User talk:Vlado1

Nomination of Vlado Keselj for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vlado Keselj is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Vlado Keselj 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. Jenyire2 (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome
Dear Vlado1

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. I am sorry you might have hit some difficulties. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome! Msrasnw (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

PS: I think there may be some actual/perceived conflicts of interest(coi) with your new page and some people take a really strong - perhaps overly harsh - line with this kind of thing: going straight for deletion. Anyway hope you can stay as an editor and add useful material.
 * Dear Vlado1, hi. your username might be taken to imply you have some connection with Vlado Keselj and your contributions to that article and the afd debate are likely to be regarded as problematic by many editors (see coi link above). Just letting you know. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC))


 * Re: Thanks for your message regarding the most recent page that I added. I made some small edits to Wikipedia before, but this is the first time I am included in an editors' discussion. Is the "talk" the only way Wikipedia editors or authors communicate? (Sorry about newbie question - will try to read more of the guidelines.)

Dear Vlad1, Talk is the main way for communicating with editors - some indulge in more private email exchanges when sneaky or more private things are being discussed. Newbies are often badly attacked because of COI things... so it is best to edit only things where there are no possible problems. I think looking at the academic bios that go up for deletion many such as this one get deleted. Having bare bones ones without trying too hard to prove notability might be the way to save it. As far as COI is concerned ... making clear what any such fators are and putting it down to newbie status might be useful. Feel free to let me know of any questions you have. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC))
 * Looking at this (Conflict_of_interest ) might be a bit helpful.  (Msrasnw (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC))
 * Thank you. Learning these Wikipedia conventions and codes is tricky. I guess I should use code uw-coi but where do I put it? Is it at the beginning of my first comment in the page talk discussion page? Vlado1 (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Vlado1, things are bit tricky and I don't know how best for you to do this. And how it may impact on the afd for the little bio. I think the suggestions from the template instruction page might be that the article talk page may ("should") be tagged with this, the article itself may be tagged with and that this  be placed on your Talk pages to warn editors that they may have a conflict of interest... and/or these   (on article talk page) and this  (for you to self-declare on you own Userpages the articles with which you might have a conflict of interest (one  template per article). All of this - and it seems a lot -  is because, I think, this sort of thing is frowned upon by many. I am inclined to think it is often a more honest mistake.  The afd has not yet attracted any big problems and it might or might not. And I think it is a borderline one for academic bios.  I think your little note there is fine  but I don't know if adding these other templates after the afd if the page survives or adding them now might be best. Sorry I am not sure about what to do. Some would be sure and say you should put all the templates on as soon as possible... Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)) PS: Editing things you know about but don't have a COI with might be nice anyway and would show a willingness to contribute. PPS: I am not an administrator or anything .. just a long term editor with some experience of academic articles for deletion.
 * AFD: I have trimmed down the Vlado Keselj article a bit.  The aim is to try to save the article from being deleted... or draftified. David Eppstein is one of the main contributors to academics afds. His suggestions carry a big weight  and lots of contributors there follow his suggestions (and he himself is a noted computer scientist).  Perhaps making suggestions on the article's talk page if you can think of any useful additions might be the way to go rather than editing directly - which might lead to more support for draftifying it or blowing it up.  (Msrasnw (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC))
 * Thank you for very helpful advices. Vlado1 (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)