User talk:Ashleymillermu

Welcome!

Hello, Ashleymillermu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! SwisterTwister talk 20:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

hello! It's clear from your edit history and your choice of articles that you have a WP:COI. Please stop editing those pages that you have a conection to. The Menon Holdings Group is quite the piece of obfuscation! I have removed most of the bogus references that you added. I'd encourage you to stop promoting the Menon group on Wikipedia, and to respect the COI guiceline.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Menon Holdings Group for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Menon Holdings Group is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menon Holdings Group until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Scars Do Heal for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Scars Do Heal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scars Do Heal until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

hi Ashleymillermu. I work on conflicts of interest issues here in Wikipedia along with my regular editing about health and medicine.

I reviewed the filing at COIN. That got pretty hot, pretty fast!

You are clearly a good writer; you are also new to Wikipedia and there are things that you don't understand about writing articles here yet. There are policies and guidelines and a manual of style that govern content, along with a slew of unwritten norms. It takes time to learn all that. And I think the COI discussion went a bit sideways from the beginning there, and I would like to reset that.

Please understand that new editors who have conflicts of interest tend to write a lot like you do. (I know you can't see that right now, but it is true) The folks who made the initial posting were not were not wrong in being concerned (they did say that in too strong of language, but they I understand why they raised the concern).

In any, would you please tell me, do you have any connection with topics you have written about? You don't have to give your real name, but if you have a connection with Menon Holdings Group, Shilpa Menon or her publisher, agent etc., or Innomantra Consulting? (This is the heart of the COI concern, a connection - not necessarily getting paid; that is just one, narrow form of connection).

You can reply here; your Talk page is on my watchlist so I will see it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hello User:Jytdog thank you for your note. Indeed that got hot, pretty fast ! I must thank User:HappyValleyEditor for repeatedly hounding all my articles that it got to a point where it is that user who seems to be biased, not me!! To answer your question - I have absolutely no connection directly or indirectly with the groups you mentioned. I took up writing initially about books and literature and then thought I could contribute more by deeveloping other pages and articles relevant to Mauritius, but with folks like User:HappyValleyEditor there to destroy articles on a whim. I really wonder. Now that I have cleared my position on this matter, is there a way you can help undo the few hours of work I put, that got deleted by User:HappyValleyEditor without a proper dialog or discussion. If you see my talk history with the said user, I thanked the user for his suggestions, but I can't seem to write an article to suit one user on Wikipedia and if that user has an opinion, the user must first have the decency to talk before going about carpet bombing and deletinghours of work. That shows bias, that shows an intent that is not constructive, much against the principles of Wikipedia. Don't you think ? AM (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Let me just check something here - I never know what new users are aware of, and what they aren't. Are you aware that everyone can see your editing history? Jytdog (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Jytdog. I had to edit numerous times because on most times I had some changes to do and also add reference links I found to make the article have good content. I didn't know I will be subject to this kind of abuse by User:HappyValleyEditor. Just moments ago the same biased user put all my articles for under articles for deletion. see if you can helpAM (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am glad you know that I, and everyone else here, can see all your edits. I am aware of the back and forth on the articles you created; I have reviewed all that. I hear you, that you are upset about that. I am not going to discuss any specific content with you, as that will just make this discussion messy and unfocused. I'd like to focus on getting you on a better footing here in WP. So.. would you please acknowledge what I wrote to you above, about Wikipedia being a different kind of writing - about the policies/guidelines/norms, and that i don't think you understand all that stuff? I didn't see you respond to that. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. And I am learning. Thank youAM (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the user HappyValleyEditor has featured conflict of interest in all articles I have created. As per Wikipedia policy, who can edit and remove this reference ? Can I edit and undo all changes the user has done to my articles ? Is that correct protocol to follow or can I request you to help fix this issue ?AM (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About your second comment, I am not going to comment on the specific things going on with the articles right now. There is no hurry. Nothing is ever irretrievably lost here.

Thanks for your first comment, acknowledging that there are things you don't understand about writing in Wikipedia. That provides us a place to start talking, which is really important. Above I also said that "new editors who have conflicts of interest tend to write a lot like you do." You didn't say anything about that - would you, please? Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I love to write, and that explains why I tend to write a lot about stuff. That isn't conflict of interest. You can see from this interaction how much I love to write. Just to be clear, have I answered all your queries ? Do let me know AM (talk) 04:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you but you really don't need to repeat what you said about not having a COI. That is not what i am trying to talk about. Again, what I said that your editing looks like - not is, but "looks like" - the kind of editing a new editor with a COI creates. I was kind of hoping you would ask me what that means - what about your writing, looks like the writing of a new editor with a COI. I would like to explain that. May I? Jytdog (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain so that I see the perspective correctly. AM (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So new editors with a COI for X have two things when they come here. They know a bunch about X already, and they are "fans" of X. They don't really know how Wikipedia works. So they tend to write down what they know, and (consciously or unconsciously) they write an article that talks about how great X is. Then they go look for ~some~ sources, and they add some sources in. The resulting finished article or bit of content, is promotional, has unsourced content, and what is sourced is generally badly sourced (they don't know the difference between good sources and bad sources, so this is not unexpected). Once you have been around here a while, you will be able to spot this a mile away.

