User talk:TricanaQ

Hello, Tricana8571uno, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Sport in India. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Razer(talk) 06:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Tricana8571uno (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joint_Entrance_Examination_%E2%80%93_Advanced&oldid=prev&diff=1101338895

"29.54% out of which who were only eligible to write JEE Advanced"

The language used here is pretty vague. Can you define what does qualification rate means? I mean does it includes just only IIT's or other colleges like NIT's GFIT's and IIIT's because technically you can take admission in these colleges even after being above cut-off.

In my opinion it would be better to add data for individual categories for better clarification. Srijan Suryansh (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey Srijan, I want only to give actual information provided by the exam administrator itself(IIT) for being authentic.

https://www.iaspaper.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/JEE-Advanced-2021-Result-Press-Release.pdf

They said in their press release that out of 141699 appeared, 41862 qualified. That's what qualification means isn't it. I did little data look in JEE report and look like they provide relaxation to some category of students in passing marks but still they are qualified and part of total number of applicants. They are not second class applicants so you can't ignore them in data.

One thing you can do is please mention how many students qualified under relaxation, namely 10% for GEN-EWS/OBC-NCL, 50% for SC/ST/PWD and 75% for SC/ST/PWD preparatory courses. Since they count these applicants also in the qualified category. But they didn't have the date of 2021 report, so can paste 2020 data or wait.

But qualification rate should remain 29%, what it is. Thanks Tricana8571uno (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok i get it now but still it would better if we add category wise qualification Srijan Suryansh (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear User:Tricana8571uno, As a new editor at Wikipedia, I would like to take a moment to express my gratitude for your contributions to the pages on "Joint Entrance Examination - Main","Joint Entrance Examination - Advanced" and "Ministry of Defence (India)" Your expertise and attention to detail have been invaluable in improving the quality and accuracy of these pages.

Thank you for your continued dedication to the Wikipedia community.

- Best regards, Macrobreed2 (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for appreciation Tricana8571uno (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tricana8571uno you seem to have contributed in law related topics. You can share inputs @ WT:MOS/LEGAL#Attention to updating of MOS guidelines if topic interests you.

Happy editing Bookku (talk) 08:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:7 nm process § Intel 7. Hi, I've noticed you changed the 'Intel 7' link on Raptor Lake from 7nm to 10nm, and the 'Intel 4' link on Meteor Lake from 5nm to 7nm, I just wanted to let you know that this has been discussed thoroughly over at the 7nm process talk page and that there is a rough consensus that Intel 7 should be called 7nm and vice versa. If you disagree, feel free to leave a comment there! Thanks! — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew, I didn't knew about discussion on this; still I think Intel is just doing a marketing gimmick by rebranding 10nm to 7; but since if there is a large consensus for Intel 7 as a 7nm process, i am reverting my edit Tricana8571uno (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Tbh I wasn't really requesting a revert, just letting you know about the discussion that's been had in the past about this.

Since the thread is quite long, I'll give a tl;dr on the matter: 7nm, 10nm, 14nm, these node names are actually all just marketing names; there's nothing about these nodes that are physically 7, 10 nanometres in size or whatever. Since the late 1990s, chip fabs have been increasing transistor density through other means than just linear gate size decreases. So there isn't really a strong point in calling Intel 7 a 10nm node, actually, as there is still nothing about it that is actually 10 nanometres in size. We call nodes from other foundries by what they themselves refer it to as (e.g. 3nm for Samsung "3nm", even though its density is closer to that of 5nm nodes from competing foundries), so might as well call Intel 7 a 7nm node. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 03:56, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi TricanaQ! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 04:05, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks THEZDRX. TricanaQ (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Topic name: Budget 30 cr per Vivek. IndianExpress one with 50 cr uses seemingly - unreliable

Hi,

2 of us had reached a consensus for putting budget as 30-50 cr for the film. but a 3rd person interjected and said "I think the gap between 30 and 50 is huge. We should stick to 50 crore for now"

Can you have please a look at the topic and put your comment there?

Talk:The Bengal Files

Thanks

Computeracct (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

Can you also please see this topic: MoneyControl and Scroll.in reviews

in the talk page and put your comment there?

Talk:The Bengal Files

Thanks

Computeracct (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#The Bengal Files Computeracct (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Requesting you to comment on these

Talk:The Bengal Files#Whether the movie distorts history or not

Talk:The Bengal Files#Direct Action Day, Noakhali riots - claim that these chapters were deliberately suppressed or ignored

so we can get consensus Computeracct (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Please don't remove pertinent information from Grokipedia (or elsewhere) again, as you did here. Especially not without giving a reason! Bishonen | tålk 19:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC).