Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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 after they have been resolved.
Hello, Sarim Wani!
Having an article draft 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Qcne was:
Please reference properly by following our tutorial at WP:INTREFVE.
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 after they have been resolved.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by OhHaiMark was:
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 after they have been resolved.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Iltija Mufti, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Thanks for your contributions to Atish-e-Chinar. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheNuggeteer was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Jammu and Kashmir Awami Ittehad Party instead.
The comment the reviewer left was:
There is already an article for this topic. And anyway, you might want to change the Short description to contain a summary of the article and not for responding to comments. Thanks,
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 after they have been resolved.
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.
@Sarim Wani, Thank you for your recent contributions to Wikipedia's articles related to Jammu and Kashmir. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir?, here you will get ideas for edits to do If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Rather (surname in Kashmir). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Rather. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Rather. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Fram (talk) 07:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to Rather (surname in Kashmir). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rather (surname in Kashmir) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iltija Mufti until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
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 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.
You are not and never were banned. You're blocked from editing a single now closed discussion. Since no one should edit closed AfDs, there is no reason to lift that. StarMississippi14:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the nomination of the article may have been frustrating for you. However, it's important to remember that we're all here to improve Wikipedia and ensure that it remains a reliable and verifiable source of information. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia operates under a spirit of collaboration and good faith, and our actions are aimed at maintaining quality, not criticizing individual efforts.
I encourage you to engage constructively and openly in discussions, as this helps strengthen the community and improve articles in the long run. Let's work together to build a better Wikipedia! TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Jairam Kumar Mahato requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jairam Kumar Mahato. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CycloneYoristalk!07:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to The 2024 Jammu and Kashmir legislative assembly Resolution to restore autonomy. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has too many problems of language or grammar.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
You must be patient for a review. There is no need to ping CFA twice for this; and I myself cannot review drafts. You should for a reviewer to see your article. No comment on the contents of the draft. win8x (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sarim Wani, thank you for fixing up the grammar. Someone will review your draft eventually. You can also move this to mainspace yourself with the "move" tab if you want to skip the extra review. Happy editing, CFA💬13:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Mission Swaraj, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heya! I thought I'd come over here and see if I can explain how the deletion process works, and then if it's not clear or you have questions you're welcome to ask me. That way you can get information without accidentally getting in the way of the deletion review process. If there's something I don't know, we can look for policies or ask more experienced editors.
So basically, there isn't really a way to reopen discussions if it seems like there's agreement. Here's what happens:
An editor nominates an article at Articles for Deletion, giving reasons for why they think it should be deleted;
Any interested editors have time to discuss, and should use policy arguments for their view;
Editors who think the article can be improved can work on it during this time, trying to find sources that can show those policy arguments don't apply;
Once it's clear there's a general agreement (consensus), someone who hasn't been part of the discussion closes the discussion, leaves a message saying 'this is what the outcome of the discussion was', and then follows consensus to do what everyone agreed on. Sometimes that's keeping it, sometimes it's merging or deleting. Sometimes people don't agree on what should happen, so the article stays as it was because there is no consensus;
If someone thinks that the closer got it wrong - if everyone was saying "keep it" and the closer said "everyone said delete" - they go to Deletion Review to see whether other people agree that the closer was wrong;
More discussion happens!
If everyone agrees the closer was right, the discussion gets closed and nothing else happens. If everyone agrees the closer was wrong, we go back to step 4 to work out what the actual consensus was.
Now, even if an article gets deleted, that doesn't meant it can never be made again! There's quite a lot of articles that got deleted and then remade because the subject became notable in the meantime. There's a list of those articles somewhere, and I'm pretty sure I saw the iPhone on it - obviously the iPhone is notable now, but it wasn't when the article was first written.
The best thing to do in this situation is to take notes on what people said in the deletion discussion, because you have to be able to show that their argument is no longer true. For example, if someone said there were no reviews of a computer game, you would have to find reliable reviews of that computer game and use them in your new draft. You can keep the draft in draft space and edit it every six months or every time you find a new good source to cite, and then if the subject becomes notable you can submit it. Drafts that haven't been edited for six months get deleted, so make sure you edit things you want to keep!
Well, the article has been deleted, as you know. Based on that discussion it sounds to me as though Jairam Kumar Mahato isn't notable right now. What you can do is create a new draft, and update it when there are new reliable sources that counter the points made in the AfD. Read through the AfD discussion carefully, take note of what people said, and don't submit the draft until you're sure Mahato is notable - this means you will need to wait until after the assembly elections. If Mahato does win a seat, then you can put that in the draft (with reliable sources!) and submit it. If he doesn't win a seat, you will have to wait until he achieves something that meets WP:NOTABLE.
While you wait, read through WP:42, which will tell you about what kind of sources you are looking for. I saw a couple of comments about the sources not being so good, but you have plenty of time to find the best possible sources now. If you're not sure about whether a source is good, you can link me and we'll work it out together. StartGrammarTime (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's excellent, you can update the draft rather than rewriting it - but don't submit it yet. Wait until after the elections, and take this time to get the draft as good as it can be. StartGrammarTime (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to advise you to read WP:BATTLEGROUND which tells editors to not to treat this project as if it was a battleground. I was alarmed at the language on your User page where you talk about "fighting" and "battling" over articles or with other editors. This is a cooperative editing project and you'll make more friends and influence people if you learn to cooperate and not fight with other editors. Treating Wikipedia as a battleground can result in a site-wide block and so that's why I hope you can read this section of the page that I linked to and adjust your attitude towards editing here. We are not here to "win", we are here to contribute to an open source encyclopedia. Sometimes decisions don't go our way (and this happens with experienced editors and newer ones, too) but it's best to move forward and not let the losses color your attitude towards your fellow editors and the entire project.
Having seen some of the articles you've made, I thought I'd come and offer the following advice, which you may find useful going forward. You didn't ask for this, and you may of course take the advice on board or ignore it as you see fit, but either way please take this in the constructive spirit in which it was offered.
In a nutshell: Wikipedia articles should mostly be composed by summarising what reliable published sources have previously said about a subject, and then citing those sources against the information they have provided.
Let's say you want to create an article on an organisation, such as a charity.
First, you need to do a bit of research, to find sources that meet the WP:GNG standard (reliable and independent secondary sources, that have provided significant coverage of the subject). If, after a thorough search, you cannot find at least three such sources, you should probably give up, because the subject is unlikely to be notable enough. Or put another way: since Wikipedia articles summarise what reliable sources have said, if no such sources exist, then their coverage cannot be summarised, and therefore it follows that no Wikipedia article can be created based on them.
Next, you need to look at each source, and figure out what salient points it makes about this charity, both positive and negative ones. You summarise these, in your own words (ie. no copypasting, except for short quotations, but they must be clearly marked as such and cited), without putting any extra 'spin' or embellishment on things. You also don't add your own commentary, or things you might know about the charity – if something didn't come from a reliable source, it shouldn't go into the article.
You may supplement this with a little bit of additional information from primary sources such as the charity's own website, but this must be purely factual and non-contentious, such as the year of founding or the location of their HQ, etc. So if their website says "we are an environmental charity founded in 2011", you can use that. If they say "we are an environmental charity founded in 2011, making us the oldest such charity in the world", that claim is potentially contentious, and you need to find an independent source to corroborate it, otherwise you cannot use it. And if they say "we are an environmental charity founded in 2011, and the best charity that ever existed"... well, that's just swagger, and should be ignored completely.
You then put together all the content you've thus accumulated and weave it into a coherent article, citing each source against the information it has provided.
This approach gives you appropriate content, clear referencing, and the required evidence of notability, all in one go. The same approach is outlined, much more clearly and succinctly, in WP:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, aka the 'Golden Rule'.
I'm sure you knew all this already, but I'm actually secretly writing this for my own benefit, because the 'Golden Rule' is so important that I find it useful to remind myself of it every now and then. :)
You have been blockedindefinitely from editing for inability to engage with concerns raised by other editors, as laid out in the ANI discussion preceding this diff.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I indeed am very sorry for the trouble I have caused on the Iltija mufti page and jarim kumar page I also seek forgive ness for my user page's "hateful language" I assure you That I will start working/ alerdy have worked some errors but am working to no mistakes/errors such in the Mission Swaraj delete dission I seek forgiveness and assure you that I will not repeat theses mistakes from the deep of my heart
Forgive me almighty for my mistakes that I have caused on Wikipedia
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I was banned under very weak conditions (but I am not here to debate upon that I am here to debate why should I be un banned so here is my plan of action (as requested by @331dot)
Not have the “hateful things” (which is documentation) on my user page and have it on a sub-page under a heavy warning (“THIS MAY BE “HATFUL FOR SOME PEOPLE PLEASE BE AWARE”)
In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=* A man is a figure of mistakes ~ unknown
:I was banned under very weak conditions (but I am not here to debate upon that I am here to debate why should I be un banned so here is my plan of action (as requested by @[[User:331dot|331dot]])
:* Plan of action (after unblock)
:Reasons because of which I was banned for
:* bludgeoning
:* having “hateful thing’s” on my User page
:What I will do to address it
:* will ensure to not bulldoze (already done as per my latest deletion review (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Mission_Swaraj) )
:* Not have the “hateful things” (which is documentation) on my user page and have it on a sub-page under a heavy warning (“THIS MAY BE “HATFUL FOR SOME PEOPLE PLEASE BE AWARE”)
:[[User:Sarim Wani|Sarim Wani]] ([[User talk:Sarim Wani#top|talk]]) 10:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=* A man is a figure of mistakes ~ unknown
:I was banned under very weak conditions (but I am not here to debate upon that I am here to debate why should I be un banned so here is my plan of action (as requested by @[[User:331dot|331dot]])
:* Plan of action (after unblock)
:Reasons because of which I was banned for
:* bludgeoning
:* having “hateful thing’s” on my User page
:What I will do to address it
:* will ensure to not bulldoze (already done as per my latest deletion review (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Mission_Swaraj) )
:* Not have the “hateful things” (which is documentation) on my user page and have it on a sub-page under a heavy warning (“THIS MAY BE “HATFUL FOR SOME PEOPLE PLEASE BE AWARE”)
:[[User:Sarim Wani|Sarim Wani]] ([[User talk:Sarim Wani#top|talk]]) 10:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=* A man is a figure of mistakes ~ unknown
:I was banned under very weak conditions (but I am not here to debate upon that I am here to debate why should I be un banned so here is my plan of action (as requested by @[[User:331dot|331dot]])
:* Plan of action (after unblock)
:Reasons because of which I was banned for
:* bludgeoning
:* having “hateful thing’s” on my User page
:What I will do to address it
:* will ensure to not bulldoze (already done as per my latest deletion review (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Mission_Swaraj) )
:* Not have the “hateful things” (which is documentation) on my user page and have it on a sub-page under a heavy warning (“THIS MAY BE “HATFUL FOR SOME PEOPLE PLEASE BE AWARE”)
:[[User:Sarim Wani|Sarim Wani]] ([[User talk:Sarim Wani#top|talk]]) 10:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Please place new posts below older posts, so they stay in order. This may be easier to do if you click "edit" and not "reply". Someone else will review your request, but we don't want hateful content here at all. (talk)331dot10:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sarim Wani. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Jammu and Kashmir Awami Ittehad Party, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
located above the edit window.
