User talk:Sicilianbro2

January 2017

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)

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)

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)

Hmm. —usernamekiran(talk) 04:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

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:

• 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 abuse of multiple accounts.
• 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) 00:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Annexation of Junagadh

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)

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)

There were two separate issues that I mentioned. The first was that your write-up was badly structured. Some of it you have now fixed. Thanks. The second issue is that the Ankit is article is research paper, and hence, a PRIMARY source. Please see WP:USEPRIMARY for an explanation of why research papers are PRIMARY.

A research article is expected to provide novel and original facts or interpretations. It is not obligated to provide all the other details that are already published and well-known. A wiki article, on the other hand, is expected to provide the consensus of all the reliable sources as far as possible. Hence, it is absolutely wrong to base an entire Wikipedia article on a single research paper. You are welcome to enquire at WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN if you wish.

I will be making more detailed comments at the article talk page. This is merely for your guidance since you appear to be a relatively new editor. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I am quoting WP:HISTRS.

Historical scholarship is: Research articles by historians in scholarly peer-reviewed journals

Rakesh Ankit is a historian specializing in modern history.1. The source is a research article 2 published in a peer reviewed journal. so what is the issue with the article? Sicilianbro2 (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The issue is that you believe that a research paper is a WP:SECONDARY source. You can go and ask at the Tea House or at WP:RSN. Failure to follow policies, after having been warned, will invite sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I will make the necessary inquiry. I will repeat that Ankit's work is a research article. Sicilianbro2 (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Kautilya3 (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)