User talk:Sadads/Archive 2009 July

I regret that I cannot cooperate with your proposed reorganisation of Battle of Strasbourg, for 2 reasons:

1. First and foremost, I don't agree with splitting the article up. The article was written to form an organic whole, with each section setting the scene for its successor. If you remove sections, you will lose the essential context that makes the sequence of events comprehensible. Also, if I was the average reader, I would much prefer, for example, to be able to read in the article itself a dedicated section on the Roman forces at Strasbourg than to be shunted off to Late Roman army (also written by me), a massive treatise that contains a large amount of data which is irrelevant to Strasbourg. There are other problems with fragmentation e.g. you suggest an article titled "4th century German invasion of Gaul", to which my response is: "which one?", as there were several. Overall, I cannot see the point of going to the trouble of fragmenting the article if all you achieve is an inferior product for the reader. As editors, we should always bear in mind that our objective is to serve the best interests of the reader, not to satisfy our own concepts of encyclopedic elegance.
2. As regards my own input, I am focussed on producing new articles, not tinkering with ones that I have already completed to my own satisfaction. Of course, I accept that there is always room for improvement in my articles and welcome contributions that add value to them. But I question whether tinkering with sections and shunting readers off to other articles does add value.

Best wishes EraNavigator (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

As I said, I don't regard your fragmentation exercise as desirable. You should bear in mind that Battle of Strasbourg and Late Roman army have both been rated A-grade by peer review and the latter article has made it into the Wikipedia CD. You thus need to consider carefully whether your interventions are really necessary and add value to these articles. Your "improvements" so far have been of dubious merit. For example, you removed the major part of the introductory section on the Alamanni, making it impossible for readers to understand the pagus-based organisation of Alamanni forces that are referred to in the main text (I have reinstated the essential elements). A second area of concern is your editing of the text: your command of English spelling and syntax does not appear sufficient for the task. For example, you replaced "joint paramount king" with "dominate joint-king" - I take it you meant dominant. Fortunately, User CPLAKIDAS spotted the error and reinstated the original wording. Elsewhere, your input, both in the text and your messages, is riddled with spelling errors. As the holder of two Oxbridge degrees, I find it hard to accept that you are in a position to "correct" my prose. If we add the fact that you have no expertise in the subject-matter (which you admit yourself), perhaps it would be best if you simply left these articles alone. Your time and effort would be far better spent on the multitude of un-rated articles on Roman history that are crying out for expansion or improvement. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your complaint about being "assaulted" by too much information is absurd: if you are only interested in the battle itself, you can just click on the "Battle" link in the list of contents, which would take you straight to the relevant section (that's what the list of contents is for!). It's true that I am responsible for the vast majority of edits in this article, but that's hardly surprising, since I wrote it (all the other edits are either minor or technical). As for collaboration, I welcome contributions from other experts in the subject-matter. But my experience has been that most contributions from those who don't know anything about it are worse than useless - they actually reduce accuracy and coherence. That's why I wouldn't dream of interfering with an article about nuclear physics or molecular biology: I simply don't know enough about those subjects to add any value. As regards your fragmentation exercise, I (again) decline your invitation to collaborate, as I am against it. You admit yourself that a Prelude section (and, presumably, an Aftermath section) are needed. So why not leave them as they stand? - "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", as the saying goes. And, if you leave those sections in the article, then a separate article on Julian's Gallic (not "Gaulic", please note the correct adjective) campaign is superfluous. PS: the correct form is "there is", not "their is" ("their" means "of them"). EraNavigator (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I advise to make a sandbox version of the new article, so we can discuss changes. If all parties involved are satisfied with the solution we can implement it. Not creating a sandbox will most likely lead to massive disruption for our readers because of the inevitable discussions and reversions of edits. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

We can make the changes in any suitable way as long as we do them in the sandbox first. Any other way is a certain declaration of edit war. Wandalstouring (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Mifter (talk) 08:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi!Sadads

Thanks a lot for editing my two articles on Siri Fort and Jahanpanah. May I request you to use your excellent and valuable editing skills at the article Coronation Park, Delhi, which is tagged.--Nvvchar (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

See my talk page for my views.--Nvvchar (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

• I have fixed the citations. The two important ones are the following.

1) [^[1]] pages 78 to 80 of the thesis.

2)[^[2]]

I have also made some minor edits on capitalization of words, spelling and conversion. I hoep they are in order. Thanks for all the efforts that you are putting in on the article. --Nvvchar (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for the final editing inputs. Inspite of all the copy editing I don't know why the article hook is at the bottom of the DYK page and not moving at all. Another one of my articles Metcalfe House, Delhi, is also at the bottom of the page and has not yet been evaluated.--Nvvchar (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks my friend. The DYK is through and you have been credited. Congrats.--Nvvchar (talk) 09:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. The Coordiantor Election has begun. All members are encouraged to vote by the deadline, July 28. To vote simply add support to the comments and questions for.. section of the member of your choice.

3 users are standing:

• Alan16 (talk · contribs)
• Kevinalewis (talk · contribs)
• Pmlinediter (talk · contribs)

Regards, Alan16 (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC).Reply

Hi! Sadads,

It is quite some time since we exchanged messages. I have prepared an article as titled above. Since you have shown lot of interset in History subjects and helped me in the past in wikifying my articles, I thought of requesting you to join me in finalising this article jointly and then posting it on DYK. In case you have no reservations, then I will post the article on my sand box for your further inputs, editing etc. Please let me know.Thanks--Nvvchar (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply