User talk:Vibhss/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi, please use the talk page of Kashmir Valley to explain how you obtained the religious demography numbers. You need to generate consensus before reinstating the edit. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, you seem to be enjoying editing Wikipedia. But a lot of contribution made by you doesn't seems neutral. When you edit any page, if you are providing any information whether it be bad or good for the topic, should be added in encyclopedic manner. Don't remove contributions unnecessary. Articles should be written with NEUTRAL point of view. See

Hi, Vibhss. Sorry for the message which I sent. That was intended for the person who was doing all that Vandalism on the page Kota, Rajasthan. I mistaken you to be that disruptor. Actually, the info about suicides in Kota was originally added by me. When I looked at it some days back, I found it in a total mess. So I decided to leave a message for some guidelines. Now I have sent the final warning messages to that User:Pranav_Lalpuria for the vandalism. But still, I don't adhere to your point "more and more reliable sources should be added" as I have replied to your question for the same point. Think upon it. Be calm. ❤ TrendSPLEND ^✉ 14:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The ref invoked might be helpful for entry of a city. But the users who are unaware are taking it as a ref and adding the provisional population. Population.de might be a helpful one.--Vin09 (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello dear @Vibhss:, You did a great work on Shreya Ghoshal page. Keep editing on Wikipedia. Regards from

Thank you so much @

User:Zafar24. I will do so. Looking forward to all editors making healthy and worthy contributions to Wikipedia.Vibhss (talk

) 13:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The figure for Pakistan for the year 2015 released by world bank is 1429 rather than 1317. The figure you were trying to input is for the year 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrischen0410 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not an estimate dude...the World Bank has already released the total GDP and mid-year population for every country for the year 2015. Therefore, the only thing you need to do is importing these data and get excel to calculate the GDP per capita figure for you automatically...It's the actual figure and not an estimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrischen0410 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see your talk page for the message I sent you.Vibhss (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand that WB hasn't updated the data yet but that does not mean it hasn't released the data yet...It just takes time for them to update. I can guarantee that the data is the actual one. Also, why are only focusing on Pakistan only... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrischen0410 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The whole World Bank list is based on the actual number for the year 2015. I will tell you this once again, it is not an estimate. World bank has already released the total GDP figure and mid-year population figure for every country on July 1, 2016. Take your time and look into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrischen0410 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

All other countries are having the figures for the year 2015. Please check that again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrischen0410 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I will take the figure for Luxembourg as an example. The data for LUX for the year 2014 was 116,613 while the data on the list right now for the year 2015 is 101,393 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrischen0410 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh God...When was the last time you following the world economy trend? Brazilian real has been devalued for over 30% plus Brazilian economy has gone into a negative growth section. Reason behind it was Strong dollar and the decline of oil price globally — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrischen0410 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

No, It's not the case for other countries. The reason behind it is strong dollar. Because we measure gdp per capita for every country in USD, therefore when dollar goes strong, other currencies are going down against the US dollar. Therefore, it shows a huge decline on almost every country's gdp per capita. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrischen0410 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of awards and nominations received by Shreya Ghoshal page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Corrected the highlighted links. Vibhss (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Hindi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to List of highest-grossing Indian films, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Diffs: [1][2] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shreya Ghoshal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rustom. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi dear, @

Hi. Saw your message today. Sorry for being so late(took forever to get your message as i was very busy and inactive on wikipedia for a while). Anyways, the reason i deleted it is for some time i am seeing some radicals editing it to highlight their religion. They just increase their percentage or number shamelessly without any sources. As a result, i had to remove that numerous times. It got to the point that it seemed irrelevant to even be on that page. If you have credible sources, its good and i have absolutely no problem with that. Thank you.Wikiboy2364 (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Vibhss. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