The other thing that new editors with a COI do when they first come here. Is they write about one thing, and they make lots of references to it here and there. You have written about one thing - Shilpa Menon; her, her book, the investment company she worked with; and you have added unsourced promotional content about her to other articles, like this.

here is the tricky thing -- people who don't have a COI, but are "just" fans of X, write exactly the same way. They know a lot about X, are fans, and want to come to WP and talk about how great X is. This happens all the time - people who are, say, vegetarians and think eating meat is evil do the same kind of things.

whether it is financial gain (or desire for personal fame) or just being a fan of "x", this passion (we call it "advocacy") is a double-edged sword. It drives people to come and contribute but it also drives them to create .. bad content. And often these folks have a hard time listening (!), and react badly when their work is criticized.

Like I said, I do think that LaMona and HVE were too quick to judge that you are a paid editor, but I hope you can see (I know it is hard) that they had a "hook" for thinking you might have a COI. When we are kind of past this hump (and I think we almost are, i would like to explain to you how to write great Wikipedia content. I think you are a good writer - I just want to talk about what it takes do that here. I hope you will be open to that.

Does all that make sense? Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you saw this... Jytdog (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I replied to you over that ANI. Will you please reply over there, and hopefully agree to what I ask? There is way too much drama flying around over this. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and yet reiterate that I didn't start the fire. I replied on ANI, is that appropriate what I replied ?AM (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A clear "yes" or "no" is what we need, ideally a "yes". Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A clear "YES" AM (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did! Thank you. I have replied above. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick additional note on the ANI matter. You would look much better in the eyes of the community, if you would self-revert the posts that you left at various editors' talk pages complaining about HVE. Those kind of made you look bad, and self-reverting them would be redemptive. :) People here understand getting upset; they respect self-insight and self-control. Jytdog (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help, how do you self-revert those posts ? And I do hope good sense would prevail over HVE to not target my articles and call the garbage in public domain. But clearly, I think that is just wishful thinking AM (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this was a nice effort. but i think you burned that bridge. :( Jytdog (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

oops. Like I said, I am learning. I think I found a way to revert those posts from the contribution section, Thank you once again for your patience. I hope to write more on Wikipedia,despite my articles being called garbage on public domain, despite the risk of being labelled COI by HVE. I will wait to see how transparent this community truly is. While it is my desire to contribute on Mauritius subjects, I will see how I am being targeted by ONE user and of course the entire community will clearly see the bias if such targeting continues.

Please, please let go of the "i am being targeted thing" and the accusations against HVE. Please. With everyone anonymous here, it is easy to fall into something near paranoia. You have been looked at, it is true, and I know that is freaky. But it will pass. Just try not to be reactive.

You said you don't know how to revert. Hm. There are two ways I guess. In either case, it is only OK to delete (or change) what you write on a talk page if no one has responded. (It is almost never OK to change what someone else wrote on a talk page) To say that backwards, if someone else has responded to something you wrote on a talk page, don't go back and delete it or change it like you would edit an article. After someone responds, you have to WP:REDACT using wikimarkup - this is explained at REDACT. Those are the groundrules.

To actually do it, there are two ways, see here: Help:Reverting. Jytdog (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

