User talk:WikiDhruba

Welcome!
Hello, WikiDhruba, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 220  of  Borg 15:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

June 2016
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! 220  of  Borg 15:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. 220  of  Borg 15:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Dutta Chaudhuri Chronicles for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dutta Chaudhuri Chronicles 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/Dutta Chaudhuri Chronicles until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing and notability on Wikipedia
Hi! I wanted to drop you a note since I've noticed that you've made a few articles that have some large sourcing issues.

One of the issues is that you've primarily used self-published sources (WP:SPS), such as an ancestry book published by a member of the Dutta family and links to Google Documents from the same book. Self-published sources are almost never usable on Wikipedia as most do not undergo the type of editorial oversight and control needed to satisfy WP:RS requirements. The only time they are usable is if they're routinely cited as a reliable source by other reliable sources - they aren't automatically reliable because they exist or because they're associated with a specific person or family.

On that same note, please do not link to Google Documents. This poses an issue for several reasons. The first would be that of copyright. We cannot guarantee that you hold the copyright to the content in question or that the person who owns the items is OK with them being circulated. However there is also the issue of the fact that these are self-published documents, which makes them problematic for the above reasons. You also should not put e-mail addresses in articles. E-mail is not considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia and there is also an issue with privacy, since anyone can take the e-mail address and do whatever they want with it - including sending spam or viruses. It's why we discourage people posting e-mail addresses on Wikipedia except in very specific circumstances and even then, they have to be posted in a very specific way.

Finally, you must also be careful about notability. Not every person, item, or family is notable, as existing does not automatically give notability. (WP:ITEXISTS) You need to be able to show how the person, family, or item has received coverage in independent and reliable sources like newspaper articles or coverage in places like academic textbooks. Be careful of saying that something or someone is associated with a notable person, event, or other topic, as notability is not always inherited by this association. (WP:NOTINHERITED) In most cases, the topic is not automatically notable and you must establish how they're independently notable.

On a side note, if you are the person who wrote the book or are related or affiliated with them some how, I would recommend that you not add the book to various articles on Wikipedia. This can be seen as self-promotion, which is not allowed on Wikipedia and can actually lead to a block if it is persistent.

I hope that this explains a few things. This isn't meant to be rude, just that I noticed that this was a common issue with your articles and wanted to give you an explanation as to what's going on. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with what is saying. The general rule is that everything added to Wikipedia must be followed with a citation to a source published by a reputable, third-party publisher. Much of what you are adding is not being presented with citations.
 * I was looking at what you are adding and it is interesting historical content, though. I wish that citations could be added. You seem to have access to daily life information of people from centuries ago, and a lot of historical information about a particular family in general. Wikipedia is not the place for original publishing, if that is what you are doing. But if this information is actually coming from some published source, then it would be great to include it.
 * You talk about Bengal in your articles. I do not know if it would be convenient for you to get to Chandigarh in August for the national Wikipedia conference there in August, because that is kind of far. But just the same, meta:WikiConference India 2016 is happening soon, and if you could attend this conference, then I think you would find in-person support and whatever advice is available for doing the kind of writing that you are doing. If you cannot attend, then just know that such things are organized, and people online are learning how to support newer users like you. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia and about Bengali history. Post messages to WikiProject India if you need support on topics relating to Indian history.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Dutta Chaudhuri Chronicles has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)