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

Please do comment. Thanks. Trinidade (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, would you kindly check the recent changes (last 1 - 2 days) in GDP, etc in other Indian state articles, e.g in Maharashtra, West Bengal, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, etc. Regards - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:India#Largest_city Interstellarity (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Can you please change the GDP rankings. The nominal figures have been changed correctly. But it still says 7th as GDP ranking underneath the figure. It should say 5th. According to IMF, India which is mentioned in the wiki page is 2.97 trillion $ and it is the correct figure, U.K is 2.83 trillion $, and France is 2.76 trillion $. So please change only the ranking from 7th to 5th. Thank You. Sidnav18 (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Could please check different Indian states article where GDP and per capita aren't in syn with GDP per capita List or GDP List. Eg Tamil Nadu, West Bengal or Delhi--Priyansh90 (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Priyansh90: Well, the reason for that is GDP per capita List contains state-wise per capita NSDP figures instead of per capita GSDP ones and per capita NSDP (Net State Domestic Product) is obviously going to be less than per capita GSDP (Gross State Domestic Product). This has been done because official per capita NSDP figures are available for all states and union territories while per capita GSDP figures are available for a few selected states and those are not even official. The thing is most state governments release only "per capita income" figures which correspond to per capita NSDP and not per capita GSDP. In simple words, we can't compare per capita GSDP of one state with per capita NSDP of other. So, we've kept per capita NSDP figures for all states and union territories in the list article as they are available for all. Individual state articles can mention per capita GSDP figure if it is available and if it is not, the per capita NSDP figure can be mentioned. Vibhss (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Please update List of Indian states and union territories by GDP with official MOSPI source which the Govt of India has released recently instead of unofficial figure from PRSIndia.org. I noticed many individual states mention figure from PRS which is completely unofficial. PRS data has also been mentioned in the above list for few states. I appeal you always take Govt of India or Govt of individual states figure should be taken rather than PRS data. I already noticed you have updated Per Capita GDP list from MOSPI source or individual state govt source, but total GDP needs through update.Thanks--2405:201:8803:5F9D:E494:72C9:FAB9:FF07 (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@2405:201:8803:5F9D:E494:72C9:FAB9:FF07: There is nothing wrong with using PRS figures for total GDP of individual states and UTs. The PRS source, though itself unofficial is a reliable source and compiles budget analyses of various states and UTs based on the data given in the official budget speeches of the respective states. Besides PRS provides most recent (2019-20) GDP figures of many states. I used common MOSPI source for most states and UTs in List of Indian states and union territories by GDP per capita to maintain consistency and ensure that only per capita NSDP figures are used for all states and UTs and per capita GSDP figures of a few specific states are not mixed up with them. The important thing to mention here is that per capita GSDP figures (official and unofficial) are available for only a few Indian states while per capita NSDP figures are available for all. The thing is most state governments in India release only per capita NSDP figures as the state's "per capita income". Since both (per capita GSDP and per capita NSDP) are different and former is significantly greater than the latter, mentioning per capita GSDP figures for a few states in a list that contains per capita NSDP figures for most other states inflates the ranking of the former group of states. Therefore, per capita NSDP figures are used for all states and UTs and the MOSPI source has been used for most states since it is the only common source providing the latest data and that too official. MOSPI figures are anyways most reliable for per capita income (NSDP). In case of states for which MOSPI source doesn't have latest data and other reliable sources mentioning the same are available, the latter have been used. For total GDP or GSDP, there is no such problem since it is GSDP which is always used by state governments, print media and internet and never NSDP. Lastly, PRS figures are being used in total GDP list only because they are reliable in case of total GSDP and also PRS provides most recent data for many states.

By the time I replied to your message, you had already created a mess in total GDP list which I have now corrected to the best of my abilities with necessary updation of many states' figures using MOSPI as source. Kindly refrain from unnecessarily cluttering this article and instead do a little bit research yourself on identifying reliable sources for use at Wikipedia. Thank youVibhss (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@

Andhra pradesh, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, Punjab, India, West Bengal. All these states GSDP and per capita figure has been changed please correct it as soon as possible. But make sure that you provide with latest data available with source. And sorry for these changes made by me. Thanks--2405:201:8803:5F9D:5C93:866B:5DE1:F6B4 (talk

) 04:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Vibhss: Please ensure that you make proper changes to the above mentioned individual states article if MOSPI provide updated figure no need for PRS, if PRS provide updated figure then provide PRS source. Which ever gives upto date figure mention that source. Bottom-line up to date figure must be mentioned. Thanks--2405:201:8803:5F9D:644D:F947:D80E:29D9 (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

