User talk:Nityasomani98

This user is a student editor in University_of_Chicago/Violence_in_the_Early_Years_PBPL_27809_(Winter) .

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Nityasomani98, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Female infanticide[edit]

Hi, I reverted you here, sorry. I am sure that some of it is ok but when you make so many changes in one edit it tends to place an unreasonable burden on anyone who attempts to review it. There are also some definite oddities in there - you seem to be using some sort of markup called "hyperlink" that I've never seen before on a Wikipedia page. Could you perhaps (a) break the edit down into smaller, most likely less controversial, changes and (b) explain what you are trying to do with the "hyperlink" stuff? It would probably be best to discuss this at Talk:Female infanticide in India. - Sitush (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sitush! I agree with him - it's much better to make smaller edits because this makes it easier to see the changes - as well as help correct or give feedback. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush and Shalor (Wiki Ed): A major problem seems to be that this editor does not understand how to use the normal templates of Wikipedia, so is adding all their suggestions using the "comment" syntax - including confusing additions such as . Nityasomani98: don't just suggest a link, go ahead and make a link /wikilink / hyperlink (here, as there is no article on this person, you should decide whether to make a red link because a future article is likely, or to leave him unlinked if it is not). Instead of , use the template {{citation needed}} or the short cut {{cn}}. You seem to have spent a lot of time commenting on the article - perhaps this was set as an academic assignment, in which case your instructor was possibly misguided. Adding large numbers of comments like this is not the way to proceed. If you want to set out a detailed set of comments about the article, the talk page would be the better place to do so. PamD 20:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is certainly a part of it. There are also unnecessary changes, eg: introducing overlinks, spellings that are US English rather than Indian English, changes from singular to plural etc. All sorts of stuff going on and, as I said, it is difficult to untangle when the edit is seemingly across the entire article. This isn't a question of trying to blame someone - we've all been new here and know how confusing it can be. I just think that there probably is some good stuff in the edit but it is being drowned in the noise. - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Chicago/Violence_in_the_Early_Years_PBPL_27809_(Winter) seems to be the course. - Sitush (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nityasomani98, I have just made a few copyedits at the article as a demonstration. You can seen them in the history. If, say, someone was a little unhappy with my change to the Definition section, they could go to the article talk page - Talk:Female infanticide in India - and write a note about it that included a diff to the specific change they are talking about, ie this one. They can get the diff by finding the edit in the history, "ticking" the bullets that cover it and then clicking "Compare selected revisions" to generate the url that they want to use as a diff. Complicated at first but very powerful and pretty much the way everyone is encouraged to refer to past edits on Wikipedia. You can step through the history literally one edit at a time, all the way from when the article was first created (well, most often you can - there are some exceptions where, for example, things have been deleted and hidden for legal reasons etc). - Sitush (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just introducing myself for the courseKchengfm (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ritual child abuse for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ritual child abuse, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ritual child abuse until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]