if you want me to do it, just let me know. btw if you want to practice you can do it here, or in a sandbox. I created one for you here: User:Ashleymillermu/Sandbox. That is your own space to mess around in. Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I didn't know of this Sandbox feature. That is cool. That is better than doing multiple edits on an article. Thank you so much Jytdog. Regarding the COI and that notice on ANI - is there anything more for me to do ? Also, I was planning to manually UNDO some of the damage/changes that HVE did on Scars Do Heal page, especially HVE removing the entire plot summary (Calling my article garbage etc) which was uncalled for. Is UNDOING them the correct way to restore parts of an edited article on Wikipedia ? Is there something that I need to know on accepted process while undoing changes made to articles ? Much appreciate your time and for introducing me to this Sandbox feature. AM (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please do not go back and start trying to "fix" the articles. You don't know what was wrong with them yet - how can you "fix" them? That is a real question. Jytdog (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog Your post on the COI page where you said "You and I can talk more, and we can come back here when we are done. You don't seem to understand the issues that led to this thread arising yet." - So that I understand correctly - is it because of many edits that I made to the page that the COI thread was created ? Help me understand please. Thank you AM (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In my opening post, I wrote, "Please understand that new editors who have conflicts of interest tend to write a lot like you do." I don't have any sense that you understand this yet. You don't understand that HappyValleyEditor has a very good "nose" for COI editing - that editor knows what COI editing looks like. HappyValleyEditor reacted to your actual Wikipedia editing. Not to you nor to your general writing skills - but to your Wikipedia writing. If you don't understand why your editing looks promotional, you won't be able to fix it, and you will have other people deleting your work because it fails the content policies. Do you see what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 08:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I did my very best to keep my article from being promotional. Here is what I did when I created my first article. I went about under books and then used a template which I thought was standard template to use for featuring a new article about book. In my case I used this template from Me Before You written by Jojo Moyes and then I went about creating my article exactly like how this reference article was done. I presume, (please correct me if i am wrong) - because i went about doing multiple edits and because I focussed so much on coming our with a perfect looking first article, the editor HVE may have used his "good nose" to pick at my article and flagged it for potential COI ? I wanted to know - based on your experience in subject matters on Wikipedia that - Yes first time i got many edits done to the same article, but then later on explained my position that I am new to this world. And thank you for the Sandbox feature, I can now create articles without indulging in multiple edits on the same article. So, do you think I have understood the moot point that you are trying to make me understand ? Also one more point I need understanding - Say i write an article about XXXX and then I get an error message from Wikipedia that it is an "orphan link" that says this XXXX article is not being linked to anywhere else in Wikipedia, then to fix this issue can I go about and edit links/pages that I feel are relevant to the article and get rid of the "Orphan" warning ? Exactly the same what I did to Scars Do Heal article to get over the "orphan" tag. Is that the right way to edit ? Thank you for your patience. AM (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a little thing I have written, that I copy below in a new section. Please read that and think about it a bit, and then you can reply to me down there and let me know what questions you have. Jytdog (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please remember that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 04:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 04:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AM, these warning messages are valid. This is part of what i meant about your going from page to page complaining not being helpful, and in fact being harmful to you. I do hope you stop. Jytdog (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jytdog - I have stopped and have also removed references to HVE in most talk pages where I had quoted user HVEAM (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is still this and this - the statement in that !vote about "I have had all my articles that I had submitted on Wikipedia been first randomly edited and in a biased manner" makes you look really, really bad - not saying their name is almost worse; it looks like you are trying to hide an attack but an experienced user can figure out who you mean in about ten seconds. Please hear me - in Talk page discussions, make your own argument - "I think the content should be X because Y policy says Z", not "User X did bad things" . Don't attack other people. You should really just remove that vote for now - just delete it. (there is no rush - deletion discussions last like a month). You can make a new one later when you understand better. Jytdog (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed any such references which you had flagged. I completely accept your point of view not to attack people - Refer the same links from your message. In that page HVE says "One those and the paid PR entries were removed"... Hinting that my article was some paid PR entry. Now is that an appropriate thing to say on public domain ? (So, what is perceived as bad things said was just me responding to inappropriate attributions made about me by HVE. )AM (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that! About the COIN postings... I told you that I thought that HVE was too bold in judging why your edits were promotional and I am talking with them on the side already. Please don't worry - that kind of stuff doesn't "stick" to you. What will stick, is the pattern of behavior you establish here in what you do interacting with others and discussing content, and how good your editing is, by Wikipedia standards. That is all that really matters at the end of the day: how you act, and how good your editing is. Wikipedia is what we call a clue-ocracy (worth reading and very short). It takes time to become clueful, and the best thing to do while you are learning is ask more questions than you make bold claims about how Wikipedia works :) Jytdog (talk) 10:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you. HVE was "bold" with his "good nose" to detect COI that HVE edits removed some genuine WP:RS references. Not for scoring any points, but just for academic interest. Here is an example : Would a paper like Dina Thanthi be considered as a reliable news source qualifying WP:RS criteria? One news source reference (that got lost after HVE edit) was from a newspaper called Dina Thanthi - An article featured on Wikipedia as a newspaper - The news item referred in the original article was from [DT next] and DTNext is the English edition of this newspaper. Now here is where I am having a difficulty with those users who are classified as "bold" is that firstly the article was edited so many times under the pretext of COI that genuine references got deleted and in the melee the same user later puts up the same article for deletion. Is that acceptable editing standard ? ( And probably lost therein is the concept of bias about which I stopped ranting about ) AM (talk) 11:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit

OK, so I would like to get you oriented to how Wikipedia works, and give you some advice about how to create a good Wikipedia article. There are some non-intuitive things about editing here, that I can zip through ~pretty~ quickly....

The first thing, is that our mission is to produce articles that provide readers with encyclopedia articles that summarize accepted knowledge, and to do that as a community that anyone can be a part of. That's the mission. As you can imagine, if this place had no norms, it would be a Mad Max kind of world interpersonally, and content would be a slag heap (the quality is really bad in parts, despite our best efforts). But over the past 15 years the community has developed a whole slew of norms, via loads of discussion. One of the first, is that we decide things by consensus. That decision itself, is recorded here: WP:CONSENSUS, which is one of our "policies". (There is a whole forest of things, in "Wikipedia space" - pages in Wikipedia that start with "Wikipedia:AAAA" or for short, "WP:AAAA". WP:CONSENSUS is different from Consensus. ) And when we decide things by consensus, that is not just local in space and time, but includes meta-discussions that have happened in the past. The results of those past meta-discussions are the norms that we follow now. We call them policies and guidelines - and these documents all reside in Wikipedia space. There are policies and guidelines that govern content, and separate ones that govern behavior. Here is very quick rundown:

Content policies and guidelines

WP:NOT (what WP is, and is not -- this is where you'll find the "accepted knowledge" thing. This is where you will find that it is not OK to use Wikipedia to promote anyone or anything)
WP:OR - no original research is allowed here, instead
WP:VERIFY - everything has to be cited to a reliable source (so everything in WP comes down to the sources you bring!)
WP:RS is the guideline defining what a "reliable source" is for general content and WP:MEDRS defines what reliable sourcing is for content about health. If there are questions about whether a source is reliable that is not covered well in the RS guideline, it is discussed at a notice board; WP:RSN. The archives of that noticeboard are very, very valuable for understanding how the community judges various specific sources. (You will find amazon reviews discussed there)
WP:NPOV Content that gets written, needs to be "neutral" (as we define that here, which doesn't mean what most folks think -- it doesn't mean "fair and balanced" - it means that the language has to be neutral, and that topics in a given article are given appropriate "weight" (space and emphasis). An article about a drug that was 90% about side effects, would give what we call "undue weight" to the side effects. We determine weight by seeing what the reliable sources say - we follow them in this too. So again, you can see how everything comes down to references.
WP:BLP - this is a policy specifically about articles about living people. We are very careful about these articles (which means enforcing the policies and guidelines above rigorously), since people have very strong feelings about other people, and about public descriptions of themselves. We need our good, strong rules here!
WP:NOTABILITY - this is a policy that defines whether or not an article about X, should exist. What this comes down to is defined in WP:Golden rule - which is basically, are there enough independent sources about X, with which to build a decent article. I reckon this will be of special interest to you, with regard to the deletion discussions that are going on.
WP:Deletion policy - this is the policy that tells us what to do when we find an article that isn't NOTABLE

In terms of behavior, the key norms are:

WP:CONSENSUS - already discussed
WP:CIVIL - basically, be nice. This is not about being nicey nice, it is really about not being a jerk and having that get in the way of getting things done. We want to get things done here - get content written and maintained and not get hung up on interpersonal disputes. So just try to avoid doing things that create unproductive friction with other people.
WP:AGF - assume good faith about other editors. Try to focus on content, not contributor. Don't personalize it when disputes arise. (the anonymity here can breed all kinds of paranoia)
WP:HARASSMENT - really, don't be a jerk and follow people around, bothering them. And do not try to figure out who people are in the real world. Privacy is strictly protected by the WP:OUTING part of this policy.
WP:DR - if you get into an content dispute with someone, try to work it. If you cannot, then use one of the methods here to get wider input. There are many - it never has to come down to two people arguing. There are instructions here too, about what to do if someone is behaving badly, in your view. Try to keep content disputes separate from behavior disputes. Many of the big messes that happen in Wikipedia arise from these getting mixed up.
WP:TPG - this is about how to talk to other editors on Talk pages, like this one, or the one for the article about Shilpa: Talk:Shilpa Menon
WP:Deletion process is how to behave and what to do in deletion discussions)

If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines and the norms) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. That will take time. If that is where you want to go, of course. I know that was a lot of information, but hopefully it is digestable enough.

SO... Anytime you want to create an article, here is what to do.

look for independent reliable sources about it, that comply with WP:MEDRS for anything related to health, and WP:RS for everything else, that give serious discussion to the topic, not just passing mentions. Start with great sources
Look at the sources you found, and see if you have enough per WP:Golden rule to even go forward. If you don't, you can stop right there. Doing more work would be a waste of time, as the article will fail NOTABILITY and will be deleted.
Read the sources you found, and identify the main and minor themes to guide you with regard to WP:WEIGHT - be wary of distortions in weight due to WP:RECENTISM
Go look at manual of style guideline created by the relevant WikiProject, to guide the sectioning and other style matters (you can look at articles on similar topics but be cautious b/c WP has lots of bad content) Use the style guide to create an outline. (For example, for biographies, the relevant project is WP:WikiProject Biography)
Create the article in draft space. Create the talk page, and disclose your COI there if you have one.
Start writing the body, based only on what is in the sources you have, and source each sentence as you go. Do not write what you already know! Write only things that can be verified from the sources in front of you.
Make sure you write in neutral language and that you cover the whole topic, giving WEIGHT appropriately.
When you are done, write the lead and add infobox, external links, categories, etc
Consider adding banners to the Talk page, joining the draft article to relevant WikiProjects, which will help attract editors who are interested and knowledgeable to help work on the article.
The completed work should have nothing unsourced (because the sources drove everything you wrote, not prior knowledge or personal experiences or what the client wanted; there is no original research nor WP:PROMO in it.
Submit your article for review via the WP:AFC process - You will get responses from reviewers, and you can work with them to do whatever is needed to get the article ready to be published.

There you go! Let me know if you have questions about any of that Jytdog (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for this. I needed this badly. Helps me create better works in future. I will go though it in detail. I have one specific query. I see a section under Deletion process - that describes about something called - A "speedy keep" outcome is appropriate when the nomination unquestionably is an attempt to vandalize or to otherwise create disruption. For example: Nominations which are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion (possibly in an attempt to game the system), when dispute resolution would be a more appropriate course. Wouldn't this apply in the case of the deletion discussions regarding my articles ? Instead of a discussion to resolve dispute, the articles were hastily edited and the edited version was nominated for deletion. ??AM (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen such dedication by a user in willing to help a user with Wikipedia. I was left to be independent. I thank Jytdog for that. Also, one thing they forgot mention was WP:OWN. Whilst I already mentioned it with the warnings, I please ask you to stop referring articles you've created as "my articles". They aren't yours. They belong to Wikipedia and everyone is allowed to edit it. It's not your article; it's essentially everybody's. Thank you, Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 12:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Callmemirela. Understood. Once posted it is no more my article. Oops, I may have a few places where I might have referred to those as my articles. Will have it fixed ASAP. Also a big Thank you to Jytdog, the help is invaluable. Cheers AM (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Callmemirela, I should add that. And AM I cannot emphasize enough that you need to stop claiming that the articles were vandalized. They absolutely were not vandalized. Please stop saying that; just get that whole notion out of your mind, if you can. I know it was shocking, but it wasn't vandalism. Claiming that someone has vandalized is very inflammatory; it's not helpful to you. OK? Jytdog (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog Thank you for reminding, that episode was long back in time, I removed those references soon after you pointed them out to me (self-retracted). Maybe vandalism was a strong word to use, like I explained before, my reaction was only a response to my being called names - like a paid PR editor and other such attributes. And soon after our discussions, I have removed almost all references where people names are referred.. But I still feel those articles were a victim of "Nominations which are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion" Maybe instead of vandalism, The more appropriate way to say what I experienced could be classified under WP:BULLY Wikihounding and WP:BOOMERANG ( See I learn fast). Like your last line. Thanks again. CheersAM (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood me. Above you cited the "speedy keep" criteria and said it might apply because of what HappyValley did. What he did was not bullying or wikihounding or boomerang. Really. His editing was good. I know it felt bad to you, but his editing made your articles better. Not worse. Better in terms of what Wikipedia articles should be like. I know that they were worse to you because you wrote them and you liked how they were. But if you look at the policies above, and look at his edits without emotion, they will make more sense to you. Really they will. Ask me about any of them that you don't understand. You can learn from this how to be better. Jytdog (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Jytdog. I got it now that you meant Vandalism from the context of "Speedy Keep". Honestly, initially those edits made me feel bad, not anymore. I would humbly take the position that in this case HVE edits were not good. Maybe on other cases, HVE may have been good. What I am having difficulty in agreeing to HVE a.k.a "bold" approach is that the article was first edited, and when the contributor (out of ignorance ) referred for help(now understood as canvassing), soon after that, insinuations and conjectures raised against the contributor of that article, (including referring to administrator page with a false premise that names were called)., subsequently as a possible aftermath, moments later, as a user with special rights., the articles, all of them, one after the other got nominated as AfD. So, how could this be an accepted policy that an editing dispute gets instantaneously nominated as AfD in a matter of minutes when the same HVE had only hours ago made contributory edits (and HVE even admitted on talk that he flagged COI due to multiple edits, which I explained already, why I did). Circumstantial evidence and Timeline edit stamps from another perspective makes it appear that HVE indeed didn't come with clean hands on this particular episode. Maybe other edits HVE might have been brilliant and I don't contest that. Given the way and manner in which an edit dispute escalated within moments to an AfD., would you at least partially agree with me that being "bold" was reckless ? (I am looking at the entire Wikipedia objectively now, without emotion.) AM (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you preface your remark with "humbly" or not, your claim that you understand Wikipedia well enough to judge is arrogant and foolish; you just arrived here and your arguments about content have all been invalid so far. You are turning out to be unteachable and I am probably going to stop spending time trying to help you. I am not writing that lightly. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I thank you for your patience, I seriously don't claim to understand Wikipedia and it takes a fair bit of time to get sorted at understanding that perception about content and its quality. I spent some time reading the note you had sent, it was to say the least - enlightening. With time, I may get over those perceptions which may not be what I think it should be like. And with time, the community may come to terms that I am not as bad as what some xyz is complaining about me to be. I am learning and I thank each one of those who have helped me out here. In closing I have this line from Taylor Swift to share - "If they are horrible to me, I am going to write a song about it and you are not going to like it. That's how I am" AM (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Warning

The next time you mention me in a negative, unsubstantiated light, I will report you to the appropriate board for disruptive editng and harassment. Stop wasting everyone's time. You need to get over this. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, please treat this as a fair warning 'The next time you mention unsubstantiated attributes about me and/or target articles that I edit with bias, I will be constrained to report you to the appropriate board for bullying, hounding and harassment. Please invest your time at some constructive causes, You too need to get over this' AM (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AM, you are heading directly over a cliff. I have seen this many times and please believe me when I tell you that the assumptions you are bringing to WP and the way you are reacting are going to lead you leaving here frustrated or getting blocked, and taking up a lot of other editors' time and attention along the way. Whether that is your fate here or not, is entirely in your hands. I have tried very hard to get you oriented correctly, as you have potential. But not as long as you continue on this road - this road is a complete waste of everyone's time. You need to rethink your approach to WP. Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, I got it, that response was a spontaneous reaction - Returning fire with interest. And in this particular instant, I thought I had to stand up and make a stance when untrue stuff is hurled my way. I have committed to a truce until next time. Alas, we live in a world where we would rather fight than forgive. AM (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

$0.02

Hi AM. I'm just a passer-by. I saw this discussion and thought I would throw in my two cents. I first want to mirror Jytdog's advice: Your actions, words and behavior reflect far more about you than anything that anyone says about you. In Wikipedia, you need to have a thick skin. Many times, a perceived insult is just that, perceived. Other times they are not. If an editor continues to insult, it just makes them look bad and you look good, but if you engage them on that level at all, then you both look bad. In either case, perceived or real, it is best to just ignore it, keep calm and rational, and discuss the topic rather than the editor. By doing that, you will be able to move quickly past any dispute. A wise woman once said, "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."

I would suggest resisting the temptation to respond to any talk-page comment immediately. That "gut reaction" is usually not the best one. Let it stew in your subconscious a little while, and you will usually be able to come up with a much better reply. It is important to assume good faith, in that we (even those who oppose you) are all trying to build a proper encyclopedia. You'll probably get lots of warnings at first, or face arguments filled with policy links used as words, without being piped properly. It can make for confusing reading to a newcomer, that is until you take the time read all of the links, and gain the experience to understand why these rules exist in the first place.

The biggest piece of advice I can give you is to slow down and take some time to learn how Wikipedia works. Nothing is lost forever here, and nothing remains the same either, so there is plenty of time. Work on some articles which you are not so passionate about, so that you can look at them objectively. (It's impossible to be objective and passionate about a subject at the same time.) When I started out I began on an article which I hate, which was a political one. It was very controversial, so probably not the best place to start, but nonetheless, it was an eye-opening experience. If you begin in areas where you can be objective, you can learn how to contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive way, and that will help eliminate many of the problems you are now having. Once you really get to know how all the policies work, and how to deal with disputes, then you will have a much better time contributing to those articles which you care very much about.

It's like learning to ride a bike; you may fall and get some scrapes and bruises at first, but it's worth it once you learn how. It takes time, but it's usually best to pick a small, residential street, until you're good at riding the bike, before jumping onto a freeway. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zaereth, Thank you. That wasn't 2 cents, that was worth a million dollars. Sheer coincidence, working on few new articles. Oops. I need to go, but will be back in a bit to compete what I had to say, in the meantime - gratitude AM (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Zaereth, Learnt quite a bit today, most of the learnings were a lot from what all you had said. Devloping that thick-skin isnt easy. My existing spontaneous combustive impulse to respond/react seems to be a thing that needs to be developed over time. Its like fixing a reflex.. WP:PIPE is something new, havent encountered that yet. Slowing down as fast as I can., made a new article today in an attempt to learn what qualifies for a good wikipedia and i guess that attempt wasnt such a great one. I followed your advice and I picked an article that I hate.. Not really hate, about something that had at one point in time tried to intimidate me, mine wasnt controversial. I chose to write about a nice place with some historic significance too. And that is a subject that is new to me. So, for whatever it is worth I had a go at it and somewhere in a drafts folder that article is awaiting review. Learning the ropes, like they say one cant learn all of it all at once. Every bit of what you said is of immense help and I thank you sincerely. Cheers AM (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a start, I guess, but I still think you're trying to ride on the freeway without knowing how to ride yet. Pipes are just a way of disguising links as actual words, making the reading much easier. It helps avoid walls-of-text with more "WP"s than you can shake a stick at.

My advice was to pick an existing article or maybe a few, put them on your watchlist and watch them for a while. Read the talk pages and see what goes on behind the scenes, and maybe help out where you are positive that it will be useful. It doesn't necessarily need to be on a subject you hate (like politics is for me), but something you have an interest in but are not overly zealous about. It could be chocolate or hummingbirds or physics of skiing. Doesn't matter, but don't start making any edits until you are sure they are good ones, because that just causes a headache for everyone else. This is not a game; we all take this very seriously. People can literally be hurt by the things we write, so it's important that we take the time to understand the rules. There is no way a person can learn them all in a few days.

I'll be very blunt here. Your statement above pretty much says it all about the problems you are having. "My existing spontaneous combustive impulse to respond/react seems to be a thing that needs to be developed over time. Its like fixing a reflex.." You remind me of those people who want to jump right in the cockpit and start doing barrel rolls and wingovers and combat maneuvers when they haven't even learned to take-off, land, or even fly a steady course. Those people are doomed to crash and burn, and all of us here are putting forth a great deal of effort to keep you from crashing in Wikiworld. Take that to heart, because nobody is making us help you. Jytdog is giving you more than his share of good advice, so I would suggest paying a lot more attention to it. I hope it all works out for you. Zaereth (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Example

Just to give you an example of my own process, I have been working recently to expand the forge welding article. I know how to forge weld, because bladesmithing is a hobby of mine. I can see that the info in the article was correct, but very little of it had any sources. In fact there were only two at the beginning. So I gathered up a bunch of sources, either from my own collection, the library, or google books, making sure I use ones that are very high quality. Because of the movies, there is a lot of myths out there about forge welding, so I have to be careful to use only the most reliable sources, otherwise I could end up giving false info.

Now that I have sources, I can begin writing more info to put in the article. So I carefully read each source, and then use only the information they provide to write the article. I could easily write this all from my own knowledge, but I don't. Everything I put down can be traced back to the source it came from. If I know something about it, but can't find that info in any of the sources, I simply don't write it.

At the same time, I'm very careful to write it using my own words, so I don't end up plagiarizing anything or causing a copyright violation. (Bad, bad things.) Before I arrived at that article it looked like this. Now that I'm about half way through it, I have added 17 sources, and it looks like this. I try to keep a neutral tone, and not make it sound like either the greatest thing in the world or the worst; nothing to promote it nor put it down.

