User talk:MUMACHA2203

Hi MUMACHA2203! 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 Missvain (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 17:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

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

It is not entirely clear what the title of this draft is supposed to be. It appears to be about two people. Wikipedia articles about people are normally written as one article about one person. This draft needs a proper lede paragraph specifying who or what it is about. It is difficult to review this draft because it is not clear what its subject is.

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 User:MUMACHA2203/sandbox 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 User:MUMACHA2203/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 10:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Kopparapu Duo Poets. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2018 (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 Legacypac was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

I understand what this is. These brothers were not notable enough to be published in thier lifetime but now someone is putting out a book of their work and trying to promote it on wikipedia. No 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kopparapu Duo Poets 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:Kopparapu Duo Poets, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Legacypac (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Kopparapu Duo Poets. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:MUMACHA2203 - I have re-read your submission. I see that you have also asked for the comments of User:Legacypac. Your submission is difficult for me to read and assess in English. I don't like to criticize the quality of your English, but you are clearly having difficulty in using English. Please consider writing the draft in the Telugu language and submitting it to the Telugu Wikipedia. If it is important to you that it be published in English, please find a co-author who is fluent in English.

Please do not post any more requests to the top of my talk page. I may not notice them there. Please post your requests at the bottom of my talk page. If you need help in using the English Wikipedia, ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also had a hard time assessing the page. Articles for Creation is an optional process. You can move the page yourself if you want. Legacypac (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Legacypac - As you will see, User:MUMACHA2203 moved it from draft space to article space, and it was quickly moved back to draft space by an administrator/reviewer. User:MUMACHA2203 - You have advice from multiple reviewers that it is not ready for article space. However, in my opinion, if you really think that it is ready for draft space, since AFC is optional, you may move it again to article space and take your chances on Articles for Deletion. At least, that is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Legacypac (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Literary Duos: Kopparapu Poets, 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 follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. ... discospinster _talk 17:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:discospinster - Thank you. The question for User:MUMACHA2203 is: Will you take the advice to continue to work on it in draft space, or do you want to go ahead and move it to article space, knowing that there will probably be an Articles for Deletion discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Observations

User:MUMACHA2203 - I have reviewed the history of edits. I see no evidence that you used a co-author, whether fluent in English or otherwise. It appears that you created a copy of the draft and moved both drafts to article space. It appears that both of them were moved back to draft space, one by User:discospinster and one by User:CambridgeBayWeather, both of whom are administrators. I will be converting one of the drafts into a redirect to the other draft. Since you don't seem to want to listen to me or to User:Legacypac, I suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For all Users and Administrators: User: Legacypac and Robert McClenon and User: Discospinster This note is in response to all your comments on my draft: Kopparapu Poets or Literary Duo: Kopparapu poets. While the former is found in the sandbox as a redirected draft, the second one is found in the edit summary/contributions page. Though the two drafts are having different heads, the content is same. In fact, I have summoned my colleague in English department yesterday night; he sat down on my laptop and edited the text. After his clearing it, I moved it into article space. Then a set of four notices flashed on the article page stating that the draft was under the finishing stage of review and should not have been moved to article space--Inform author. Probaly due to this all edits could have got undone. Thus User: Robert McClenon could not find any edits carried out by my fellow academic from English dept.

We are all academics in English and communication department in a reputed University in India, and keep writing to national and international journals in English. Yet with all humility we accept your suggestions and follow them.

With regard to the comments of User: Discospinster, I have a simple answer. All of you may kindly read a similar piece available in the English Wikipedia on Tirupati Venkata Kavulu and find out whether the comments/observations that you have made on my draft Kopparapu Poets applies to it? Also kindly examine whether the article Tirupati Venkata Kavulu is well sourced with independently available references? Whether the article Tirupati Venkata Kavulu is not written in praise of them? Was it written neutrally totally? It is interesting to note that for similar articles/write ups different yardsticks have been applied by reviewers be they the editors or the administrators. Same questions are posed again and again by different editors. For instance I have clarified that an identical piece in Telugu is already available in Telugu Wikipedia on Kopparapu Poets entitled as Kopparapu Sodara Kavulu ^[1]. In keeping with a call from Wikipedia English, I have written about same poets in English wikipedia. However, all of you kindly read this restponse at a time and arrive at a calculated decision whether to keep it?

MUMACHA2203 (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:MUMACHA2203 - I have read your comments here and your comments on my talk page. I am not sure that I understand. I do not know why you created two copies of the article on the poets (unless you were trying to game the system, but I would prefer to assume good faith). I am having difficulty in reading your comments because of a problem with the English. I think that the problem is on your end and not on mine. I have been reading English for more than six decades. Each Wikipedia in each language has its own standards. The article in the Telugu Wikipedia presumably meets the Telugu standards. (I don't know that for a fact, because I don't know Telugu.) Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; just because an article is in the English Wikipedia that may not be up to its standards does not mean that another article should be accepted. Four reviewers have already considered your draft. If you want additional editors to comment, we can ask at the Teahouse. If you really think that your draft should be in article space, you can move it again, since AFC is optional, but it may be nominated for deletion, in which case the community will decide. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2018 (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 Shadowowl was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:Kopparapu Duo Poets 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:Kopparapu Duo Poets, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

» Shadowowl | talk 08:48, 2 June 2018 (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 Shadowowl was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:Kopparapu Duo Poets 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:Kopparapu Duo Poets, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

» Shadowowl | talk 12:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as User talk:Shadowowl are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. You are being warned for at least two reasons. First, your repeated posts to the talk pages of multiple reviewers are tendentious. Besides, while you complain that the responses are in multiple places, you are causing this by posting to the talk pages of so many users.

Second, your persistent top-posting of questions to talk pages, when the Wikipedia talk page software works well at bottom-posting, raises competence questions. It appears that you are not trying to learn how to edit Wikipedia. If you don't want to learn how to edit Wikipedia, you don't have to edit Wikipedia. Stop top-posting. Learn to spell the usernames of users. Try to learn.

You have been cautioned. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Kopparapu Duo Poets, 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. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]