User talk:Jayneesh

Jayneesh, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Jayneesh! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of CrazyFlie

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No independent sources.

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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of CrazyFlie for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article CrazyFlie 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/CrazyFlie 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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of Crazyflie page

Hello JamesBWatson,

I created the page for Crazyflie this morning. I tried to add a few more sources to save it from deletion last time. But it seems it has been marked for deletion again. I am a grad student and this is my first time contributing to Wikipedia. I can see from the talk page that the deletion has been requested due to lack of independent sources. I would like to know what sort of sources I could get in order to improve the article. Because you are right when you say that googling Crazyflie only gives company links and github projects. Sadly it is a very small enterprise made by students like me. So finding myriad sources for it can be tough. Mostly people use it for projects and such. My motivation to create a page ironically, was because when I started working on the project and decided to Google Crazyflie, I didn't find any Wikipedia page for it and I wanted to add one,so that students like me , who want to work on Crazyflie have some basic information to start with. I have also not done this due to any collaboration with the company or to advertise about them. Infact I even mentioned a few problems it has, to be as unbiased as I could. I really want to save the page. So any help or insight will be highly appreciated.

Thank you. Jayneeshw (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand what you say, and I'm sorry to have contributed to your early experience of editing Wikipedia being probably somewhat frustrating. I too have created Wikipedia articles because when I wanted to get information on certain subjects there was no Wikipedia article, and once I had found information elsewhere I wanted to make it available for other people too, so I do sympathise with your purpose. The difference, though, is that by the time I did that, I already had enough experience of editing Wikipedia to have a good idea what would be likely to be accepted. 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. Obviously, that won't be much help to you if you are interested only in creating an article on this one subject, but it is worth considering that advice if you do think you may be interested in contributing in other ways. The fundamental point here is that Wikipedia does not aim to have articles on just anything, but only on subjects which have received substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. A "very small enterprise made by students" is very unlikely to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

One small point on something completely different. When you post to a talk page or discussion page of any sort, you should end your post with four tildes (i.e. ~~~~). That will automatically be converted to a signature. Not only does that save you the trouble of hand-typing in the signature, time, and date, but it also avoids a few possible problems, such as your signature not being recognised by the software, as happened here, for example. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two more points that I thought of after posting the message above.

I suggest using only one account unless you have a particular reason for using two, to avoid confusion. Also, if you do continue using two accounts, I advise you to state on the user pages of each account that you are doing so, to avoid giving the impression to other editors that you are using two accounts for deceptive purposes. (I am not suggesting that you are doing that, but some people do, which can lead to other editors being suspicious of anyone who seems to be using more than one account without saying so.)
Luckily, I saw your message to me above, but if I had never come back to this page I wouldn't have seen it. Wikipedia has a convenient method of letting other editors know you have posted a message to them. There are several slight variations, but the following is as good as any. When you post your message, include the tag {{ping|username}}, so for example to alert me to a message you would use {{ping|JamesBWatson}}. Provided that you also include ~~~~ for a signature in the same post, I will then get a notification telling me you have posted a message for me. Please note, though, that this works only if you put both the "ping" and the signature in the same post: it doesn't work if, for example, you forget to use the ping and then go back and add it to a message afterwards, without a new signature. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: Ah, I completely understand your point now and will try my best to start with baby steps. I would like to thank you for the patience and guidance you have provided. And while I was upset with my very first page being deleted , I also realized that Wikipedia would not be the project it is today, without its stringent guidelines and that you are merely doing the right thing.

Oh and yes the reason for the multiple account mixup was that I was using two devices and one of them (My mobile) already had an old account auto signed in, so when I used it , it caused the confusion. I will deactivate the other account surely. I have also implemented the "ping" and "sign" feature for this message. Thanks again for your help. Much appreciated.

Jayneesh (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can sometimes be confusing and intimidating for new editors. I remember when I first started editing I found some of the policies and guidelines bewildering. One of the problems for new editors is that over the years Wikipedia has, in my opinion, developed far too many policies and guidelines, and those that there are have grown far too long and complex, making it difficult for new editors to know what is acceptable and what isn't. I believe Wikipedia could be made better by deleting about 90% of those policies and guidelines. However, things do get clearer as you get more experience. And your "ping" did work, which is why I am here now. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)

@JamesBWatson: Yes I do find the guidelines intimidating, but I guess , this is something that can only be mastered over time. Thanks to you and other veteran editors, I do hope to learn quickly and start mastering this particular avenue. I find this task quite daunting and yet somehow exhilarating. Thanks again. Jayneesh (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]