the updated SAUs in Uttar Pradesh on http://www.upcaronline.org. Rajendra Agri University is now a central University (It's a fact!). But, if wiki prefer outdated source rather than current status (with citation), so be it I am not going to gain anything in 'edit war'. End of discussion.Neurofreak (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:LSC an unambiguous selection criteria is more important than being up to date. If you think you can suggest a better selection criteria, start discussion on the article's talk page, like I did here. You are more knowledgeable, so as long as it's unambiguous I'll probably support your ideas. I just go with the simplest thing I can use. --Muhandes (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

In this this edit you re-introduced two claims which I removed since they were outdated.

• Madras University has been consistently listed among top ranked universities for its academics and research output.^[1]

Not only does this sentence smell heavily of WP:BOOSTER, more importantly, it is a 2010 article which is based on 2008 data. Do we really need 2008 ratings in 2017? (BTW if you ever want to use this outdated source from some odd reason, it is available here.)

• it was ranked 5th by the India Today top universities ranking of 2011.^[2]

Again, do we really need 2011 ratings in 2017? There are perfectly good ratings for 2017 we can use. --Muhandes (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, 'India Today' latest ranking doesn't feature Madras Univ due to non-participation of university in the ranking process (removed). The NISTADS do all higher education surveys for MHRD to determine central assistance. The last study titled "Measures of Performance of Universities in India: An Analysis of the Publication Output in Science and Technology" was for the study period 1998-2008. The data for next decade (2008-18) will probably be released by next year, till then, it is most comprehensive and reliable study I've ever seen assessing the research output of Indian Universities.^[1] Neurofreak (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I still think it is redundant and boosterish but I wont fight over it. I reworded the statement to say what it means as neutrally as I could. --Muhandes (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I made some suggestions on how to improve List of deemed universities. As someone who has been recently involved with this article you are invited to join the discussion. --Muhandes (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of autonomous higher education institutes in India, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages IIIT and Maharashtra National Law University (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Institutes of National Importance, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kota and Kalyani (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

A discussion on a subject you took part in before can be found here. You might want to join. --Muhandes (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of deemed universities, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gujrat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:SHIATS LOGO.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Madras Senate House.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:SenateHouseExhibition.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Madras University Buildings.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only", or "used with permission"; and it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag and if necessary, a complete fair use rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Whpq (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Senate House, University of Madras.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Mahatma Gandhi at AAI.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mahatma Gandhi at AAI.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Madras Senate House.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Senate House, University of Madras.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Neurofreak, you reverted my edits on Template:Infobox India university ranking with the comment Only experts should add new paramaters.

1. I don't know what you mean by expert, in this context. But anyone (even an IP) user can edit anywhere on Wikipedia, if the action performed is acceptable by Wikipedia Policy Guidelined and follows general consensus.
2. Please don't revert edits by any user, just because you do not find the user to be expert.

Happy Editing ! Zoodino (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Please, check that your edit messed up the 'General - India' category and merged it with 'Business – international'. This impacted hundreds of pages linked to it. You are welcome to add new parameters if you do it without impacting the template structure. Happy Editing ! Neurofreak (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Education in Chennai, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages IIT and Institute of Mathematical Sciences (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SenateHouseExhibition.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ƏXPLICIT 23:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Indian Institute of Ecology and Environment. I do not think that Indian Institute of Ecology and Environment fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because There are multiple claims of significance here including "ecological education in more than 1000 schools" and "has conducted over 180 national and international congresses and conventions". As to G11, this is neutral and factual in tone, not the kind of promotion suitable for G11 speedy deletion. What an AfD might do would be another matter. If you wish, you may try using the simple proposed deletion (PROD) process, or the full articles for deletion (AfD) process, instead. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:SenateHouseExhibition.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Gab4gab. I noticed that you recently removed content from St. Teresa's College 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. Gab4gab (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Holy Cross College, Tiruchirappalli, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Urban (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Neurofreak, I noticed that you have nominated Amit Bhadana for deletion. While I think that is reasonable in itself, you did not create a deletion discussion page, and the deletion template on the article page links to the old deletion discussion from 2018. When nominating an article that has been nominated before, you need to create a new discussion, which will be called (in this case) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amit Bhadana (2nd nomination). For this reason I have reverted your latest edit to Amit Bhadana, but please feel free to nominate it again. My advice is to follow the step-by-step instructions in WP:AFDHOW carefully. The discussion page has to be created in a particular way, with the template that you can copy and paste from the WP:AFDHOW page (the one in Step 2), and after you have created it you have to add the discussion to the AfD log – again, all the information about how you do it is at WP:AFDHOW.

Your nomination of Ashish Chanchlani also needs to be finished and fixed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish Chanchlani should have the template, and it should be added to the AfD log as well. Please feel free to ask if any of this is unclear!

A final thing: when you nominate an article for deletion you have to include a nomination statement with a rationale for the deletion, and it does not make sense for the nominator to say "Delete per nom", since "per nom" means "for the same reasons that are listed in the nomination statement". In fact, you do not have to post a "delete" when you are the nominator, since you are automatically assumed to argue in favour of deletion when you nominate. I hope that makes sense. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I have made the changes and re-nominate those articles. Thank you! Neurofreak (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you added an AFD discussion template to my user page. Please don't do that. Rather use my talk page to notify me. You can find it here. Also, keep in mind that I didn't write the Amit Bhadana article. I merely moved it into the mainspace. Check the article's history to find the original creator. I believe User:Sturdyankit created it? Thanks, LefcentrerightDiscuss 15:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Alright, Thank you! Neurofreak (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You should also nominate Ajey Nagar for deletion as it is a same case like Amit bhadana — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4063:231B:A5E2:DF51:8EE0:958D:356A (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

He received a lot of coverage in print media in the wake of recent "TikTok vs YouTube controversy". Time magazine has named him among its 'Next Generation Leaders' 2019.^[1] I think that's quite a significant achievement. But, I believe his page should be moved to 'Carryminati' instead. Ajey Nagar, who? Also, you don't have to request anyone for AfD, if you think the subject of the article is not notable as per WP:BIO, you can initiate the AfD debate. Thank you! Neurofreak (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, since you have just recreated the crap that was the NIFT article, please will you continue to watchlist the thing and take some responsibility for sorting out the problems that happen there? It is an absolute honeypot for WP:PROMO and dodgy press-released stories. Worth bearing in mind, if you do not know already, that the Indian news sector is utterly indiscriminate in its publication of puffed up and speculative stories ... except if it involves criticism of the government, with whom they are mostly in cahoots because of reliance on govt advertising and some serious right-wing mobsters. - Sitush (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have added to my watchlist and recreated the article by cutting down the promo content.

No, you did not "cut down the promo content", you added it yourself. NIFT is consistently ranked among the best fashion schools in the world., a laundry list of programs, and Admission to these programmes are through two highly selective admission tests are themselves promotional, unencyclopedic content. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't think you are understanding our sourcing constraints at all at the NIFT article. Are you aware of WP:RS and in particular of WP:PRIMARY and the need for independence? Do you understand the vague nature of saying autonomous - autonomous of what? How are you going to deal with having two sources that, according to you, say different things? You've just added a Ministry of Textiles report (inherently dodgy) and there is already a story from The Times of India (which is known to be poor) - these two contradict each other regarding the autonomy but the idea of applying WP:NPOV to such a basic statement seems slightly ridiculous. - Sitush (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the article from my watchlist. No, I am not aware of all the rules of editing, still learning. Please, edit/delete the section of NIFT article as per Wiki guidelines. Thank you! Neurofreak (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ashish A. Chanchlani. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Why are you tagging the article un-necessary. While you have already nominated it for deletion? DMySon 15:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Tagging issues is not an unconstructive editing. You are violating the guidelines by reverting these tags, when AFD is still undergoing. Neurofreak (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ashish A. Chanchlani. Do not tag the article with un-necessary tags. DMySon 15:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Congratulation! You have just violated three-revert rule (3RR). Neurofreak (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

In reference to BHU, can one mention a special note in a bracket. For eg: Banaras Hindu University (Institutes of Eminence), on a page listed in the subject.

Regards! Monsieurupanshu (talk) 07:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

You should add the 'Institute of Eminence' reference to the main article of Banaras Hindu University. Note is more appropiriate than mentioning in the bracket because BHU still remains a 'central university' under the UGC. I have just added a note on "IoE" status in the list page of 'higher education in Uttar Pradesh.' Happy Editing! Neurofreak (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

When editing {{Infobox India university ranking}}, please don't delete rankings which are still in use like you did here. This creates an non-existing named reference in those articles. this is the correct way of adding updated rankings. --Muhandes (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I understand this, but I don't think Outlook_2019 ranking is used anywhere. Since, I myself have added it few months back. I checked some universities individually too, but none has used it so far. Is there a tool/search box to check which article has used it? Thanks! Neurofreak (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It is used here, here, etc. See this discussion where Zoodino went through the same process and did an awesome job cleaning up old references. --Muhandes (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen this discussion. Now, I have updated Outlook_2020 till Top 30 (update: All). Yesterday, I checked the articles after changing the template, that's the reason I couldn't find the Outlook_2019 usage anywhere. Thanks for correcting! Neurofreak (talk) 09:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited University of Madras, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guru Nanak College.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Dabur Research Foundation Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

