Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::: I have referred your "SYNTHESIS" complaint to . I will respond to the other points later in the day. -- ] (]) 14:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
::: I have referred your "SYNTHESIS" complaint to . I will respond to the other points later in the day. -- ] (]) 14:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
::: Well, I must say you are incredibly eager to hit the revert button, but remain totally evasive in the discussion that follows. What sentence have you found a problem with? Why is it CHERRYPICKED or UNDUE? You mean to say that you have read the journal article in the it took you do the revert and figured out that the sentence represented a "CHERRY"? Produce your evidence. What does the article say, and how is the sentence a "CHERRY"? You have 24 hours, failing which you will end up at ]. -- ] (]) 21:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Revision as of 21:10, 20 February 2018
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums
Post 15 February edits
I have been checking the edits you have made since 15 February and I am quite disappointed with them. For one the section called Electoral malpractice is full of WP:UNDUE content which would have been better suited under a title of Extent of electoral malpractice. There is hardly any content which informs the reader about the rigging and the ways the governments rigged the elections and all the other nasty stuff they did with votes (that is content which falls under electoral malpractice), although there is a wealth of information on the way the rigging occurred in the excellent sources you have cited. There is also the problem of too many WP:ATTRIBUTIONs when WP:YESPOV dictates that they not be used for undisputed content (see Shah case in Amira Kadal). It gets worse in that there is added WP:SYNTHESIS between (even worse) WP:SECONDARY and WP:PRIMARY sources. See this edit where you have synthesized content between a secondary source and an official election commission paper. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh boy! You broke my heart. I was so looking forward to your approval and admiration :-)
But, guess what, your "disappointment" is not grounds for deleting well-sourced and NPOV content. Your supposed objections are:
The section should be called "extent of electoral malpractice". That is fine by me.
The actual malpractices should be covered as well. Yes, who would dispute that?
Problem with too many ATTRIBUTIONS? Are you joking?
SYNTHESIS between SECONDARY and PRIMARY? What exactly? And if there was such SYNTHESIS, what is the problem with it? See WP:CALC and WP:SYNTHNOT.
I think a mass revert of a dozen-or-so edits based on spurious WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons is quite crossing the line. Please be assured that you do not have a right to do such reverts. You need to justify that everything you have reverted has a policy-based reason for it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
You will need to keep in mind WP:CIVILITY and focus on content rather than unleashing sarcasm.
I have re-organized the structure of your contributions to make them flow, removed the source misrepresentation and added a citation needed tag where previously there was a WP:FAKE citation for the opening line under Electoral malpractice. I have also dropped down Results under Rigging to conform with the sequence of events.
Content that has not been restored includes one WP:CHERRYPICKED and WP:UNDUE sentence. That can be resolved after the more serious first issue in my next sentence.
The other sentence which has not passed for restoration is the one whose problems I have raised in my first talkpost (which you have ignored). Unless you have a source explicitly supporting that content you are not allowed to add it back because you have mixed up material from two sources (one of them primary) to reach a conclusion not stated in either, which is WP:SYNTHESIS. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, I must say you are incredibly eager to hit the revert button, but remain totally evasive in the discussion that follows. What sentence have you found a problem with? Why is it CHERRYPICKED or UNDUE? You mean to say that you have read the journal article in the fifteenminutes it took you do the revert and figured out that the sentence represented a "CHERRY"? Produce your evidence. What does the article say, and how is the sentence a "CHERRY"? You have 24 hours, failing which you will end up at WP:AE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