So, you're editing from different IP addresses. After noticing your edits in Delhi, it seems you fail to differentiate between per capita GSDP and per capita NSDP. I had told in my previous message the difference between the two in detail. In the infoboxes of individual state articles, total and per capita GDP are displayed together. Therefore, it makes sense to preferably use per capita GSDP figures over per capita NSDP in the infoboxes of states (very few of the total) for which the former are available and use per capita NSDP figures for the ones (majority) for which per capita GSDP figures are not available. In case of Delhi, per capita GSDP figures for 2017-18 are available and those figures ought to be used in the infobox. There is no problem if they're mentioned with 2018-19 total GSDP figures. I have purposely kept the 2017-18 figures for per capita GDP instead of your 2018-19 MOSPI figures. I hope you've got to know the reason. The concept of GDP (total and per capita) is not as apparent as you seem to think. Please do some proper research on the same. You're creating problems out of nothing. As for your above mentioned individual state articles, it's okay if you've added 2018-19 MOSPI figures. I'll update if the figures are older. Vibhss (talk) 09:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Vibhss: Thanks for the explanation. I admit its my fault, I won't edit any further about state article. But don't forget to correct those individual states article about their GSDP and Per capita figures. I basically edited those figure randomly with doing any reach whatsoever. Thanks--2405:201:8803:5F9D:6C49:40C7:2CA4:F213 (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Vibhss:, Could you please update the unemployment rate of Indian states the latest available source has been provided in the main article. Click Here, check page 212 for the entire state list. Thanks--Aakanksha55 (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Vibhss: I saw you have updated the unemployment list, there was no need to provide Urban + Rural data, Total data would have been sufficient, anyway there is an error Bihar unemployment rate (7.2%) is much higher, but you have put much lower. Check thoroughly once again the states data there could be few more this sort errors. Anyway Good Job. Cheers--Aakanksha55 (talk) 08:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Aakanksha55: Thanks for pointing out about Bihar. I've corrected that. And there are no more errors now. As far as individual Urban and Rural datas are concerned, they need to be provided for more detail as various Indian states and UTs are differently urbanized. And they were there even before updation. Vibhss (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Great!!

@Vibhss: Extreme vandalism going on with List of Indian states and union territories by GDP unable to control please something. User editing randomly putting bullshit numbers.--Aakanksha55 (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Namaste, Vibhss. We would like to inform you about the recent changes to the WikiProject. As you may know, the old newsletter for WikiProject India ceased circulation in 2010. Now we have re-launched the newsletter in a new way. As a member, you are cordially invited to subscribe to the newsletter. Thank you.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I have updated the GDP per capita of WB from 109k to ~129k,why u reverted??. If the growth rate of a state is X % for a financial year, what would be the output?? Current year=previous year + X% of previous year??. Also,its nominal gdp per capita,no base year ka chakkar.. Can't really understand the logic.. Sdc5671 (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sdc5671: Firstly, you should have posted your message under a new and separate heading. Nevertheless, the logic you're not understanding is that we are not supposed to use original research here on Wikipedia. Adding projected per capita income figures self calculated by using previous year figures in bookish mathematical formulae (as you did) certainly comes under original research. Unless the official estimated or consolidated figures for a given fiscal have been released by the state government and/ or have been compiled by Government of India's Ministry of Statistics and Programming Implementation and/ or have been quoted as such by news articles published by media websites deemed as reliable sources in Wikipedia, you cannot "update" (read manipulate) the previous reliably sourced figures; certainly not using your own self calculated figures. The present figures for all the states and UTs in the article are latest available official figures and are well supported by the common official MOSPI source (for most states) or official state economic survey (for a few states) or a reliable secondary source quoting either of the first two sources. I mostly update the latest official figures for any state as soon as they are released with a proper reliable source.

Also, I must tell you that we are using nominal per capita NSDP figures for all states in the concerned list article instead of per capita GSDP. The reason being that the official figures for the latter are available for very few states while the ones for former are available for almost all states and UTs. The value of per capita GSDP is significantly higher than the corresponding value of per capita NSDP. We can't use per capita GSDP figures for few states in a common list article and compare them with per capita NSDP figures of the rest majority of other states and UTs for which official per capita GSDP figures have not been explicitly released. It would unfairly raise the ranking and inflate the real figures of the states with per capita GSDP figures. And base year comes into play for per capita GSDP and per capita NSDP also. Hope you got all this. Vibhss (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I know every bit of what I did.I understand ur views , although I don't agree to,but still fine.. May I know,how the NSDP per Capita of Rajasthan(in year 2018-19) suddenly increased by 1k???

Sdc5671 (talk) 07:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Vibhss,

You undit my edits on the above article. My edits were not to add any new information, But to make it more readable. Here are my issues with the article and the table to be specific, 1. In a ranked table, the data in a particular column, should be of the same time period. Especially true, if data is available. And the reference ^[1] you quoted is fine. It has data for all the states / union territories for year 2017-18. 2. ^[2] could serve as a great example, from where i borrowed the above idea.

In, [Comparable Country] column There are various discrepancies in the year of indian state data is being compared to the year of the foreign country. Making the data standard, by comparing 2017-18 nsdp per capita to 2017-18 ndp per capita of countries would be factually right and easier to comprehend. This particular column has also led to edit wars. Could be removed.

So the changes i want to make finally to the table, 1. Retain columns [Per Capita PPP], [Comparable Country]. But data is very wrong. Could you put flags on the column so other people could correct it. 2. Like the US states by gdp article, I will insert data for the year 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 from the already present references. 3. Link the ranking to the 2017-18 data, since it is the only time series for which all the states have data.

Please raise any issues with the above if you have, before i spend time on the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basavaraj Patel (talk • contribs) 12:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Basavaraj Patel: Thanks for posting this message. I've also posted a detailed message on your talk page which might answer some of your queries. Kindly go through it. Yes, the comparable country column is problematic and can be removed. The changes you want to make in the table are fine but we must not depend just on a single common source (the one published by MOSPI in this case) since latest data (for 2019-20) has not been released by MOSPI for all the states and UTs yet. Among the states for which the 2019-20 data hasn't been released by MOSPI, the same has been released by some of the state governments in their respective economic surveys. That data has to be reflected here for those states and the links to official economic surveys of these states can also be used as sources. Also, since you intend to add 3 year data for all states, based on which year are you going to rank them? There are going to be some fluctuations in year wise rankings of the states. Vibhss (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@vibhss Could you explain what was wrong with the choropleth map. It uses the same data as the data from the listed sources. MoSPI data of Haryana 2018-19, 2019-20 data are quick estmiates and advanced estimates found in Haryana State economic survey. However, RBI and Finance Ministry has reduced the real figure from the 2018-19 quick estimate, in the Indian economic survey and live rbi handbook of statistics. Haryana might have double-counted value addition from chandigarh and delhi, so expected. This needs to be changed. 1. https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/PublicationsView.aspx?id=19000 (RBI) 2. https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/economicsurvey/doc/Statistical-Appendix-in-English.pdf (Page A-29, below is the screenshot)

Regarding the choropleth image, i have fed the existing data to create the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basavaraj Patel (talk • contribs) 04:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Basavaraj Patel: The 2018-19 figures for Haryana published by RBI and Finance ministry which you are trying to claim as "real" are themselves older advanced estimates (AE) first released by Haryana state government in their 2019 state budget. Haryana's economic survey for 2018-19 mentions the same "real" figures and the previous update of MOSPI data also mentioned the same figures. The 2018-19 AE figures were later on revised by Haryana government. The revised figures were reflected in 2019-20 Haryana economic survey and were also compiled by MOSPI after their latest February 2020 update. Haryana is not the only state party to such type of revision. The previous year per capita NSDP (especially those at current prices) figures are continuously revised (increased or decreased) for all states and UTs in subsequent years due to changing values of currencies. You can compare the statewise figures of MOSPI and those published in RBI yearly handbook. They are different for many states. Also, the source of state-wise figures released by MOSPI, RBI and Finance ministry is Directorate or Department of Economics of respective states as mentioned at the end of the concerned tables. It's not that only MOSPI uses state-wise Economic survey figures and RBI or Finance ministry release their own real figures by themselves

In case of Haryana, it is the state government which has increased the value of 2018-19 figues in quick estimates and not the RBI or Finance ministry that has reduced the same. The Indian Economic Survey data clearly states "As on 01.08.19" and therefore predates latest MOSPI data which has been updated on 28th Feb this year. The latest update of MOSPI data mentions the revised Quick estimate (QE) figures for previous fiscal years (including 2018-19) whereas the RBI handbook mentions older AE figures. QE or updated AE figures hold more precedence over older AE figures. There is absolutely no question of double-counted value addition in Haryana from Delhi and Chandigarh as the latter two are totally separate territories. The estimation of State Domestic Product follows the same standards all over India. Haryana is not an exception. So, there's nothing that needs to be changed with respect to 2018-19 or other year figures for Haryana at the moment.

