Misplaced Pages

Talk:1987 Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election: Difference between revisions

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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:02, 19 February 2018 editJosephusOfJerusalem (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users905 editsm →Post 15 February edits← Previous edit Revision as of 03:33, 20 February 2018 edit undoKautilya3 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers86,407 edits →Post 15 February edits: ReplyNext edit →
Line 9: Line 9:


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 ] 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 ]s when ] dictates that they not be used for undisputed content (see Shah case in Amira Kadal). It gets worse in that there is added ] between (even worse) ] and ] sources. where you have synthesized content between a secondary source and an official election commission paper. ] (]) 22:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC) 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 ] 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 ]s when ] dictates that they not be used for undisputed content (see Shah case in Amira Kadal). It gets worse in that there is added ] between (even worse) ] and ] sources. where you have synthesized content between a secondary source and an official election commission paper. ] (]) 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 ] and ].
: I think a mass revert of a dozen-or-so edits based on spurious ] 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. -- ] (]) 03:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:33, 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.
WikiProject iconIndia: Jammu and Kashmir / Politics High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPolitics
WikiProject iconThis 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 has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconElections and Referendums
WikiProject iconThis 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)
Categories: