User talk:DGJ

December 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Indian Police Service have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Indian Police Service was changed by Dr. George John (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.899771 on 2021-12-21T16:27:10+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. RegentsPark (comment) 19:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have left some questions on my talk page. I shall try to answer them when I find it convenient, which I hope will be within 24 hours. In the meantime I suggest not trying to recreate deleted pages, because doing so again, after having already done so more than once, could lead to your being blocked from editing. JBW (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Vivekananda State Police Academy

You asked me to comment on your draft. I looked at the draft, made notes about what I saw, and informed you that I would tell you the results of my investigation when I conveniently could. I have now found a convenient opportunity to do so, so I have retrieved my notes, and loaded up the draft and your talk page in order to be able to do the job, only to find that you have gone ahead and moved the page from draft to article without waiting for my response to your request for help. Nevertheless, I shall tell you what my conclusions were when I investigated the draft. I hope that my comments may be helpful to you, though I'm afraid they won't be entirely encouraging.

The paragraph beginning "SVSPA is well equipped ..." is word for word identical to text contained in the web page theprotector.in/svspa-the-seedbed-where-future-cops-grow. It is difficult to believe that you did not know that you had copied and pasted text into the page you created. Since you have received four messages about copyright on this page, and also been informed about copyright matters on other pages, such as my talk page, and since you know full well that two pages you had previously created were deleted because of such copying, it is difficult to imagine that you didn't know that such copying and pasting text from other sources was unacceptable. If you do the same again you are likely to be blocked from editing.
To qualify as the topic of a Wikipedia article, a subject needs to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and in order to establish that it does, the article requires references to multiple reliable independent sources which give substantial coverage to the subject. All, or all but one, of the references you have cited either don't mention the Swami Vivekananda State Police Academy at all or else just mention it very briefly. The one likely exception is https://wbpolice.gov.in/writereaddata/wbp/Faci2021360001.jpg but I was unable to download that because the web site on which it is hosted is wrongly configured, perhaps because its security certificate has expired. However, since it is on the web site of the police force to which the subject of the article applies, it can't possibly be an independent source. Thus the article contains no references at all to independent sources which give substantial coverage to the academy, and therefore no evidence whatever that the academy satisfies the notability guidelines.
The article is not written from a neutral point of view, but contains promotional language such as "SVSPA is well equipped..."

I'm afraid that the conclusion of all that is that the present article is not suitable. If it remains in its present state as an article it is likely to be deleted very soon. In order to give you a chance to save it from deletion, I shall move it to draft space, at Draft:Swami Vivekananda State Police Academy, where you can work on it to overcome the problems I have described, and then submit it for review.
The comments above apply to the page after it had been improved by RegentsPark. I have not considered whether there were further problems before their work on the draft.
Since you are personally connected to the organisation you have written about, then you should be aware that Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages you from writing about that subject, and if you do choose to write about it then you should edit a draft and then submit it for review by an independent experienced editor, rather than posting it directly as an article. The main reason for that is that experience over the years indicates that editors with such a connection to a subject they are writing about are likely to find it very difficult, or even impossible, to stand back from their writing and see how it will look from the detached perspective of an outsider, so that they are likely to write in ways that look promotional to others, even if they sincerely think they are writing in a neutral way. Also, if your editing forms all or part of work for which you are paid, whether as an employee, as a contractor, or in any other capacity, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require you to state who is paying you, and what your connection to them is. (To avoid the possibility of a surprisingly common misunderstanding, editing is part of paid work if it is done as part of normal employment or as part of a work to a contract, whether or not a specific payment earmarked for editing Wikipedia is made.) Fuller details are available for you to read in the guideline on conflict of interest if you wish to read more.
I am sincerely sorry that much of what I have written must seem discouraging. I don't like discouraging new editors. However, experience over the years has taught me that unfortunately encouraging new editors by letting them remain unaware of likely problems is not actually doing them a favour, as it results in their putting a lot of work into things which are doomed to be deleted, resulting in frustration and disappointment. It is much more helpful, I find, to make sure that new editors are aware of the likely pitfalls and problems with what they are doing. My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. That advice may not appeal to you if you have no interest in doing anything other than creating articles related to your work, but in that case Wikipedia probably isn't the right place for you , because of the conflict of interest issue.

The above was intended to be all I was going to say, but then I discovered that there is already a draft at Draft:Swami Vivekananda State Police Academy, identical to the article you created as it was immediately before the second time it was deleted as a copyright infringement, apart from a few minor changes such as removal of a tag relating to copyright. That draft was created 13 minutes after the second deletion of the article you created. Since it contains the same copyright infringements as the previous version, I shall delete it. The draft was created by someone using the username "Marcusmeditations". Obviously another person with no connection to you couldn't have by coincidence come up with a virtually identical article just after the one you created had been deleted. Please state whether "Marcusmeditations" is you, and if not what the connection between the two of you is, so as to comply with Wikipedia's policy on use of multiple accounts. JBW (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking out the time for writing such a detailed scrutiny.

1. I have made references from multiple independent news websites regarding the academy, examples -

https://www.telegraphindia.com/culture/asha-the-police-dog/cid/1694399,

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/pune/west-bengal-110-years-later-cid-to-get-canine-squad-2867808/,

https://www.thehindu.com/society/history-and-culture/rise-ruin-and-renewal-of-barrackpore-british-indias-first-retreat/article29668672.ece,

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/a-peek-into-history-at-old-governor-generals-house/articleshow/87836810.cms.

Aren't these enough?

Also, these are almost all the independent sources on the academy that I could find. The rest are from official government websites and the official site of the academy. If it is impossible to make an article on the basis of these 4 articles as per the wiki guidelines , I can drop my attempt to get this article published.

3. Yes. The other profile was me. I can delete it if it's against the policy guidelines. I had only submitted the article for review. I thought I could get more suggestions on the article.

4. I thought that the article was good enough for publishing after ReagentParks scrutiny. Which is why I published. I didn't notice that it was blocked under a different name. I apologise for the same.

DGJ (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, apologies for not replying sooner. There were reasons, which I could explain, but it probably isn't worth it. Here are a few comments relating to what you have said. I may possibly come back and say more when I get time.

What I am about to say relates to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as they are, not as I would choose them to be. As far as I am concerned, the Swami Vivekananda Police Academy is notable enough to be the subject of an article, but it seems to me unlikely that it is notable in Wikipedia's terms. The problem with the references you have given, apart from the one on the policetraining.bihar.gov.in website, is that some of them only briefly mention the academy, and others don't, as far as I can see, mention it at all. Wikipedia's [[WP:NOTE|notability guidelines require substantial coverage in independent sources, not just passing mentions. For example, an article which tells us a lot about training of police dogs, but has only a single one-sentence mention of the fact that such training is undertaken by the Swami Vivekananda academy is not substantial coverage of that academy.

There is a lot of confusion among Wikipedia editors about citing sources which aren't independent of the subject, such as in this case official police sources. Many Wikipedia editors appear to think that such sources should never be used at all, but that is a misunderstanding of the guidelines. Under some (but not all) circumstances, an organisation's own website is the best source possible for verification of facts about that organisation, but it ìs never a suitable source for showing that the organisation is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. The reason for that is simple: any person or organisation can write about themselves, whether they are notable or not but only signifcant subjects get written about in detail by multiple other people. (At least that's roughly the idea.) I'm afraid this means that if there are no better sources about the SW police academy, then it isn't going to be acceptable as an article. I haven't searched to find whether there are better sources, but from what you say, there probably aren't.

I will try to comment on your other draft soon, and I hope sooner than this time. For the present, though, the best I can offer is to encourage you to consider the advice I gave above about starting with small contributions to the encyclopaedia. JBW (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating a protected page under another title

I have just discovered that your creation of the article Swami Vivekananda State Police Academy came after RegentsPark had protected Swami Vivekananda State Police Academy (SVSPA), the title you had previously repeatedly used, in order to prevent re-creation. Unfortunately doing things such as that runs the danger of giving editors the impression that you are deliberately trying to evade the effect of protection of the title. Naturally I hope that is not the case, but if you give that impression there's a risk that you may be blocked from editing. JBW (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Swami Vivekananda State Police Academy (January 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RPSkokie was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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 Draft:Swami Vivekananda State Police Academy and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Swami Vivekananda State Police Academy, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

RPSkokie (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DGJ! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! RPSkokie (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Swami Vivekananda State Police Academy

Hello, DGJ. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Swami Vivekananda State Police Academy, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Barrackpore House

Hello, DGJ. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Barrackpore House".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]