User talk:Sicilianbro2: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 39: Line 39:


I appreciate your efforts to improve the article, which is certainly in dire need of improvement. However, your version was so far below the acceptable standard that the current version fares far better. I hope you are not discouraged by this, and will continue to work on an improved after draft in your own user space. Cheers, [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 01:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts to improve the article, which is certainly in dire need of improvement. However, your version was so far below the acceptable standard that the current version fares far better. I hope you are not discouraged by this, and will continue to work on an improved after draft in your own user space. Cheers, [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 01:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

My version of the article relies on Rakesh Ankit's peer-reviewed journal article - a [[WP:SECONDARY]] source. Ankit's article is a thoroughly researched in-depth historical analysis and has hundreds of citations with extensive research into documents from that time period. The alternative version you would rather keep is all lacking citations. So I have added content and details from the most thorough analysis there is on this subject. I will add more citations and improve this article. You should also do the same. [[User:Sicilianbro2|Sicilianbro2]] ([[User talk:Sicilianbro2#top|talk]]) 08:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:33, 5 July 2017

January 2017

Information icon Hello, I'm BilCat. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Indian annexation of Hyderabad without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. 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. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Hello, I'm Usernamekiran. I noticed that in this edit to Pakistan, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 04:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Usernamekiran I have only added sub-headings and shifted some content to under the correct sections. No content has been removed. Please see.Sicilianbro2 (talk) 04:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. —usernamekiran(talk) 04:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

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:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

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) 00:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sicilianbro2, I have had to revert your edit to the Annexation of Junagadh article, which in fact looks like a complete rewrite of the article, because it does not adhere to Wikipedia style guidelines for how to write an article. I encourage you to read the link on "How to write great articles" above, which also links to relevant sections of the WP:Manual of style.

I suggest that you create a draft article in your sandbox or userspace, invite other experienced editors to comment upon it, and polish it until it is ready for mainspace.

Also of concern in your edit is your overreliance on a single research paper (which counts as a WP:PRIMARY source) and no attempt to cross-references it with other sources. Your lead sentence refers to the author of this article rather than the subject of the article itself. This is an absolute no-no.

I appreciate your efforts to improve the article, which is certainly in dire need of improvement. However, your version was so far below the acceptable standard that the current version fares far better. I hope you are not discouraged by this, and will continue to work on an improved after draft in your own user space. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 01:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My version of the article relies on Rakesh Ankit's peer-reviewed journal article - a WP:SECONDARY source. Ankit's article is a thoroughly researched in-depth historical analysis and has hundreds of citations with extensive research into documents from that time period. The alternative version you would rather keep is all lacking citations. So I have added content and details from the most thorough analysis there is on this subject. I will add more citations and improve this article. You should also do the same. Sicilianbro2 (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]