User talk:SHM198

August 2018[edit]

Hello, I'm Kirbanzo. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Spyder (film), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kirbanzo (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Khaleja. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Khaleja was changed by SHM198 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.928817 on 2018-08-17T01:32:21+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SHM198, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi SHM198! 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 John from Idegon (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Tiger has 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: Tiger was changed by SHM198 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.855523 on 2018-08-22T06:35:36+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm RegentsPark. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Abhimanyu, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. regentspark (comment) 13:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, SHM198, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. regentspark (comment) 13:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. regentspark (comment) 13:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank u Regents Park sir, I'll try to add some sources to prove the content I add to Wikipedia. If I don't find sources then what I should do ???? SHM198 (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SHM198: If you can't find sources, you should not add the material. Definitely don't add blogs as sources but look for scholarly sources or reliable secondary sources. You should read WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:SECONDARY. Best, --regentspark (comment) 16:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sahasra Kavacha moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Sahasra Kavacha, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dambodbhava moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Dambodbhava, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftspace means ????? SHM198 (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It means the article is at Draft:Dambodbhava.

Looking at it, it is based on unacceptable sources (blogs, primary-source religious text, youtube videos) and fails to present the subject in a neutral manner. And as such, the article cannot appear in main article space. Please see Wikipedia:Golden rule to get a brief overview of what is expected for an article to be acceptable for publication in main article space. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bypassing the articles for creation process[edit]

I posted the following message at Talk:Sahasra Kavacha:

I am going to move this article to draft space, to allow a chance for it to be cleaned up, rather than deleted, which is what is likely to happen if it is left as it is. Apart from the need for cleaning up the text and improving the use of English, it needs references to reliable sources (not blogs, YouTube, or personal web sites) and which also actually mention Sahasra Kavacha (two of those currently cited don't). Actually, my searches suggest that there may not be any suitable sources, as this seems to be largely a story circulated on blogs and similar web sites, but I am happy to give a chance to be proved wrong.

After posting that message I went to move the article to draft space, only to find that someone had already done so, and you had just recreated it. I very strongly urge you to consider that if editors with far more experience than you move an article to draft space, then it is probably a good idea to edit that draft, rather than ignoring what they have done and just recreating the article. My impression is that the article should be deleted, but I decided to give it the benefit of the doubt by moving it to draft space to give a chance for improvement. By far the best chance of getting it accepted as an article is to edit the draft, and then submit it for review by an editor with more experience than yourself, who will have a better idea of what is acceptable.

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. However, if you do decide to try to create articles right away then pleas do it via the "articles for creation" process, as that is the best chance available to you to get articles accepted rather than deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: given his reaction in a section above, this user didn't know what draft space was, at the time. I hope my and your responses have clarified the situation. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: You are right. Sometimes I am so used to how things work on Wikipedia that I tend to forget how difficult it can be for new editors to know what is what. I do understand that when I stop and think about it, though, because I found things really confusing when I started editing. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

SHM198, sorry if I was less helpful than I should have been. As I said above, my advice is not to try to create articles yet, but if you do choose to do so then I very strongly recommend doing it through the articles for creation process. Maybe by now you already know how to do that, but in case you don't here is a quick review. There are some possible variations in the details of how to do it, but this is as good as any.

Create the page in draft space, which simply means giving it a name beginning with "Draft:" so that if, for example, you want to create an article called Boris Black then you should actually call it Draft:Boris Black. At the top of the page put {{AFC submission/draft}}. A notice will appear on the page saying "This is a draft Articles for creation (AfC) submission" and some other stuff . At the bottom of that notice there is a link labelled "Submit your draft for review!" When you think the draft is ready to become an article you should click on that link. You will then be given a page which you will need to save, and then you have to wait until an Articles for Creation reviewer checks the draft and decides whether it is suitable to become an article. The articles you have already created have already been moved to draft space by other editors, and you can edit them there if you wish to. They are Draft:Vriksharaja, Draft:Sahasra Kavacha, Draft:Dambodbhava, and Draft:Raudra.

I have also found that at least one of the articles you created was mostly a copy of another article, with a few bits that you added. It is usually considered to be a bad idea to create a new article which contains a large proportion of an existing article, for several reasons. Also, if for any reason you do copy part of a Wikipedia page to another then you must say where you copied it from in an edit summary, because otherwise you are infringing the original authors' copyright.

I hope these comment may be helpful to you. If by now you already knew how to use a draft then you can ignore what I said about that, but please do ask if there are any other details you need to know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok SHM198 (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I provided good sources in all articles but i'mnt understanding what more has to be done SHM198 (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a loss to know what to say to help you if you can say "I provided good sources in all articles" after all that you have already been told. Most of the content of the pages you created has no references to sources at all, and those sources that you have cited mostly if not entirely fall into categories which you have been told more than once are unsuitable, such as blogs and YouTube. If you want a more detailed and complete account than you have been given in messages above then I can only suggest that you check the links given above to the verifiability policy and the guideline on reliable sources. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent unsourced editing[edit]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Vali (Ramayana). This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You no doubt came to edit Wikipedia without knowing of the need for sources, but you have had plenty of warnings about it now. Please take note of all of teh messages you have been given on this matter, particularly "If you can't find sources, you should not add the material. Definitely don't add blogs as sources." The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic editing[edit]

@SHM198:. You need to fix your editing practices or you will be indefinitely blocked under WP:CIR. Two quick fixes, please don't add you tube as a source and please don't mark edits as minor when they are clearly not. You should read WP:RS to see what qualifies as a reliable source and WP:ME to see what qualifies as a minor edit. Please treat this as a final warning. --regentspark (comment) 13:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Realised[edit]

Ok thanks SHM198 (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vijayadashami, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tamil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank[edit]

Sry for that. I don't know that. Next time I won't do this. Excuse me for this time SHM198 (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Vijayadashami, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.

(Sigh). and after all the help this user was given... ~Anachronist (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]