User talk:Yashovardhan Dhanania/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Insufficient information for 1927 in Malaya

To replying the message on 26 April 2017

Dear Yashovardhan

Thank you for your concern, I deleting all the article because I realise that my article especially 1927 in Malaya was insufficient and I have no intention for this one. So I decide to delete all information and I promise to myself to improving my mistake in creating or manage the new article with carefully for the future. Thanks! Syamie (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Muhd Syamie: Thanks for your reply! It's good to know that you've realized your mistake and are deleting these articles. Do you want me to contact an admin to delete the 2 remaining articles as well. Alternatively, you can blank them and I'll Mark them as an author request.

I understand that many new users face this problem and have their content deleted. I suggest going through the beginners tutorial (I'll send you an invite) where you can learn the basics of our policies and become a great contributor to Wikipedia! I wish you all the best and lastly, keep editing to improve Wikipedia!

Yashovardhan (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Why do you delete all these pages?

Dear, Yashovardhan Dhanania I was looking at your activities and noticed that your main activities seems to be to delete other Wikipedia articles. Articles which are all well documented with souces and not at all unimportant (See for example the article about 'Gay concentration camps in Chechnya' . Your long discussion page seems to speak for itself. Might it be possible that you get paid for deleting all these pages? If that is the case, that is not at all the idea of Wikipedia and I will report you to higher authorities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersubbe (talk • contribs) 13:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you please let me know why you marked this page for "speedy deletion". The article is well documented by sources and it is quite an important subsidiary of Europe's largest Bank with derivative positons as big as the GDP of France.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersubbe (talk • contribs) 13:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Petersubbe: Thanks for your messages. I'm answering both your queries together.

For starters, i don't actually delete any page (an admin does that). I just draw their attention by marking it for deletion. Your page was deleted for two reasons - it wasn't notable enough for inclusion and it was basically an advertisement meant to promote something. You can check the reason it was deleted for at the article page itself.

Secondly, I unfortunately, don't get paid for editing on Wikipedia and nor for deleting articles. I basically do it for free.

As to my long talk page, I'm afraid you've seen nothing. If you scroll up a bit, you'll find some archives which have older messages stored in them. The reason for those is because I work at WP:AFC and deal with new editors like you on a regular basis. They sometimes come here to ask questions (like you), request a re-review of their work (after improving it) and occasionally even to express their thanks and share some love.

Feel free to ask any other question if you want, I'm just a message away. Regards, Yashovardhan (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Yashovardhan Dhanania, thanks for your quick answer but I disagree. It seems very a awkward if a Wikipedia User is mainly concerned with deleting other articles and not creating them! Many of the articles you created for deletion seem to be very good. And I want to see the person who says that a bank with the risks as high as the GDP of France is not notabe or an advertisement? Also, you say you work for WP:AFC. Are we not all working for "Articles for Creation" ? Not "Articles for Deletion"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersubbe (talk • contribs) 15:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Petersubbe, you're welcome to disagree with Yashovardhan, but in truth we all play a role on Wikipedia. Some people create content, others make sure that created content actually meets our inclusion guidelines. Just because an article looks good doesn't mean it is good. I deleted a page the other day that looked like the page of a professional musician, but was actually a hoax page (the subject didn't actually exist). AFC and AFD are two sides of the same coin, really - we help users creating pages determine if what they're working on is acceptable, and we debate existing pages to see if they're acceptable. Everything is working towards the betterment of Wikipedia. If you think your page should be accepted on Wikipedia, then you're welcome to request it be turned into a draft. Then, when you submit it through the AFC process, you can get feedback on what (if anything) needs improving. Drafts aren't deleted for being sub-par (since that's the entire point!) so it doesn't have to be perfect from the get-go. Let us know if you have any other questions. Primefac (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Reversion of changes to Gene Scott page

I recently added information under the continuing broadcast segment that was removed by you. How would you like me to source such information like "the broadcast is also on Roku, Apple iPhone and Android applications"? I'm currently watching the Roku broadcast and have the Android app. These are not debatable subjects that require a source IMHO. Knox1998 (talk) Knox1998 (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Knox1998: Thanks for your question. Wikipedia requires reliable sources to support every fact stated. In your case, I'd suggest adding a news article about this broadcast on the mobile apps. If there are no news sources, then you can add a primary source such as the official website. If a source already in the article supports the statements, you must mention this in your edit summary. Sources can be references using the ref tags. Let me know if you've any other questions! Yashovardhan (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

12:29:14, 29 April 2017 review of submission by Brentvans

• Brentvans (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Brent van Staalduinen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I'm wondering why the page was declined. The reason given was WP:NAUTHOR, however, the writer in question (me) has won number of notable writing awards and additionally meets a number of criteria for creative professionals, most notably 3 and 4. My work has been widely reviewed and commented upon (the literary equivalent of 3 for creative professionals), and is featured in anthologies and literary journals in Canada, the US, and the UK (which would be the literary equivalent of the criteria in 4). Please clarify. Thanks!

@Brentvans: Hello and thank you for disclosing your Conflict of interest. Before proceeding, I'd like to ask you to be familiar with our policy on autobiography specifically, This section. Now, coming to why I rejected your article, at that time it seemed that the subject (you?) wasn't (weren't) notable enough for inclusion. Now, given your claim of notability, I'll have a fresh look. However, please confirm that you've read the autobiography policy and have no problem with other users editing it vigorously. I'd remind you that later, even if you wish for the article to be deleted, it may still be kept. Please confirm that you agree and re-submit the draft. I'll have a fresh look then. Yashovardhan (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply, Yashovardhan! I have read and agree with the policy, and will resubmit. I have also edited the page and removed the "teaching experience" sections, as although I'm an excellent teacher, I'm not notable in that regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brentvans (talk • contribs) 10:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

21:01:43, 28 April 2017 review of submission by Kent Westlund

• Kent Westlund (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:LuLaRoe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Yashovardhan, thank you for your comments regarding this declined submission. Could you help improve the article by providing the additional information necessary for me to translate your general feedback into actual changes:

1) Could you provide a specific list of, for example, the top 5 sentences in the article that most sound like advertising to you. I am struggling to identify which specific phrases you are perceiving to be promotional.

2) Could you be specific about how the referenced articles from CBS news, The Boston Globe, Pacific Standard, etc fail to qualify as verifiable reliable sources that establish notability. I whittled down to these specific references based on feedback from several experienced Wikipedia editors, so I am confused by the conflicting advice.

3) Please advise any other specific changes that you recommend that aren't already covered in 1) or 2).

Thank you in advance for providing very specific guidance that can be unambiguously understood and implemented.

Kent Westlund (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Kent Westlund: Thanks for your message and sorry for the late response. It's really hard for me to pin point specific instances of advert like statements. I'd suggest reading the entire draft up down (maybe from a friend as well) and then rewriting specific instances of advertising. After you've done this, drop a note and I'll look into the other aspects. Yashovardhan (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Please stop

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

leaving notices on my talk page. I'm aware of the discussion, and pings work, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Please see WP:GEVAL before "warning" me that raising legitimate concerns over the use of WP processes for advocating a conspiracy theory is a personal attack. Please also review WP:NPA for examples of actual personal attacks, and advice on how best to deal with them (your hatting of the filer's comments and warning was over-the-top and unnecessary as well). Your mediation in this case was confrontational, abrasive and difficult to deal with from the beginning, and your close did not deviate from that pattern. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for this. Yashovardhan (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deletion of pages 'Neil Edwards' and 'Sympathy for the Devil? The True Story of The Process Church of the Final Judgement'

Hello,

I have had a number of pages deleted due to copyright infringement. My father owns the copywright to both pieces of text and has requested I make these pages, how would I go about doing this?

Any advice would be much appreciated, Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilyJune (talk • contribs) 15:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi EmilyJune and thanks for your message. Your submissions were deleted because Wikipedia doesn't allow copyrighted text to be submitted (for obvious reasons). Now, since your father owns the copyright, he can easily Donate these material to Wikipedia for use. Please ask your father to read through these guidelines and then carefully follow the instructions at WP:DONATETEXT. If your father has already provided permission, you may want to read WP:IOWN for understanding how to clearly declare and label such material.

Of course, feel free to contact me anytime you've a problem. If I'm not replying here, you can also send an email to me using the Email option at the left 👈 side here.

Let me know how it goes! Regards, Yashovardhan (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Rather than threaten

Get involved in the article and help settle the dispute. Don't close the request for help. You are not an Admin here, so participate do not threaten! IQ125 (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@IQ125: Woah! Why would you think I am threatening you? I just warned you not to edit a closed case at the DRN. I am a Volunteer at the DRN and I assume that gives me the authority to close cases which are not suitable. In your case, I left a detailed note on what steps you could take next but you obviously chose to ignore them. I again recommend you to visit WP:DISCFAIL if the other editor isn't responding. You see the DRN is for places where extensive discussion has took place at the talk page and not for complaints about edit warring. Those complaints are best handled at WP:AN/EW. Regards, Yashovardhan (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Qudra energy

The talk page was created after I deleted the article. So I was using it to discuss the situation with the OE. Since there's no further response, and since I'm no longer away from the keyboard, I'll go ahead and delete the talk. —C.Fred (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Ohk, Didn't really notice that. I just saw the exact same content on the talk page followed by your reply (and a red article button). I guess the OE has received enough warnings to consider changing his username and stop creating such promotional pieces. Thanks! Yashovardhan (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)