Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)
Wikipedia editor Abishe just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Hello Sahrudayan: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Abishe (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I have just put up your page Michael Rogge for deletion and used the word "rubbish" in my reason. I have no intention to offend anyone but it is essential that we all have some understanding of where our standards lie. The page is appalling trash because it is a completely self-serving CV/family history and written in a style not befitting anything holding itself out to be an encyclopaedia. I write by way of plea to you to take a closer look at what notability is all about and the importance of some sort of independent support for the material that you decide to add to the encyclopaedia. We simply must not publish material such as you have for Michael Rogge because it seriously undermines the value of the website as a whole. Please approach page creation with more circumspection. sirlanz04:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sahrudayan, You should just ignore the above message. Michael Rogge is notable. I have added many good references to the page, which exist. Your page was a good effort, although it lacked many pf the needed references. Don't worry about the deletion process, as it will certainly be kept! Pages with this many good references are never deleted. Just ignore those editors who would try to slow you down. 104.163.153.162 () 09:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you will note that the person writing the above comment is not so committed to the encyclopaedia even to register or is not so committed to the opinion expressed as to back it even with his/her pseudonym. You can judge credibility of such a comment for yourself but, for me, it is as cheap as you may get. Secondly, the point of my message to you and for my recommendation for deletion is not whether or not the subject is in fact notable or about whether suitable sources to establish notability exist: the point is that every editor who is worth their salt will create pages only once having already established that the subject is notable and that there are reliable independent sources to establish that, and will provide them at the time of page creation, not hours, days, weeks (or never, as is often the case) later. That is our basic duty. To dump material onto the encyclopaedia and either abandon the page at that point or expect others to come and clean up is bad editorial practice and I am dissuading you from continuing in that manner. I shall not comment again about the quality of the material here - that was not the basis for rejection - but that is where other editors will come in and make improvements, after you have established notability in the proper manner. sirlanz09:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To 104.163.153.162- Thank you very much for your encouraging note and contributions to the page. I do not want to argue with negative-minded people, but rather learn from their words and opinions. Personally, I lost some motivation to write further, after the rude and unfair comments. However, people like you help me restore my faith that humanity and kindness exists even among WP editors :-). Thank you once again!
To sirlanz - I take all your points, albeit with a pinch of salt. I see WP as a crowd-sourced, crowd-edited knowledge management system. I am not fully literate about the "encyclopaedic" wiki process as you follow it, although I have gone through the documentation - perhaps you should make a quick tutorial to educate new authors and editors. I am no full-time author and if I had the time and resources to write a full-fledged article with complete research before submitting for review, I would rather get this published in a journal of repute with my real name and only when it is published, I may merge/add relevant contents into WP. Based on my limited understanding of the way the system of WP is currently set up, I do not agree to your point that an article has to be complete before it is created. If that is the case, I think, Wikipedia should enforce a "standard process" where an article flows through a sequence of standard states, similar to how good journals operate. I envisage that an author must be able to create stub pages, build and save incremental versions on top of it - all of this while the article remains in a "Draft" state. The article should be published to other editors/reviewers only when when it is ready i.e. he/she changes the state to "Ready for review or edits by others". The current problem happened because: you may think I have finished and thus eager to judge it as rubbish and kill the article, but in reality, I had worked out only a part of the article. Sahrudayan (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sandbox is for drafting things which are not publish-ready. I'm not saying you have to have a complete article before you publish. You can publish a stubb, a one-liner even, if there is sufficient in it to establish notability and credible independent sourcing accompanies what you publish. WP will fail completely if people are permitted to post material absent such sourcing because it will then become a trash can for everyone's vague knowledge and opinion. As registered editors, we have a responsibility to help protect its reputation and utility. sirlanz11:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
sirlanz, you know as well as I do that you screwed up on this nomination. The sources in the article are now enormous. You very clearly failed to do WP:BEFORE. Instead you have chosen to call names. In a perfect world you would offer the article creator an apology for your behaviour. Also, being an IP editor is not an indication of a lack of commitment. You know that too. 104.163.153.162 (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A word of advice. You will run into people who are just in a bad mood and want to shower you with invective. Just ignore them, even if they are so-called "veteran editors". Everyone is equal on wiki, so you need not defer to some false seniority. You have done a very nice job on the article! Don't engage with those who seek to put you or your work down. They have no more credibility than any other editor. You are under no obligation to reply to them either. A simple "thank you", and nothing else, as a reply to them will often stop the harassment.104.163.153.162 (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Vennikulam, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Hello, Sahrudayan. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
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. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of Rhythm Watch Co., Ltd., Japan.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Logo of Rhythm Watch Co., Ltd., Japan.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Products Illustration Rhythm Watch Japan.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of loanwords in Malayalam 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.
I am seeing this deletion only now. Leaves me shocked, devastated, appalled at this blatant use of power to erase the efforts a small community has built over 15 years without providing an option to port the knowledge it had archived to any other venues, any open collaborative knowledge hosting platforms! Sahrudayan (talk) 05:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm not sure how following the AFD process to delete a single word list is a "blatant use of power to erase the efforts [of] a small community", but whatever. There is a deletion review process, and it may also be possible to recover the article text if you want to use it elsewhere. What you can do after deletion. PepperBeast(talk)16:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I consider it as a "blatant use of power to erase" because if you had deleted this based on a certain general principle and reasoning, the same reasoning should be applied "en masse" to almost all of the numerous wikipedia pages under Category:Lists_of_loanwords and not selectively on this page. Because, when I started this article in 2008, it was a small article and some fellow Wikipedians later helped to re-style the content as those of other existing "list of loan words" WP articles.
Also, if I remember right (from couple of years back), this was a page that received at least 100,000 views on a daily basis. As this erase action was not done systematically across all of the similarly templated WP articles, I consider this as a targeted abuse of power against a small community of Wikipedians interested in the external history of Malayalam language, for reasons not known to me. If this is not the case, please take a generalized approach and act on all those pages under Category:Lists_of_loanwords immediately.
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
