Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
Here are some links to pages you may find useful:
You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
If you edit without an account, your IP address (183.82.199.109) is used to identify you instead.
We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).
Happy editing! Ninney (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
Here are some links to pages you may find useful:
You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
If you edit without an account, your IP address (183.82.199.109) is used to identify you instead.
We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).
Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 14:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
You might have added useful info, but you removed some content which is useful. Just corrected some sentences and not removed any of your contributions.--Vin09 (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
I saw that you reverted my edits. I think there is some confusion or something got lost in to translation.
Are you trying to say that the river water hasn't been reaching the ocean for most years ( since when ?) or is it that in any calendar year the river water does not reach the ocean. Please clarify so that we can correct the statement if necessary. Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolleru_Lake
Please look here, Kolleru is fed by 68 canals more than half of them from Krishna River. It is unique in that it is in the flood plains of two big rivers.
Raja Of Muktyala (also colloquially called Projectula Prasad) is the legal heir of all land in Guntur, Krishna, East Godavari and substantial land in Nalgonda and Mahabugnagar. The under water area of Nagarjuna sagar - 70.5 thousand acres was part of the private estate of the Raja. The land traditionally acquired by paying a compensation was donated by the Raja prior to the princely state act was promulgated. The Raja was one of the richest people in the world at that time though he left not a penny in inheritance to his children. He considered himself the custodian of peoples wealth instead of owner and he spent the rest of it on the revival of the canal systems of Krishna River and establishment of various educational institutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.95.119.150 (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budameru Budemeru is a Krishna river tributary. you should research and learn before you assert force fully.. and delete material
http://guntur.nic.in/nagarjuna_sagar.html Largest masonary dam, this is also in every school text book. You should have atleast googled before you deleted it. Your edits should enhance the knowledge in the article not delete stuff you don't know any thing about. That is a government data by the way.. you could have found that reference and added to the quality of the article instead of vandalizing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:C000:3311:49A:C7C9:9AB8:EE61 (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
I'd like to see what kind of reliable source led you to this. None of that makes sense at all, not a single bit.--Jasper Deng (talk) 12:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
- This is completely nonsensical for many reasons; the energies in weather systems are that many orders of magnitude bigger and I don't see how turbines could induce a ridge.
From your above observation, you are not contradicting its theoretical possibility. Yes, selective artificial up-welling by floating wind turbines to deflect the global winds to prefer land journey than ocean journey, is a gigantic task which needs few 100 billion US$ using nearly 100,000 MW pumping power. The density difference between surface water and cold deep water (below 1,000 m depth at 4°C compared to 23°C sea surface water in tropical seas) in tropical sea is not much which require not more than 50,000 pascals (5 meters of water column / pressure) pumping head to achieve artificial up-welling. Once the up-welling is initiated, the cold stagnant clouds generated locally would absorb most of the day time solar radiation reducing heat gain by surface water and also the cold stagnant high pressure zone created by up-welling, induces atmospheric inversion bringing cold upper level air to aid or strengthen the atmospheric high pressure zone on the sea to force the global surface winds to take detour journey via nearby land mass by acting like barrier/cold air ridge to the global winds. (i.e. the land mass is relatively at lower pressure compared to adjacent sea area as the global winds flow from higher pressure to lower pressure)
Regarding economic feasibility, it may not be profitable now but may be in future when floating wind turbines cost reduces further and value of benefits accrued by the artificial up-welling (energy savings in terms comfortable weather on landmass, more rain without drought years, plenty of fish catch from the tropical seas, etc.) are attractive.
You may educate me how it is not going to work theoretically.183.82.199.109 (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Well first off this is all original research and can't be included. Do you not realize exactly how much energy weather systems contain? A powerful tropical cyclone like Hurricane Patricia releases as much energy as a nuclear bomb every few minutes, for example. Extratropical cyclones and larger-scale monsoon systems involve even more energy, many orders of magnitude higher than any amount of energy conceivable by wind turbines. You are not going to make a single dent in this with even thousands upon thousands of wind turbines, not even a few hundreds of gigawatts of power (also think about the work your pumping scheme would entail - you propose to move trillions of cubic meters of water, which would amount to quadrillions of joules of work - you're not going to get anywhere near that with any man-made power source; you are forgetting that water pressure is proportional to the weight of the overlying water column and so increases linearly with depth, and appreciable upwelling requires much much more depth than 5 meters). You are also incorrect that upwelling necessarily induces a ridge of high pressure. For example, the Icelandic Low manifests itself over colder waters than the Bermuda High. Even if a high pressure area could be created, there also would be no guarantee that its resultant wind pattern is the desired one. The strongest and most important high pressure areas aren't always the ones over sea; the Siberian High is a land-based system, for example. It is also incorrect that "cold stagnant clouds" would form, as water temperatures are far from the only factor governing cloud formation. Simply put, your scheme has no hope of ever becoming practical and shows a lack of education with climate science.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
- You are talking about creating massive cyclones on the sea area and comparing the energy needed whereas I am talking about just tinkering with the global surface winds flow on the sea to pass 20% more winds on the nearby land area by inducing limited area (200,000 sq km) high pressure atmospheric zone at selected place. You are generalising that high pressure zones are formed on land mass in high latitude areas only. They are formed in a less degree extent on tropical seas also. Indian Ocean Dipole is one example which is formed by up-welling of cold sea water. It has profound effect on monsoon behaver on Indian subcontinent, south east Asia and Australia.
- Your statement that the pumping head /water column applicable is from the depth of sea where water is extracted is not correct. It is only density difference between the surface water and the deep see water multiplied by the depth from where deep sea water is extracted. In a U tube barometer, the level difference and not the liquid column height is the differential pressure.
- Hope, you may have second thoughts.183.82.199.109 (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Clearly then you still do not have an understanding of climate science and I will give no more replies after this. Tinkering with global wind flows requires just as much energy as tinkering with cyclones (just for example consider the thermal energy released by the condensation of water for monsoon rainfall). Just do some math: 200,000 square kilometers is equal to 200,000,000,000 (200 billion) square meters. Pumping water up x meters over such an area, especially the hundreds of meters needed to create significant upwelling, requires prohibitively too much work, as given by the following calculations, while not necessarily producing the desired effect.
- When one lifts up a parcel of water, it is no different from lifting it in isolation (why? Force is additive over the whole water column). Therefore, lifting a parcel of water with infinitesimal mass dm over a height h requires work gh dm with constant gravitational acceleration. Integrating this quantity over any volume within the water shows that your reasoning about the work required is completely bogus. And I am talking work (or equivalently, energy, by the work-energy principle), not force here. I don't care what a barometer will show because that is not the situation described. In the case of a U-shaped barometer, the appropriate thought experiment is emptying it by pushing with a piston on one end. The amount of work needed to do that is that needed to lift a whole column of water, regardless of the magnitude of the force used to accomplish that. Your argument says nothing about work, only the pressure, which is not the same. And in any case, that argument is also wrong. The difference in density between the surface and the bottom of the ocean is not more than 5%. You are not telling me that the pressure at the bottom of the ocean is also different by only 5% from the surface. You need to read more about Archimedes' principle. If your calculation is based on the utility of utilizing the motion of water moving downward to compensate for the water moved upwards, then you are forgetting that the gravitational potential energy hence released cannot be used due to its dispersive nature.
- I also never claimed that high pressure zones are always landlocked high latitude systems like the Siberian High (and nor is the Indian Ocean Dipole a single high pressure system; your proposed logic that upwelling implies high pressure is just nonsense in full generality). I just proposed that and other examples such as the Bermuda High as counterexamples to the very physical basis of your idea. Even if it were feasible to do the work required to upwell that much, it would a. not necessarily lead to a high pressure ridge, b. not necessarily lead to your proposed wind scheme (for example, if a land-based high pressure system dives south and negates any pressure gradient), and c. not necessarily lead to your desired benefits (for example, the high pressure ridge could end up suppressing convection where it's needed).
- And the bottom bottom line is, without multiple reliable sources agreeing with your proposal, it must stay out of the article as unfounded (and here, clearly wrong) original research, especially since you clearly have not done the basic math prerequisite to any academic discussion of this subject.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Electricity sector in India with this edit, without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
- The FY 2016-17 data is updated (same is indicated in the edit log also) and the data which is many years old is deleted as it is not indicating latest power position in the country. Just observing substantial data was deleted and sending a message is not correct. Please check the relevance of old data and send the message. It is better to discuss in the Talk Page instead of messaging on your or my talk page for the general readers. Please do the same. 183.82.199.109 (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means
uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the
purpose of Wikipedia, our
standards of behavior, or relevant
policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as
editing restrictions,
bans, or
blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Kautilya3 (
talk) 23:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Reply
Please do not misuse talk pages to post your unsourced personal opinions - phrases such as "The probable incorrect design concept is to ..." are clearly just your PoV. Not a proposal for improving the article.
Talk pages are not a "web-host" to try and publicise opinions that cannot be included in the article. Please do not re-add - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Polavaram Project. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Talk page is for expressing the POVs also. If you have valid point / POV, you can also express in the talk page contradicting others views. Your are terming a meaningful content as vandalism as I have not deleted others content in the talk page. As a general editor, you are showing undue interest on this talk page without any knowledge of the subject. First of all you declare that you do not have any vested / biased interest on Polavaram Project as an Wiki editor. I am first time seeing an editor removing others content from a talk page.183.82.199.109 (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page The Gold (Control) Act, 1968 has been reverted.
Your edit here to The Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (http://hindumythologyforgennext.blogspot.in/2012/05/pariskshit-and-kali-death-of-parikshit.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Kaveri River water dispute, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Tyler Durden (talk) 08:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Solar power in India, Union territory...... Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please follow wikipedia guidelines while editing and feel free to create an account for future work. Xxxxx365 (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Provide opinion Forceradical (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
The content you wanted to delete is gist of President's responsibilities/duties vs Prime minister / Judiciary as per constitution and its interpretations by the judiciary. If you have serious objections on the content, please express with reasons in the 'talk page of the article' for public view and response. I feel that content should not be deleted as it is valid, highly informative and thought provoking for better democratic values. 183.82.199.109 (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
- I had already updated the talk page and have pinged you there and added the TB template out of courtesy here. You may add your said rebuttal there .If you still disagreement we may need toseek the opinion of experts @ WP:India or for that matter any other noticeboard-Forceradical (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
This shared IP address has received multiple warnings for inappropriate edits. Since different users may be using this IP address, many of these warnings may be stale. Click [show] at far right to see all previous warnings and/or blocks.
