User talk:Phedupzz

Welcome!

Hello, Phedupzz!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sati (practice)

Please note that all your edits in Sati (practice) have been reverted because you had removed content without any explanation in edit summaries. Per WP:ONUS (which is WP policy) and WP:BRD, which is good editing practice, please take your concerns to Talk:Sati (practice), if you'd like, explain what you had been doing in your edits, and attempt a new WP:CONSENSUS for them. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did so many wrong grammar, and usage edits of redundant words that it took me 3 hours...things like putting a comma before "which", or making one version of "sati" instead of sati, Sati or italiced Sati,

or this: "...allowing the athorities to insist that the widow sacrifice herself in reality by..." Why "in reality"? Is it because the woman could actually jump on the pyre, or because the authorities really, really insisted that she do it? "In reality" here is redundant and makes the statement unclear.
Or, "The practice of sati was emulated by those seeking the high status of the royalty..." Do you mean "the SAME status AS royalty?" Royalty is high already and people cannot just wish themselves into that state. Why do you have to say, "high status"? We already know that royalty is the highest status. This wording is redundant and unclear.
And, "Jauhur was originally a self-chosen death for noble women facing defeat in war, AND PRACTICED..." I think it should read, "...and WAS practiced..." , again a clarity issue.
The following sentence is really bizarre, "On attested Rajput practice of Jauhar during wars, .... and notes that the Kshatriyas or Rajput castes, not the Brahmins..." Something is missing between "during wars" and "and notes".
And, "...it was practiced in Bengal...where it was originally practiced..." REALLY?
And, "...a concentrated effort to PUSH..." You seem to be misusing "push." Are you trying to say...what ARE you trying to say? It's unclear.
"Aristobulus hears AS widows of one or more tribes in India performing self-sacrifice on the husband's pyre, **** one author also mentions..." What do you mean by "as" here? Do you mean "hears OF"???
Also, you need to put a semi-colon where my asterisks are or split that into two sentences instead of the one that you have incorrectly written here. " This is just horrible usage and sounds as though written by an ESL author.
"The Danish strictly forbade apparently early the custom of sati at Tranquebar, a colony they held from 1620 to 1845 (whereas Serampore (Frederiksnagore) was Danish colony

MERELY from 1755 to 1845).

"...was A Danish colony..."

What do mean by "merely"? Do you mean "only"? What are you trying to say?

Commas where there shouldn't be and no commas where there should be.
"...legalizing missionary activities in INDIAS," plural???
You use Kolkata once and don't make it clear that it was Calcutta in the past.
After note 112, yet another misused "which" instead of a "that."
"...the practice of sati in his area of influence, that is Gujarat" should be "his area of influence, Gujarat." No "that" ,which makes it unclear.
"...Charles Napier about what they claimed was a MEDDLEMENT..." MEDDLEMENT? You must mean an interference.? Unclear.
Then there are more misused "wiches".

I'll stop here, though the errors go on and on. I've now spent 3 HOURS rebutting you.

I may have cut one or two sentences that were virtual repetitions of the immediately preceeding ones, but I don't think I removed anything substantive. If so, it was an accidental cut, and I'm sorry for that.

So many errors, so many explanations; this rebuttal took me 3 MORE hours and I didn't go through the article to the end.

Your article, as it stands, remains somewhat clumsy and bloated, with naive or outright wrong usage and it makes you look foolish.

Sorry, IMO. Phedupzz (talk) 05:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]