VikramVS1208
August 2020
edit
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Dhone has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Dhone was changed by VikramVS1208 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.85142 on 2020-08-14T07:10:45+00:00
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Kurnool, you may be blocked from editing. - Arjayay (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Materialscientist (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at List of cities in Andhra Pradesh by population. - Arjayay (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Adoni. - Arjayay (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at List of cities in Andhra Pradesh by populationChinnusaikrish (talk) 09:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Your entire page is full of warnings from wikipedia. Keep that in mind and don't disrupt the pages as you like. The information I added was relevant in the sources I have added down but the numbers you were adding were not relevant in the sources. And what is your intention of deleting the sources added by some others ? The next time you delete any source or anything, you will be reported again and blocked from editing anything - Chinnusaikrish (talk) 09:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
link notification for September 1
editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Renadu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kamalapuram. 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) 06:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the population figures
editYou said page no 185 of East Godavari states that OGs were merged in Kakinada Municipal Corporation. If that is the case, then Page no of 169 of Census Handbook of Kurnool states that all the OGs of Kurnool are also merged in it's Municipal Corporation. You can check it if you want. and Kurnool's population is wrongly shown as 484,327 instead of 4,30,214.
So if it's Kurnool you are considering the OGs and adding that population to Kurnool Municipal Corporation but if it's Kakinada you are intentionally not adding them. This is very very bad and your intention is clear with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinnusaikrish (talk • contribs) 12:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I am adding the M.Corp and Ogs population provided by many websites and giving the proper end result.
The sources you provided doesn't show the population of Kurnool, Rajamahendravarm and Tirupati correctly and entirely.
For your information OGs are never included in the Municipal Corporations.
And Please check the page 26 of the handbook you have uploaded.
It shows M.corp and OGs as separate entities of the cities and they combinely become U.A.
A part-OG known as "Indrapalem" was not mentioned in the website you have given and I gave the information of it in the website provided below. Watch it.
www.census2011.co.in/data/subdistrict/4913-kakinada-rural-east-godavari-andhra-pradesh.html The part "Kakinada Municipal Corporation" of population "71,644" is the (Indrapalem - Part OG) which is the only included OG, that is why it was referred as "Kakinada Muncipal Corporation".
And now you can check the complete population as 384,182 here in the given website below which included Indrapalem-Part OG of population 71,644.
www.census2011.co.in/data/town/802955-kakinada-andhra-pradesh.html which combines now with the population and makes it 384,128 (312538 + 71644 = 384,182)
Now, You can check the population of Kakinada in even other website given below which has this "Indrapalem OG" and that is why it's showing as 384,182
www.citypopulation.de/php/india-andhrapradesh.php It shows Kakinada population as 384,182 which is even bigger than Rajamahendravaram and Tirupati. But you are intentionally putting Kakinada down. If OGs are included in M.Corps as you are saying , then Population of Kurnool, RJM and Tirupati is less than Kakinada, as population of OGs of Kakinada is bigger than their OGs.
Kurnool M.Corp population is bigger than Kakinada. Yes it is correct. I know this and I admit this.
But if Ogs are included, Kakinada population is bigger than Kurnool. You know this, That is why you are not adding OGs population and changing it intentionally.
You are including Ogs population in all other cities but you are not including OGs of Kakinada as you know it is bigger and will be above Kurnool.
www.census2011.co.in/data/subdistrict/4913-kakinada-rural-east-godavari-andhra-pradesh.html Go through this website, 71644 responds to Indrapalem- part OG of Kakinada which is in the municipal corporation M. Corp population 312538 + Indrapalem Population 71644 = 384182 - This is Kakinada M. Corp's population which is even mentioned in the website.
The other OGs are Chidiga, Ramanayyapeta, Suryarao peta, Ganganapalle, Sarpavaram, Vakalapudi, Turangi and their Population is 125698. You can check
their individual population which was not included in Kakinada which proves that they are not merged in Municipal Corporation. So, your doubt is
completely solved here in the below website. Go through it.
www.census2011.co.in/census/metropolitan/351-kakinada.html which makes it combined 509,729 (Municipal Corporation 384182 + OGs 125698) as how you calculated for the rest of the cities.
Population of Rajahmundry is 341,831 and OGs population is 135042 which makes it combined 476873
Population of Tirupati is 274112 and OGs population is 195529 which makes it combined 469641
Population of Kurnool is 430,214 and OGs population is 54023 which makes it combined 484327.
Population of Kakinada is 384182 and OGs population is 125698 which makes it combined 509729.
The OGs population of Kakinada, Rajamahendravaram and Tirupati are bigger than Kurnool. You have to admit this fact and That is why Kakinada comes above.
At first, you removed information about the proposal for greater municipal corporation of cities and you even deleted the smart cities info too as Kurnool is not a smart city. This intention of yours is not correct as I was the one who added lot information in Kurnool page. All I am doing is with sources from all websites not with only website as you are showing. Understand this.
I can understand your feeling, but you have to accept the fact. If M.corp is taken into consideration, Kurnool is big and comes 5th. But if Metro (U.A) is taken, Kakinada is big and comes 5th
I think I have completely submitted the proofs and sources you asked for and hope cleared everything. Thanks Chinnusaikrish (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Regarding 2011 census.
editHai Vikram
I am S.Ramesh with user Id RamuRS2212. I am from Kadapa. I have seen your contributions to Kadapa, kurnool, Anantapur, Nellore and chittoor pages. I came to know that Someone with id 'Chunnusaikrish'is wantedly changing the population of cities. He also have fake account of 'Ddsr123'.Be careful from such idiots.
coming to the point I want to know the History of Gandikota published by Kadapa District Tourism in 2016. If you have Pdf of that book. Please provide the link. Thanks Brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RamuSR2212 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the population figures
editI have seen all your theory.
Now listen to me.
According to your theory, if OGs are already included in M.Corps, then Population of Rajahmundry will be 442371 not 476,873. See below.
Population of Rajahmundry M.Corp is 341,831
Population of Katheru(C.T.) is 23,572
Population of Morampudi (C.T) is 15,346
Population of Hukumpeta (C.T) is 16,985
Population of Dowleswaram (C.T) is 44,637
-------------
442,371
-------------
(Bommuru, Rajahmundry NMA are included in M.Corp as you can see in page no. 185).
So your theory is wrong, the population of rajahmundry can only become 476,873 if population of Bommuru and Rajahmundry NMA are added
Population of Bommuru 16,976
Population of Rajahmundry NMA 17,526
------------
34,502 + 442,371 = 476,873
-------------
(So your theory of OGs already included is wrong as you have taken the population of Bommuru and Rajahmundry NMA even though they are OGS and added them
to 442,371 which gives rise to 476,873)
So I am changing the population of Rajahmundry to 442,371 as OGs are already included in Rajahmundry M.Corp according to your theory.
Now let's come to Kurnool
The population of Kurnool Municipal Corporation is 406,797 (you can check this in the page no 9 in 2011 census handbook of Kurnool)
Population of Kurnool Muncipal Corporation 406,797
Population of Mamidalapadu (C.T) 26,694
------------
433,491
------------
(Dinnedevarapadu, Pandipadu, B.Thandrapadu, Peddapadu, Pasupala, Rudravaram, Laxmipuram are included already in M.Corp according to your theory.)
Refer Page no. 169
Now lets come to Tirupati
The population of Tirupati Municipal Corporation is 402,667 (Settipalle, Thummala Gunta, Thimminaidupalle are OGs and are already included in M.Corp.)
Population of Tiruapti Municipal Corporation 402,667
Population of Avilala (C.T.) 24,839
Population of Cherlopalle (C.T.) 6,143
Population of Mangalam (C.T.) 19,318
Population of Perur (C.T.) 11,127
----------
464,094
----------
(Tiruchanur, Tirupati NMA and Akkarampalle are earlier C.T.s and are already included in Tirupati.)
So as everything is followed clearly here, anyone can understand and hope you too can understand.
And talking about deleting the smart cities info, you said I didn't provide any source. You yourself could have added the source or you could have messaged me instead to add it. You didn't do any of these and you just deleted the whole info which can be understood by anyone. Your reason is very poor and childish.
And about the greater municipal corporations, the proposals of those cities I have added are long pending and were initiated many times and gone back. If you feel there are other cities for that proposal, you can add them too. There is no objection in it but your way of deleting it is the objection.
I hope this solves your and your other friend RamuSR2212's doubts too who even deleted info about smart cities like you and now talking about partiality and humanity and started barking on others. Thanks Chinnusaikrish (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinnusaikrish (talk • contribs) 15:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Reply to VikramVS1208's rude behaviour of not answering to the questions related to his edits.
editYour reply to me on my page didn't answer the theory u have proposed or has any sync with the source which is very unfortunate.
You didn't answer your theory of OGs already included in M.Corp ?
I have given u the example of Rajahmundry and even Tirupati whose population changes, as OGs are already included in M.corp according to your theory.
But instead even after not answering the questions, you behaved very rudely on behalf of someone else which is very strange and you remained silent when the same user used the same unparliamentary language on me.
Coming to the population issue,
No source mentions about the Municipal Corporations of any cities in the sources you have given. Please know that.
It just gives urban population of the mandals which is what I was referring to you.
According to that, Rajahmundry's Urban Population is 341,831 which is nothing but the municipal corporation's population (Refer page no 9 again)
According to that, Tirupati's Urban Population is 402,667 (refer page no 22 again)
And You said that Kurnool's M.corp is also present in Kallur mandal which is nothing but OGs of Kallur Mandal. i.e.,. Peddapadu, Pandipadu and Laxmipuram which are already included in Kurnool Urban Population which falls under Kurnool Urban Mandal. (Refer Page.No 169 again)
Kurnool's Municipal Population is present only in 3 OGs of Kallur Mandal, not in all of Kallur Mandal as you are claiming. Together they are represented as Kurnool Mandal and population is represented as the same. Now page no 9 shows the same which I am saying (Refer Page No 9 again)
If you have any doubt with this, you can check all other cities population which shows the urban population with OGs as the Municipal Corporation's population.
Unfortunately you didn't understand the meaning of Municipal Corporation or a city's population. A municipal corporation is a city's urban mandal's population. And rural mandal's population is counted only if it becomes OG. Then along with OG, it is calculated as Municipal Corporation. And if Census Town (Rural Mandal of the city) is added to this, it becomes Urban Agglomeration.
Population of Kurnool's mandal is 406,797 (OGs of Kallur mandal included in M.corp) (refer page no.9)
This is Kurnool's Municipal Corporation population. Kallur mandal is already included in Kurnool as OGs.
This along with Mamidalapadu (C.T) gives U.A. population i.e.,. 406797+26694 = 433491 - This is Kurnool's population, not 484,327 as you are claiming.
So, I don't know how you are claiming Kurnool's Municipal Corporation as 430,214. I want you to show me this exact figure "430,214" in the source.
And I have shown you the example of Rajahmundry with exact figures and You didn't show answer to me with the figures of Rajahmundry ? I have also shown the example of Tirupati with exact figures and you didn't show answer to me with the figures in this aspect too. Why ?'
When you have shown me the figures about Kakinada. I observed and I completely agreed with that. And I didn't question about Kakinada's figures anymore. But you are not doing the same with Kurnool. Why ?
I want you to please check Rajahmundry and Tirupati's figures I have given in your page once again.
According to that, Tirupati comes 5th, Kakinada comes 6th, Rajahmundry comes 7th and Kurnool comes 8th.
Is this why you are not replying me with exact figures mentioned in the source ?
I want you to take time and reply me with figures just like how you did to Kakinada as I even agreed with that totally. I will wait. I am having the figures to edit right away but I will not edit and I will wait for your explanation.
And if you say the same number "430,214" again without the exact figures mentioned in the source and add the already included OGs of Kallur and Mamidalapadu C.T. to it and show it as "484,327" then I will proceed to edit the page as I am having the exact figures from the sources.
So come with the exact figures from the source rather than putting a figure randomly to show it above all these. Don't show me the population from any websites now at this point, as we have the government's source which is supreme.
If you can't convince me with the figure, I will edit and if you undo it and I see any reply from you again as "Kurnool City population is 457,633 + 26,694 = 484,327" without showing the exact figures or proof from the sources unlike how I did to every city, I will refer this to a confirmed user who will take care of the situation.
This can be easily solved between both of us if you come with exact proof like how you did to Kakinada. Thanks Chinnusaikrish (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Repy to VikramVS1208 about his attitude
editYour attitude towards me is not encouraging, particularly in this issue.
And you even behaved on behalf of someone else even though you are not related to it.
The same user you were referring to also linked me with other user and abused me in your talk page. You remained silent. Where were you when that happened. Thanks Chinnusaikrish (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Regarding Kurnool Population
editI have seen your explanation.
At first, I asked you to show me the figure "430,214" in the source as Municipal Corporation which you again failed to do.
You after watching Kurnool's population in some websites, putting the figure "430,214" as municipal corporation which is very evident.
At first, you told it was 430,214 but now you changed it whole 484,237
I know Kurnool's Urban population is 339,259 but I know the figure is very less so I took 406,797 as Municipal corporation even though I know there is rural population in it.
I understood that you were saying whole Kallur Mandal is in Kurnool Municipal Corporation.
If that is the case, Let me tell you.
If you say whole Kallur Mandal comes under Kurnool, then whole Kakinada rural mandal comes under Kakinada, whole Rajahmundry whole rural population comes Rajahmundry, whole Tirupati's whole rural mandal comes under Tirupati.
This is against to the definition of Municipal Corporation. If any mandal's or villages or towns comes under M.Corp, then it is not shown as OG in any M.corp, it will be generally added in Kurnool urban mandal.
Kallur mandal is treated as rural mandals of Kurnool. Any OGs or urban population belonging to Kallur are added in M.Corp of Kurnool just like how rural mandal OGs are added in Kakinada, Tirupati and Rajahmundry M.corps.
You took whole population of Kallur 144,798 instead and added it to 312,835 and again showed the same figure 484,237 as the whole.
You said there are no OGs of Kallur present in M.Corp and full Kallur mandal is present in it which is wrong as OGs of Kallur are represented clearly in page no. 169. If Kallur is represented in Kurnool, then urban population of Kurnool should have been mentioned as 457, 633 instead of 339,529 in page no.9. (as Kallur mandal's population is also included according to you) So this gives you the answer.
Then, even I could claim all the Rural mandal population is in M.corp of Kakinada, Tirupati and Rajahmundry and add it to their urban population.
Okay let's agree with this theory.
Then
Kakinada Urban Mandal population = 312,538 Rajahmundry Urban Mandal Population = 341,831
Kakinada Rural Mandal Population = 174,129 Rajahmundry Rural Mandal Population = 166,973
--------- ----------
486,667 508,804
Tirupati Urban Mandal Population = 402,667
Tirupati Rural Mandal Population = 117,445
---------
520,112
You have to submit the proof of how whole Kallur Mandal is already included in Kurnool urban mandal category.
How do you say that whole kallur mandal is included in M.corp without any proof in the source just because a website added the whole population of Kallur mistakenly.
Why did they separately add the ogs of kallur to Kurnool M.Corp in page 169 iF Kallur already comes under Kurnool M.Corp which means they are specifying the ogs of Kallur as only the urban mandals of Kurnool. Only some OGs of Kallur are treated in Kurnool urban population. You have too add only that OGs of Kallur which comes under M.corp but not whole population. That is what they even represented the same for the rural mandals of the other cities.
You need to give clarity on this.
At first you added whole OGs mentioned in page no 169 to "430,214" and made it 484,372 And now you are again adding the kallur mandal's whole population to 312835 and again making it 484,327. again.
I need you to give me clarity again on this Thanks Chinnusaikrish (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Regardinng the websites
editYou have given the figure of 430,217 of Kurnool Municipal Corporation which doesn't sync with the source you uploaded.
So it is clearly evident that you took this figure from the website.
That is why I have given u some examples from the website.
Even you didn't explain from the source or webiste of how the municipal corporation became 430,217 as you first mentioned.
Even in that website they added whole population of Kallur instead of the ogs mentioned and gave it 484,327 which is what you are claiming from the beginning. They didn't do it properly. Whole Kallur population cannot be included and that's why there only OGs mentioned in the source.
And if whole Kallur population is included in M.Corp, that would be shown in the URBAN POPULATION IN KURNOOL MANDAL category as 457,633 instead of 339,529
They did correctly to every city but somehow added the whole population of Kallur mistakenly.
And you are simply following that website and giving the same 484,327 figure
That is why I am differing with you from the beginning.
If you show it
That is why I am asking you to give clarity from the source not from the website. Thanks Chinnusaikrish (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Final Reply and Clarification on Kallur Mandal and Kurnool, Kakinada, Rajamahendravaram and Tirupati's Populations
editI waited for your explanation for some days with patience and now I completely understood where you have gone wrong.
It is very unfortunate that you felt some private website as government website which is very strange and there are many private websites like the website you are referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinnusaikrish (talk • contribs) 11:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
After watching some websites, you felt that Kallur has an urban population of 144,798 and added it to Kurnool's urban population just like how those websites too did it mistakenly.
You need to understand one thing, Kallur is just a mandal and it has only population of "rural". The urban population of this "rural population" is only treated as OGs in Kurnool M.Corp.
Just like the rural Mandals of Kakinada, Tiruapti and Rajahmundry have urban populations in their repsective mandals which are treated the same way as OGs
Kallur Mandal has 20 villages.
You can refer this list of villages in the pdf I am giving you,
At first you said there are no OGs of Kallur added. And now you realised your mistake and admitted that infact, ogs are added in Kurnool.
And now you need to again realise that Kallur's population is 62,151 not 196,268 and the Urban population of Kallur is 10,861 (Peddapadu+Pandipadu+Laxmipuram[part]) not "144798" . Only this 10,861 is added as OGs in Kurnool Urban population.
Kallur's whole population 62,151 - Kallur's urban population 10,861 = 51,470 (which is what mentioned as rural population in page no.860)
And you can go through this website, which even mentioned the same.
http://www.indiagrowing.com/Andhra_Pradesh/Kurnool/Kallur
You can check the demography of Kallur and even if you count the population of each village in Kallur Mandal, you would get only population of 62,151
And now if the whole mandal's population is 62,151, how can you without any proof say that Kallur Mandal's population is 196,268 and the urban population of it is 144798 just because some websites mistakenly shown the same figures.
You are repeatedly mentioning that there is an urban population of Kallur mandal of 144798. Before saying that, you need to show "what villages" of Kallur mandal made that "144798" figure that you and some websites are mentioning.
I can show which villages of Kakinada rural mandal made the urban population of 71,644 => (Ganganapalle, Sarpavaram, Vakalapudi, Turangi) I can show which villages of Rajahmundry rural mandal made the urban population of 34,502 => (Bommuru, Rajahmundry NMA) I can show which villages of Tirupati rural mandal made the urban population of 7,841 => (Settipalle, Timminaidupalle, Thummala gunta[part])
Kakinada Urban Population 312,538
Kakinada Rural Mandal's urban part 71,644 (Ganganapalle + Sarpavaram + Vakalapudi + Turangi) refer page no 8 & 185
-----------
384,182 + 58846 (Chidiga + Suryaraopeta + Ramanayyapeta C.T.s) = "443,028 - Kakinada's U.A. population"
Rajahmundry Urban Population 341,831
Rajahmundry Rural Mandal's urban part 34,502 (Bommuru + Rajahmundry NMA) refer page no 8 & 185
-----------
376,333 + 100540 (Dowleswaram + Hukumpeta + Katheru + Morampudi C.T.s) = 476,873- Rajahmundry's U.A. Population
Tirupati Urban Population 293,421
Tirupati Rural Mandal's Urban part 7,841 (Settipalle + Timminaidupalle + Thummalagunta[part]) refer page no.11
-----------
301,262 + 174318 (Akkarampalle+Avilala+Mangalam+Peruru+Cherlopalle+Tirumala+Tiruchanur+Tirupati NMA C.T.s) = 475,580 - Tirupati's U.A. Population
In the same way you need to show which villages of Kallur mandal made the urban population of "144678" figure you are claiming.
You need to understand the fact that Kallur's population is actually "62,151" not 196,268. And Kallur's urban population is 10,861 not 144798.
Kurnool Urban Population 312,835
Kallur Mandal's Urban Part 10,861 ( Peddapadu + Pandipadu + Laxmipuram[part] )
-------------
323,696 + 26,694 (Mamidalapadu C.T.) = 330390 - This is Kurnool's U.A. population.
-------------
Anyone can understand what I said above and I hope it clears the miscalculations U did just referring to those websites.
I told you from the beginning that OGs of Kurnool is very less when compared to Kakinada and Rajahmundry which is proved now. That is why I am differing with you. That is why I told you that you have to accept the facts.
I waited all these days without editing, just to listen to your explanation which didn't prove accordingly. I respected the time of your explanation.
Right from the beginning you wanted me to believe that Kallur mandal has lot of population, Western part of Kurnool is present in 35% of Kallur mandal and there by somehow giving figure of Kurnool as 484,327.
No, anyone can't believe with just words without valid proof. That's why I differed with you right from the beginning as I know Kallur Mandal's population would not exceed 65000. But I waited all these days feeling that you might understand that by yourself.
But you didn't go through the demographies of Kallur mandal yet, that is where the whole problem came up and still blindly believing in those websites.
Anyone would give accept what I said above because there is no flaw in it and every detail is exact.
I cleared everything in this aspect and I am going ahead.
I can understand your feeling, but I want you to understand the facts. I respected the time and waited all these days. You should do the same.
When we had a miscommunication, I respected the time of your explanation and I didn't do any edit from then. Now I expect the same from you.
And if you still undo it, then it would surely be the bad intention of distorting the facts and wanting only Kurnool to have on top. I don't expect that from an electrical engineer of JNTU.
And if the user "RamuSR2212" undoes it, as he believed in you and undid my edits, I want you to explain him the same what I did to you if he edits. So that he too might understand this whole concept.
I strongly believe I have nothing to say anything after this about the population figures. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinnusaikrish (talk • contribs) 10:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Regarding VikramVS1208 loose talk, frustrating attitude and lack of clarity
editIt would have been great if you have provided me the page no 919 earlier. All I asked was this.
I asked you how kallur is included in Kurnool and asked you to show me the proof. But u didn't. You simply gave me the number which was clearly evident that that number was taken by you from the website because no number like 144798 is present in the source. So, it was you who referred those websites. So I referred them again to you.
I asked you how kallur is included and u gave me no specific answer. I am giving you the answer.
Kallur has actually 21 villages not 20 villages.
One village of it known as Kallur C.T. was merged into Kurnool M.Corp which you can refer in page no.7. So this Kallur C.T. might have a population of 134117 Not the urban population of Kallur as you were saying. I wanted this answer from you. It would have been great if you said it as Kallur C.T. not Kallur mandal urban area which is wrong. That's where I asked you to give me list of villages of Kallur which makes this number 134117 not as Kallur urban Mandal which you still didn't where the whole problem arised. where the whole problem arised. So, your theory of Kallur urban mandal of population 144,681 is wrong as it's Kallur C.T. included in Kallur Mandal.
I even gave you some examples of other cities rural mandals but you said kallur is different and not rural. But you need to understand that Kallur is actually a rural mandal. But one C.T. of is merged with M.Corp.
The webiste provided by me was right and accurate which shows the rural population of Kallur.
Kallur Mandal has actually a population of 196368. No website mentions what 134117 population is from. I even asked u the same. But you to said just like the website and referred it as Kallur mandal urban area which is very different from saying Kallur C.T.
All I wanted from you is this clarity. If you said it as Kallur C.T. I would have looked for it in the source right away. But you without telling which villages of Kallur Mandal gives the number 144978 figure started the whole issue.
Even today you didn't say which villages made this 134117 like how I did with other cities repeatedly saying that those are rural Mandals. Rural mandal or kallur mandal, you didn't understand this concept.
You told me that i have taken 406,767 population of kurnool first, yes, I have taken it because I felt 312835 would have been small and if added with OG gives only small number. At this point you didn't explain me about Kallur mandal. Thats why I have taken 406000 number and added mamidalapdu.
You even told me that no OG of kallur mandal is included instead whole kallur mandal is included first and then admitting that ogs as included.
You said Kurnool Municipal Corporation as 430,214 sometimes and 3,12,835 which doesn't sync with the numbers provided in the source.
That's why I asked you to show me which village numbers made the M.corp population.
I can show you that now, Kurnool urban population 312853 + Kallur C.T. of Kallur Mandal 134117 = 446,970 This is actual Kurnool M.Corp population not 430,214 mentioned by that website. You wanted me to show what's wrong in that website. This is wrong in that. 446970+10861 = 457,633 This is M.corp + OG of Kallur
I wanted you to show me elaborately like this not by saying Kurnool M.Corp [Kallur Mandal] so that I could get which village or C.T. population is what. That's why I differed with you and that website.
Don't teach me about the numbers or addition or confusion now.
The pdf I provided also had this Kallur in Kallur mandal. The pdf uploaded by me is not wrong but you didn't see it properly. And I provided that pdf taking from another page not by creating myself. And I had given that for you to understand what villages or C.Ts are present in Kallur not for the population which you didn't understand properly again.
You repeatedly said I am talking against Government sources, which is very very wrong. I didn't say government sources are wrong, I said figures provided in the source doesn't sync with the websites you had seen. Funny that you didn't understand the difference between this. I was blaming the website not the government source. If I had blamed government source, I would have not taken the urban population numbers from the government source. Know that.
You talked about RamuSR2212 saying not to talk about third person. If the same third person abused me in your talk page, Why didn't you say the same to that third person to solve it with me ?
You deleted the smart city info with a reason that there are no sources which you could have uploaded or asked me to. So don't talk about intentions of others.
I was the one who added the information that you are seeing on main page of Kurnool, you can check in it's history if you want. As there was no clarity on the population I waited all these days. If not why would I wait all these days. I would have done what I wanted. Why will I wait for your reply or your explanation ? you can't understanding this is very unfortunate.
Even When I changed the page's population as M.Corp+O.G. you could have added Kurnool as 457,633 and it would be still in 5th. But you again changed it to U.A. just to put Kakinada down in 8th which is not encouraging.
I am now adding the true population of M.Corp + O.G. Don't change it as U.A.s as there is another page for that. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinnusaikrish (talk • contribs) 17:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Andhra Pradesh
editRegarding your recent edit here. You've changed the numbers but didn't provide incline citations. Instead you've added links at the bottom in the reference section. This way it is difficult to verify the changed population figures in the table. I'd suggest you use appropriate references in the table using <ref></ref>
tags. Note that Andhra Pradesh is a level 4 vital article and this type of editing makes it look ugly. The references will get removed if you do not make the necessary changes. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding this, the populations for Visakhapatnam and Vijayawada do not match. Others are OK. Change those numbers accordignly and remove the refs from the bottom. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 12
editAn automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rayalaseema, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dharmavaram.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia and copyright
edit
Hello VikramVS1208, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Srisailam 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
- 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 the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia: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 in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
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, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
October 2020
edit {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)- This block has been revised to indefinite due to block evasion / persistent disruptive editing / refusal to discuss. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)