A triumvirate is a ruling group of three people. Each of those people is a triumvir. An individual one of those three people is one of the three triumvirs, or one of the three members of the triumvirate. One person is not a triumvirate. JBW (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I erroneously assumed that you removed the "triumvirate" entirely from the article, I just realised, you corrected the grammar. Thank you for the correction. :) Neurofreak (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny
Associate Professor
Hanyang University
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Vardhman Academy Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Please edit it...sbd has vandalised it...give him a warning too!!! Harharshit (talk) 07:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:NIFT official logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paul Dundas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Neurofreak, I see some recent very heavy changes in 2023 Indian wrestlers' protest. Lot of sections and content are removed. Heavily suspect sock puppetry. If not, clearly a lot of POV pushing.

Request you to look into it.

Thanks, Portwoman (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Neurofreak,

Thank you for creating Nishith Gupta.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

independent references on this peron's work will help.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Graeme Bartlett}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nishith Gupta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Your edit to Ch. Mohan Rao has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of deemed universities. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 223.136.86.208 (talk) 08:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Lmao, explain the "unconstructive edits". An IP questioning my contributions? Hilarious. Check the edit history properly. My substantial contributions stand, whether you like it or not. Save your generic template for someone who cares. Thank you. Neurofreak (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to BITS Pilani. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. JRDkg (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you possess even a basic understanding of when and how to appropriately utilize templates? Regardless, before delving into discussions, ensure you understand the latest in Indian education. A recent Act has given rise to an entirely distinct category of universities in India, known as 'Institutions of Eminence Deemed to be Universities.' Take the time to comprehend before attempting any further discussion. . Neurofreak (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you possess a basic understanding of etiquette when conversing with a fellow editor? No such category exists currently, first create such a category page for universities, then quote the acts. JRDkg (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Your apparent lack of awareness regarding recent developments in Indian education prompted my initial statement. The category does indeed exist, and the absence of a specific wiki page at this moment is inconsequential. Rest assured, it will be created soon. Neurofreak (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Reagrding these edits. If the entries have articles, they are notable. The 2 ICFAI entrie, Teh Gandhi campus and the Wigen and Leigh college need to be added back. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Wigen and Leigh is spam, a dead website. ICFAI is a highly controversial degree-mill. There are hundreds of institutes in the city, let's stick to non-profit, public institutes in the article. Thank you. Neurofreak (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, but your edit summary is misleading. These are not 'non-notable' institutions (here in Wikipedia and IRL). Secondly, your edits were not m, so do check WP:MINOR. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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 noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. JRDkg (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Stop reverting constructive, well-cited edits. If you disagree, use the talk page, do not disrupt pages with baseless reverts. Follow Wikipedia policy. Neurofreak (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

So I'm disrupting these pages? You are spamming the pages of only 3-4 private universities with your own personal agenda and not reading what I've mentioned again and again that it is a systemic problem in all public and private universities. Secondly nowhere are the universities specifically mentioned in the source. It is a list containing hundreds of universities. The line you are adding is original research. Have you looked at the source you are citing (it lists public universities before)? Now are you going to add this senseless line in every university article in India? Please stop edit warring and have a consensus with other editors first before adding your opinion. JRDkg (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

~

Yes, this information should and will be added to all 30 red-flagged universities in India out of ~1100. I agree it's a systemic issue across both public and private universities. However, my edits are limited to red-flagged universities based on credible secondary sources, not opinion or personal agenda. Regarding "original research," once a finding is covered by independent media (Nature journal here) or academic commentary, it becomes verifiable, not WP:OR. If there's disagreement, I suggest taking it to the article's talk page to build consensus, rather than edit warring. Neurofreak (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I think adding these in a single article page dedicated to it would be better instead of using the same line in each of the individual pages (out of context). This is also because rankings/academics sections generally don't include such statements other than the actual methodologies used for ranking. So the best thing here would be to add this list to a dedicated page concerning the research findings. JRDkg (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I've made a dedicated page: Research Integrity Risk Index and I'll step back from editing individual university articles for now. Just to be clear, I am a researcher working outside India, but my own alma mater is on that red-flag list! So this was never personal. It’s about confronting systemic issues, even when it’s uncomfortable. Plagiarism, fake rankings, and poor research practices that are holding back Indian science. My edits were motivated solely by a commitment to research integrity. Neurofreak (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree about poor research practices in India and apologize for assuming you were doing this out of some personal agenda. Keep up the good work! Thanks. JRDkg (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Plaksha University is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plaksha University until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Filmssssssssssss (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alagappa Government Arts College, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alagappa Government Arts College until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2026 (UTC)