Using this method, very few of my edits have ever been reverted, and only one article I started was deleted. When those things do happen, I just shrug it off and move on to the next thing. I don't know it that method will work for you or not, but I hope that helps a little. Zaereth (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Zaereth, Thank you again, oh BTW, I learnt to use this thing you suggested - PIPE.. cool stuff. Went about learning about AfD and a whole lot of other stuff, so been pretty much running around all over the place. Found a whole lot of advertisements and tried my best to have them fixed to the best of my ability. I am going to use some of your tips for my future edits. Also will add a few pages to my watchlist and see how the experts here go about their work. While all else happened out here, I successfully planted my first article - here - Do have a look when you find the time. Thanks much for all the tips, though at times, I don't read through stuff entirely, that is something like a work progress. Cheers and Happy Sunday AM (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This New Page Happy Valley Mussoorie

Best to make it known to all other editors and to this community that there this a new page Happy Valley Mussoorie in town. Till I did some research, I could not fathom that such an awesome historic place could even have a name like this. However, by reading too much into my edit history of the aforesaid article and based on my "choice of articles" it may be misinterpreted that I have a WP:COI. I don't ! And I welcome everyone to have a go at this "new piece of obfuscation" as how some of my older articles have been branded in the not so distant past! It is also probable that I may be reported for this Happy Valley Mussoorie article - being misconstrued as an WP:COI article that encourages or promotes tourism to Happy Valley Mussoorie using Wikipedia as a medium. This article might also get easily misinterpreted as painting an obscure Happy Valley Mussoorie in a "non"negative, unsubstantiated light which may lead to getting me being reported "to the appropriate board for disruptive editng and harassment". Seriously, I don't care. My job work here is to construct something new and interesting for all at WP, ~~not to destroy stuff.~~AM (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this was not good. Please. When you want to write in Wikipedia, start with good sources. If you want to just write whatever is in your head, this is not the place for you. Jytdog (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valuble feedback Jytdog. As an example I fixed source references for the Characteristics section in that article. In your opinion is that good ? For the others, I have the sources, just typing them on my iPad is taking time, much help if you could advise if this article content wise ok for WP if supporting sources are provided ? AM (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is better, but you don't have to sell. You don't have to say anything is "famous" - just describe things neutrally. This is clearly a work in progress - I moved it to draft space so you can improve it in peace. Jytdog (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Until you figure out how Wikipedia works, you would have a better time if you created articles as drafts and submitted them through WP:AFC. I described this above. If you go here: Wikipedia:Drafts there is a big box and if yu write the name of the article, the Wikipedia software will tee up a draft article, complete with a button at the top that you can use to submit the article for review once you think it is ready. That is a "safe" way to get feedback - the people who will come review the article are used to giving people good constructive feedback so that they can learn. And importantly through that process the article will be policy-compliant when it actually goes "live". If you keep creating articles in main space they are going to be treated like actual articles. Jytdog (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That "article:draft" trick is cool. Didn't know such a thing existed. Cheers AM (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I described it in the "how to edit" section above. ack. Jytdog (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Goit it. Point 5 in your note. Just my thick head didn't comprehend it. Now after I finish draft version, do I just remove the header ? AM (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put a better header on it, so that when you are done you can submit it for review. I slid it into the AFC process sideways. Jytdog (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

for pete's sake you turn everything into a battle. I put a technical speedy deletion on the article and its talk page in mainspace, so that when the draft is ready it can be moved to mainspace with no problems. What was this for? Jytdog (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly. I thought that was the right thing to do because when I refreshed the page I was on, that message popped up stating this article is for deletion. No battle plans. Just followed what option that screen provided. I don't know that was a technical speedy delete stuff. And when I am done, I just submit for review.

Help Jytdog - Not sure if what I did was right. I finished adding references and hit the SUBMIT button. I get a message that "This may take a week or more. The Articles for creation process is slightly backlogged. Please be patient. There are 407 submissions waiting for review." AM (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

take responsibility for what you do. you did not just "follow what option the screen provided". You contested the speedy deletion although you had no idea what you were doing. above you were advised to stop and think. i am really just about out of patience with you - especially with the quick, ignorant arguments and then the dismissals afterwards. just about done with you. Jytdog (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

oops. Wonder why I finally drive everyone up the wall. How must I explain the ease I face editing on an iPad. Hmm, just now I got a message on the talk page to improve the reference by using "cite web". Doing that in a bit.AM (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i don't care if you edit using an ipad or a supercomputer and that is irrelevant to your quick, dismissive reactions (like what you just did again) - in fact i would think a clunky interface would give you time to think. you continue to show disdain for wikipedia and its values. you cannot take responsibility for what you decide to do. I am now done trying to help you. Jytdog (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One last time Jytdog would you be kind enough to stretch your patience one more inch to see if what I have fixed or messed up in draft seems alright ?? It is still there at the draft page here I havent submitted for review yet.