As far as the choropleth map added by you is concerned, there are several inaccuracies in that. You've not specified the currency of range values (INR or USD). Even the ranges have not been correctly specified. A range in a choropleth map is accurately specified as "lower limit to upper limit", not like the way you've done. The map doesn't reflect 2018-19 data for many states as the states have been color shaded incorrectly. I will soon upload a correct choropleth map. Vibhss (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vibhss: Regarding Haryana's i havent done the edits yet, however the discrepancy i noted was only in its's figures and in no others states. I will check again. I will post on the article talk page about this before making edits.

Regarding the choropleth map, what you are talking about is data binning and having discrete color steps. The one i posted is a map having continious color scale. I am reassuring you, there is no wrong data in it (you still did not quote me an example where data and coloring was wrong). I will explain you the legend works. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NSDP_Per_Capita_of_Indian_States_and_UT%27s,_2018-19.png The choropleth map has a continious color map with quintile stops. Rajasthan (₹ 1,10,606) is more blue than Legend representing ₹ 1,00,000. Madhya Pradesh (₹ 90,998) is less blue than Legend representing ₹ 1,00,000. You can add your own choropleth map too. It makes the page more informative, if there is a second choropleth map where we bin the states below national average, and states with above average per capita. I will update my choropleth to reflect the Rupee sign.

@Vibhss: I checked haryana economic surveys, I got your point, no problem in having it as it is for now. The map has the exact data the page is showing. And let's discuss the map before you make any changes to the page. I have double checked the data in the mao, in good faith you can let me go ahead with the map. Thanks

@Basavaraj Patel: You can go ahead with adding your choropleth map file but it would be better to make some rectifications. I'm aware of how the legend works in choropleth Maps. The main problem with your map is that you've not properly specified ranges of values for Per capita NSDP due to which many colour shades have no specific interpretation. Instead of using discreet values like "0" or "100,000" and using different shades of one color for one undefined group (say comprising the states with per capita income of 90000-140000) and different shades of another color for another undefined group, it would be better to use specific ranges of values as in "0-50,000", "50,000-100,000", "100,000-150,000" and so on and use different shades of one single color corresponding to different ranges. For examples, lightest green for lowest range, darker shades of green for higher ranges and darkest shade of green for the highest range. Constructing a choropleth map with the above methodology is the most simplistic and precise way of depicting parameters like per capita income, literacy, poverty rate etc. I'm adding a choropleth map from another page to present as an example.

Vibhss (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vibhss: I am attaching a reputed website using map with continious color palette, https://www.visualcapitalist.com/map-state-economies-countries/ . I will work on changing the legend to be of continous type. I assume we are ok with rest of the stuff.

@Vibhss: Hey mate, i have updated the choropleth map's legend. Thanks for working with me.

Hello Vibhss. You are invited to join the new WikiProject India 10,000 Challenge, a challenge which aims to see 10,000 improvements, destubs, and creations for Indian articles, covering every state of India and topic. Articles on all related topics are welcome. We need numbers to make this work and do something extraordinary for India on Wikipedia! Every 100 articles submitted will be copied into the wider Asian challenge. Sign up on the page if interested and start contributing! If you know someone who might be interested, please invite them by: {{subst:WikiProject India/The 10,000 Challenge Invite|~~~~}} Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I want to create a wiki page on a sensitive topic, which would require me working for months, collecting references. I fear, there would be edit-war as i keep updating the page. Could you please help me in this matter. Thanks @Vibhss: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basavaraj Patel (talk • contribs) 18:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Please could you contribute to

Hi, I believe some articles like this one and this needs your attention since you are knowledgeable in this field. Are these new changes properly sourced and correct? Regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

	I here you like planes :D
	Thank you so much for cleaning up the the Indians GSDP page, I honestly got fed up with the page's lack of clarity, You came around and cleaned the entire thing up, You cool! Thanks! -- KindCowboy69 ☮ 06:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk

) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.