User talk:Prainog

Welcome!

Hello, Prainog, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Lst 27 17:47, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bx Science Nobel statistics

Prainog: I was wondering if you could share the data that you used to determine that Science would tie at 21st in Nobels if it were a country - I'm curious as to how it slipped from 10th in 2003 to 21st in 2006, unless of course 10th was inaccurate. Statistics are not my thing, but something doesn't quite make sense to me in that - a lot of other countries suddenly went from 6 to 8? I love this statistic, as it really captures the special nature of the school's alumni (I'm one, but obviously not a Nobel laureate in math), but I did want to be sure that it is correct. Thanks very much- you can answer me on my Talk page User_talk:Tvoz or by email - whatever you prefer. I'm also posting this question on the Talk:Bronx_High_School_of_Science page, in case you see that first, and you can answer there if you like. Tvoz 22:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Root cause

Hi Prainog,

To the best of my recollection, all the links I removed were either TapRoot links or links to other consulting websites. Again to the best of my recollection, all the material was either unsourced or sourced only to internal products (ie literature produced by the company), or led up to a sales pitch of some kind.

External links are rarely necessary in an article. They generally make up the top portion of the food pyramid - in other words, nice in some cases but not at all required for a good article. What we aim for moreso is the addition of cited content from what are considered reliable sources of information. So, if there is information that you feel is missing from the article, it is better (and preferable) to include the information here and cite sources for it, rather than just adding external links to that information. If the article becomes lengthy, it can always be split up. I noticed on the talk page that you mention root cause and the analysis of such can apply to many various disciplines - the article could always be split into, say, Root cause analysis (engineering), Root cause analysis (political theory), etc. with Root cause analysis becoming a disambiguation page.

Back to links though - WP is a bit picky about what's considered reliable, and I can't recall ever seeing promotional material from a vendor/consultant/etc. considered reliable (unless of course the article is specifically about that vendor's product). I admit however that I am going on memory here though and cursory look at the links I removed. If there are any in particular you think were removed in error please feel free to let me know and I'll take a closer look. Otherwise please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. Cheers! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Age category

Hello! If you are receiving this message, that means that your user page is in a specific year category. Per a recent user-category per deletion, all specific year categories are to be deleted. If you wish to continue using year categories, you have two options:

Using an age group category, such as Category:Wikipedians in their 30s
Using a decade category, such as Category:Wikipedians born in the 1970s.

If you wish, you may do both. Hopefully, this change in categorization will be quick and painless. Happy editing! --An automated message from MessedRobot 12:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup

Wikipedia:Meetup/Tampa -- You're invited! Hires an editor (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]