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to the submission and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jytdog (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

punctuation before refs, not after
there are weird spaces around refs; please clean this up
there is unsourced content - please remove or source it.
creator was given feedback on the Talk page about complete citations; that was ignored
there is content in the lead that is not in the body - see WP:LEAD Jytdog (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok creator is now working on completing citations and hasn't ignored the feedback. spaces cleaning, punctuations etc working on it. I saw wp:lead couldnt understand, will try again AM (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the "lead" - the stuff above the table of contents, is a summary of what is in the body of the article. there should be nothing in the lead that is not in the body. the lead generally doesn't need sources, because all it does is summarize the body. Jytdog (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Just a short summary. will do AM (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is punctuations before refs ? 'Weird spaces' around refs, I am not able to see them in my edit source, content in lead removed (only one line retained), not sure if it meets the criteria ' nothing in the lead that is not in the body' AM (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

punctuations -fixed, weird spaces - most of what I could find - fixed, unsourced content - removed/sourced, as regards complete citations - not sure, content in lead - fixed/not sure.AM (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Draft:Happy Valley, Mussoorie, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. First formal warning: your addition of refs with invented titles, which is continuing after you have been asked not to do so, is disruptive and must now stop. PamD 12:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK Work in progress on the titles - I first fixed the "cite web" and now working on the titles. Thank you for the edits. Cheers AM (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

removed/edited those contentious titles. Did I comply on the "disruptive edit" part ? AM (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I need help to retrieve some text from an old article that I had created [Scars Do Heal]. I see from the article's view historythat I am unable to select the curr/prev option which now has a strikethrough like this ~~12:27, 17 April 2016‎ Ashleymillermu (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,350 bytes) (+9,350)‎~~

I was under the impression that anything I contribute will not get lost and could be retrieved.

The specific page I need help to retrieve is with this time stamp :

'12:27, 17 April 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+9,350)‎ . . N Scars Do Heal ‎ (←Created page with '{{Infobox book | name = Scars Do Heal | image = | author = Shilpa Menon | country = Mauritius | language = English | genr...')'

Please help me with this.. Thank you.

AM (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helped Looks like Diannaa has rev-del'ed (revision deleted) it. If it was I, I would not try to reuse it. But you could ask Diannaa. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Sailor Thank you

Warning for Disruptive Editing

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed. Do not edit the comments of other editors, especially at AfD, as you did here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Menon_Holdings_Group&diff=prev&oldid=716688787 HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, The issue is not about the article nor is it AfD related. The issue is simply this - 'I want to have those two objectionable slanderous remarks about the article's contributor removed - The two being 1) "paid PR" and 2) "Articles reeks of COI" ' I am sure there must be some WP policy or forum to settle the dispute about - one editor finding the other editors unsubstantiated remark about that editor not acceptable AM (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well you could report the other editor at WP:ANI on the grounds that it was a personal attack: but I'd really very strongly recommend you not to do so. Your better line is to make a clear, calm, concise, statement within the AfD discussion, explaining why you disagree with the statements. But note that s/he said "reeks of", ie "smells like", or "gives me a strong impression of being", and referred to the references they had removed as being "paid PR", ie felt that they were press releases etc rather than independent comment. They were not commenting on you as an editor. Please just calm down, and concentrate on improving the article by adding information sourced to independent Reliable Sources. PamD 07:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you PamD - I dont wish to escalate it to ANI. Calming down. Deep breath... 9...8...7...6...5...4...3..2..1. Calm for now AM (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Happy Valley, Mussoorie

added a link pointing to Dharamshala

Menon Holdings Group

added a link pointing to Worldwide

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me on this - it cites no references, so sources, just a product advertisement, the way it is right now. Could someone please help me with an answer why it should be on WP ?

AM (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: It shouldn't. Deleted. Huon (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

phew. That went fast. Thank you AM (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Shilpa Menon

The article Shilpa Menon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:BIO or WP:NAUTHOR notability requirements. Own books, masters theses, research papers, and press releases do not establish notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Brianhe (talk) 09:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brianhe, Left a post on your talk page, before I saw this one. Cheers AM (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Links in talk pages, and dePRODding

If you want to link to an article in a talk page, as in your "Help me" above and your recent post on Brianhe's talk page, please just use the article name: Karbonn KC555 or Shilpa Menon. Piping is useful if you're linking to a particular edit (a "diff"), but is unnecessary and unhelpful when you're just linking to an article.

And please proofread comments you make: looking at User_talk:Brianhe#PROD it's obvious that your use of the {{deprod}} template didn't work properly, so you should have either checked its documentation, which points out that you need to add the pagename as a parameter, or just abandoned using the template and written your own message, rather than leaving a malformed message.

But in any case the appropriate place to explain why you removed the PROD would have been on the talk page of the article itself - see above: "but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.". You would save a lot of stress all round if you would simply read and follow instructions. Thanks. PamD 13:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Pam, I didn't read the entire procedure about "Deprod", that note on Brianhe's page didn't go exactly the way I wanted it to, so abandoned the template and typed out a message instead.. That piping was intentional, was learning to use it. Thank you Pam & have a good Sunday. Cheers. AM (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with these two things.

Is it possible to save more than one draft articles in the Sandbox ? Say I am working on four articles, How does one create a four new draft/sandbox areas ?
Is there any offline editor / app that is available that can help me cite reference without having to type that entire stuff "cite web{{.... a few hundred words..." Some easier way to go about - like a citing references insert tool???

Thank you and I hope this Sunday is treating all of you well.

Cheers

AM (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can create additional sub-pages of your user page, say User:Ashleymillermu/sandbox 2, or create drafts in the "Draft" namespace via the Article Wizard.
WP:CITECONSENSUS has a list of tools that may be of use. I'm not particualrly familiar with any of them, but you may want to check out whether one of them does what you want. To easily create citations on Wikipedia itself instead of offline, WP:Referencing for beginners has some tips. Huon (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]