User talk:Salivahana

Welcome!
Hello, Salivahana, and welcome to Wikipedia!&#32;Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was N. Chandrababu Naidu, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article.&#32;Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * Best practices for editors with close associations
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how and why you say that I have any conflict of interest with the subject. I am an independent journalist and author. Contrary to your statement, I don't 'work for, or represent' the subject. I write for independent publications, the latest being Hindustan Times Premium. My book on N.T. Rama Rao's political biography has been published by Penguin Random House India. Since the article on N Chandrababu Naidu on Wikipedia at present is ametuerish and full of opinions, I have taken up the task of providing neutral and professional write-up with proper citations. You have made a baseless allegation that I have added 'commentary' and my 'personal analysis'. Have you bothered to go through the article? Can you cite such instances? Salivahana (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know who you are, but I see your edits, and there's a lot of them. The article may well be in a poor state, but you are not improving it by adding content like "Naidu, who has completed four decades in politics, is globally recognized for championing liberalization policies and market reforms as the Chief Minister during the 1990s. His contribution in transforming Andhra Pradesh in general, and Hyderabad in particular, into an information technology hub is widely acknowledged." Or "Naidu worked hard to strengthen the TDP". That even might be true, at least to some extent, but it's way too promotional. At the very least, in this huge set of huge changes, you could explain in those edit summaries what you are doing--and judging from your fluency in Wikipedia editing, you know how to do this. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I really don't know what is so biased or wrong in saying 'Naidu has completed four decades in politics' or that he is 'globally recognised for championing liberalisation policies' during the 1990s. I can provide any number of independent citations for the same (which I already did). Again, stating a fact like 'championing liberalisation policies' is not promotion, because Naidu was vehemently criticised and opposed for the same by some sections and he was even called a 'world bank agent' for his stance. I was going to add a section on the criticisms on his privitisation and other policies. Also, you should have observed that I have already written about the erosion in his credibility due to opportunistic alliances, etc. Fact is I am not fluent in Wikipedia editing, though I am an experienced journalist with a lot of information at my disposal. Could you tell me how I could explain in the edit summaries what I am doing? Thanks. Salivahana (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all the history of your edits is very, very confusing, with these removals alternating with additions. I cannot easily track what you are doing at all. Also, I can't read your mind: I can't say what it is your trying to achieve with individual edits. This edit, I suppose, could be "added verified information and more detail about 2019 election defeat" or something like that--and that edit is probably an improvement, though I don't understand why you replaced the (unverified, sure) numbers with a phrase like "resounding failure". Does that make sense? Especially in contested articles, and this article has also been plagued by abusive editors creating sock accounts, such explanations are really essential, if only to show your good faith and your willingness to communicate. And besides that, the sheer number of edits is a bit overwhelming, though I understand the rationale. Make things easy for other editors, that's really key here. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Would it be better if I create a complete draft on the User Page, incorporating the source material but providing additional inputs and proper citations? Then the article can be reviewed by others before it can be published. Salivahana (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Salivahana


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Salivahana requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 14:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

reply
You have an obvious conflict of interest, please don't write about your own book, and read the guidance below:
 * When you write about a book, you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that they meet the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the author or an associated organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the author or publisher claims or interviewing them. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls.
 * Much of your text is unsourced or sourced to sites that are clearly not independent third-party sources, like Penguin and the Taylor & Francis sales page
 * Much of your text consists of cherry-picked positive reviews. Notability doesn't depend on what people think of the book and it just looks like self-promotion
 * I see no evidence of how your book meets the notability criteria linked above.


 * You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.
 * In the lead section, supposed to be a summary, we get The book is available in hardcover and in Kindle format. The book was received positively by journalists and commentators., just a sales pitch. Your "About the book" appears to be more a summary of your views on N.T. Rama Rao than describing your text eg the imprint he left in that rather short period was remarkable... the profound impact he left... the vital role he played in national politics during his relatively short political life have not received deserving recognition... NTR waged an uncompromising fight against the Indian National Congress... the credit for pushing Centre-state relations into the mainstream agenda should largely be accorded to him... and stormed to power in an unprecedented victory. Not so mjuch a summary as a self-review.


 * There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
 * You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Signing in articles
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your edits to articles, such as the edit you made to N. Chandrababu Naidu. This is a common mistake to make and has probably already been corrected. Please do not sign your edits to article content, as the article's edit history serves the function of attributing contributions, so you only need to use your signature to make discussions more readable, such as on talk pages or project pages such as the Teahouse. If you would like further information about distinguishing types of pages, please see What is an article? Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your suggestion. I have not specifically added my signature to my edits. Could you please explain how not to add my signature? Salivahana (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)