User talk:Dr.Solomon Jeyaraj

Welcome!

Hello, Dr.Solomon Jeyaraj, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Sivakumar did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! 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 need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. - Timbaaa -> ping me 12:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Dheeran Chinnamalai—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Hello, I'm Bishonen. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Peter Schiff, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 08:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dheeran Chinnamalai

Please read WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOTVANDALISM. - Sitush (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Sitush (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

Hello, we do not call one another "ignoramuses," real or imaginary. When in a content dispute, please remain WP:CIVIL-- it's one of the WP:five pillars upon which Wikipedia is built. Please discuss content disputes and sourcing on the talk page of the article. Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: uncollaborative editing

You were told about WP:PRIMARY here, but obviously didn't read it, or you would hardly have written "He questions even primary sources like East Ind. Co Revenue Board, TN Arch Dept., and Colin Mackenzie as pre Raj !!!" in an edit summary eight hours later. Contributing to Wikipedia is not like doing research at University; Wikipedia is a tertiary source which summarises reliable secondary sources. If you have no interest in learning the principles of this website from experienced users of it (such as Sitush), Wikipedia may not be for you. Bishonen | tålk 09:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

August 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RexxS (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How we work

Hello, professor, and I'm sorry you're off to a rough start here. Academics often have a difficult adjustment here; we don't do any original research, and we prefer secondary sources over primary. This means you have to completely upend what you know about citing sources. Academics often also think that since they've been researching and writing for sometimes decades, and since they're experts in their fields, editing Wikipedia in those fields should be intuitive for them. It's not. We have a very steep learning curve: you have to understand our policies. The welcome message at the top of this page has some helpful links. —valereee (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What Valereee says. For what it is worth, I studied history at Cambridge and am not some random writer here. I have been contributing to the India topic area for some time now and, for example, I have conducted (English language) research for the Chinnamalai article using the resources of Jstor, Project Muse, Oxford Journals, Taylor & Francis, Oxford Scholarship, Sage Journals and several other academic databases, as well as library and generalised online searches. From this work, it seems that there is very little written about him by academics. It is not uncommon for the stories of those who resisted the British to be presented in a glorifying way on Wikipedia and, indeed, that is probably a natural reaction for a large segment of the Indian readership, but we have to work off what reliable secondary sources say, not off masses of folklore trotted out in what are usually rather poor bits of newspaper hagiography.

I noticed when you first edited the article that you used a bunch of primary sources to disprove a statement that existed at the time and which claimed that there were few or even no contemporary references to the guy, thus sort of implying that he might not even have existed. Although I reverted your edits because we simply do not rely on primary sources here, I also removed the statement that you were challenging because that had no sources at all. We perhaps cannot explicitly say that the sources do exist but we can tone down the suggestion that they do not, which was pure original research. - Sitush (talk) 06:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]