User talk:Anjali das gupta

Greetings, and thanks for editing Wikipedia. The effort you put in is appreciated. Unfortunately, I had to revert a recent edit you made to Kalyan Singh. This was because Wikipedia is not a news source, and so we do not mention each and every news article about the subject; this would be giving such items undue weight. We only include it when the coverage given to it in reliable sources makes its importance clear. Please do not be discouraged by this, and continue to make useful contributions to Wikipedia. Feel free to contact me with any questions you have. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or sock puppetry.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Krishna does not have an edit summary. 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 and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Kautilya3 (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jaundice may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of the [[sclera|white area of the eye]] and the skin.Urine is extremely dark in colour.<ref>{{Cite news| url=http://www.webmd.boots.com/a-to-z-guides/jaundice |title= Jaundice|publisher=[[Webmd]
• * Urine: Conjugated bilirubin present, urobilirubin > 2 units but variable (except in children). Kernicterus is a condition not associated with

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that when adding medical content please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anjali das gupta (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Hey[reply]

Greetings Doc James

My last edit was jaundice page and I Have mentioned some of the credible sources of medical domain in

my source i.e webmd.Can u please guide me as where I am wrong and what can I do to change it. As the last edit is not reflecting any source to correct it.Anjali das gupta (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay added a major medical textbooks :-) This website appear to be advertising boots which appears to be a pharmacy chain? [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you've been adding content with some sources to many articles. While the idea and action is very good, there are some issues with the quality of the sources you have added. This is not something that's easy to figure out for new editors, so I'll just give you some examples:

• On Munaf Patel, you added spouse's name cited to a source. That source on checking appears to be a user submitted content site and does not have a reputation for fact checking and will not qualify.
• On Delhi, you added that it is a city-state sourced to a conference website. In this case context matters, while the conference website may be used for non-controversial information about itself or related to the topics covered, it shouldn't be used to cite unrelated information about the host city etc as they don't have that kind of expertise. In this case your website says that Delhi is a state, but that's not the case as it hasn't received statehood.

I encourage you to look at this page to help get an understanding what could be considered a reliable source. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anjali das gupta (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Hey Greetings, I would like to know while editing that how can I justify the source is reliable.can you please suggest me the way how can I distinguish.Anjali das gupta (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anjali, please read WP:RS first, which explains what a "reliable source" is from Wikipedia point of view. It should be published source (could be online) with a well-known, mainstream publisher. Mainstream newspapers like The Times of India and The Hindu are ok (but for only news, not opinions). Internet sites, blogs, wikis etc. are not ok. Your edit to Pramod Mahajan today was questionable, because iloveindia is not a mainstream newspaper. In this case, I would let it pass because the information seems factual and not contentious. But, still, it is best to avoid such sources. If you have queries about anything, please feel free to ask. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A number of your recent edits are adding content that is already in the article and supported by better references. Please read WP:MEDRS regarding references.

Also there should be a space NOT a period after a reference before the next sentence. THis is not proper formating [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anjali das gupta (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey greetings Doc james I would like to know that where I am not giving period after reference(quote me with example if you can) so that I must not repeat that mistake Again and After how many edits I can become the autoconfirmed user.Pls guide me

Thankyou For your AssitanceAnjali das gupta (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are now introducing factual inaccuracies to articles, such as with this edit on Delhi where you added that the Jama Masjid was built in 1956, while it should have been 1656. In addition, while it's generally a non-controversial statement, blogs like this shouldn't be used as sources, especially given that for such info, high quality sources are readily available. I think Kautilya3 has already given you some good pointers on this, please follow those. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 07:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is in reg to your question on my talk page, can you please link the source here, so that we can evaluate if that's something you should use or not? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 07:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The India.gov source is ok in general, but for controversial info it shouldn't be used. However, newworldencyclopedia is not a reliable source as they copy their articles from Wikipedia. Hope this helps. —SpacemanSpiff 08:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with medical articles and medical sources, but I see that Doc James has advised you about that, please follow the doctor's advice on that.

Historical sources: WP:HISTRS is a good starting point. In general, reviewed books, or articles published in peer reviewed scholarly journals are acceptable. e.g. for The Jama Masjid bit you were trying to add: this book would be a good source as it is published by a reputed publisher and is held at various libraries around the world

Biographies: Avoid blogs and random websites. In general, newspapers such as The Hindu, The Times of India etc are reliable. However, context matters a lot, e.g. page 3 articles from Times of India shouldn't be used, likewise columns by people should be used only to verify their opinion, and not a source for facts.

Most importantly, please have a read through of our reliable sources guideline to get an understanding. —SpacemanSpiff 09:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Mean as custard (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mean as custard: That is not a very helpful warning. What disruptive editing has Anjali done? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]