User talk:AnupMukherjee

Welcome!

Hello,, Welcome  to Wikipedia! '''I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at Naming Conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal &mdash; and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my talk page.'''

Additional tips:
 * Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:
 * If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
 * If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
 * Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: . If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.  Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
 * You might want to add yourself to the New User Log.
 * If your first language isn't English, try Contributing to articles outside your native language.

Happy editing! &rarr; Jarlaxle Artemis   23:28, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Self talk
Hi,

First of all, I suggest you to move the section with this name at your user page here. This (user talk page) is the place for discussions, since you are probably expecting responses to your message.

Now, to your issue. Wikipedia generally descourages usage of external links. the reason is very simple: wikipedia cannot ensure neither the existence of external links, not their content: at some moment the external webpage may go dead or change its content so that it no longer be relevant to the article where it wa quoted. See When should I link externally listed at the wikipolicy page External links for more discussions of the issue.

Now, as for missing info: you are very well welcome to write aricles on the missing subjects, rather than refer to external places, even they contain your own text. Also, please read about conventions on article names and see the changes I've done in your Advertising management (renamed) article.

In addition, please read carefully the policy No original research. Among other things, the article you write must show that the term is well established and discussed in authoritative publications. For example, media buying, while it is an important act in ad managt, is is discussed as a separate subject in any of books about advertising practice? References to web pages will not count as authoritative, because they don't provide sufficient peer review (and wikipedia is not in the business of peer review either).

As for "missing links", please keep in mind that a missing term may have an article under a synonym or with different spelling, usage of capital letters, hyphens, etc.

I hope you will not be discouraged by the reception and become a valuable contributor, since you obviously have much to say. Mikkalai 18:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

self talk
What exactly is a "self promoting link"? Is it wrong if one has written something useful and it is submitted by him? I would like to draw attention to the articles like 'Advertising' and 'Neoliberalism' to which I had submitted an external link that was removed with the tag of 'self promoting link', simply because they had been written by me.

I thought that the article written by me was informative (a version of it has also been published in an Encyclopedia published by ME Sharpe). Now, I search for an article on 'Advertising Management' and find that there are no such article. So, I start a new article on Advertising Management. When I start writing, I find that the various things that have been mentioned in my article simply does not exist on wikipedia (indicated by red link). It consequently means that the article link submitted by me was informative.

It is not a problem, if someone edits out a link - the problem is with the tag of "self promoting link". Perhaps online democracy has also its flip sides.

I would rather appreciate the moderator who wrote regarding one of the links submitted by me on 'Lenin' as "They're not self-promoting, even though he wrote it himself."

I dont know about others, but to "self promote", would be the last thing I would do, or for that matter contribute my time to development of wikipedia - Anup (Apr 16, 2005)

reply: self talk
Well, I didn't know what purpose exactly this User talk section served.

Thanks for the response. Of-course there is no problem with anyone removing any link submitted by me - my problem only was the use of term "self promoting". I of-course would not like to make an issue of that. Most of the articles written by me (or submitted here) have been published in print (journal / encyclopedia etc). Of-course these articles are NOT the exact replica of the print - as that is a copyright issue.

Yes, I agree there is not going to be any original research here. I would gradually be chipping in the book references.

What I really like about the wikipedia is that one can develop a theme gradually without deadlines as such. Particularly the online editing feature is great.

thanks again.
 * Sorry, I gave you bad link. It should be No original research. And by the way, an easy way to sign your messages at talk pages is to type four tildas: ~ . It will be automatically converted into your signature, like mine here: Mikkalai 21:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

self-talk
I read somewhere that moderators could remove edit comments. Could the unreasonable comment of "self-promoting link seeding by User:AnupMukherjee" attached to the edits in Neoliberalism and Advertising, be removed? thanks AnupMukherjee 06:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Peer review Kolkata
Hi! A request has been made for peer review of Kolkata. Could you please help improving the article? Thanks a lot.--Dwaipayanc 11:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)