Talk:Sinhala numerals
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Reversals
[edit]Hello, people keep reversing here, I have explained, the entire lede is very poorly written, and not sourced properly. Why is it being reversed? 2600:1001:B008:A8F9:4AB:F3FD:9FBF:F628 (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Ad Orientem: why are you guys reversing my edits? Even in the template it states the lead is poorly written, unsourced and is too long. Why reverse something that you guys are telling editors to fix? Please explain yourself. 2600:1001:B008:A8F9:4AB:F3FD:9FBF:F628 (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Tymon.r: why did you reverse my edit? Did you read my explanation or see the template which states clean up is needed? Or, lede is too long? 2600:1001:B008:A8F9:4AB:F3FD:9FBF:F628 (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- I haven't reversed any edits. While you may have a good case for redacting uncited claims, in the case of large scale redactions you should open a discussion on the talk page first as these kinds of actions tend to get quick attention from various patrollers of recent edits. See also WP:BRD. That said, if there are controversial claims that are unsourced they can be removed until they are sourced per CITE and V. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Ad Orientem: The template does not say discussion is needed. It states “clean up” and “lead too long”. So, I trimmed everything that was not related to the article, unsourced and most importantly, the English written here is not even acceptable for primary school, let alone an encyclopedia. I have no issue, if there is anything valid there, put it back, with proper grammar and English acceptable for an encyclopedia. 2600:1001:B008:A8F9:4AB:F3FD:9FBF:F628 (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- After looking at the redacted material in more depth, I think you are on solid ground here. I have removed the warning from your talk page. The redaction looks good to me and should not be reversed w/o improved referencing at the least. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Ad Orientem: awesome! Thank you so much for understanding. I was just trying to help. Thanks again! 2600:1001:B008:A8F9:4AB:F3FD:9FBF:F628 (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Ad Orientem: @2600:1001:B008:A8F9:4AB:F3FD:9FBF:F628: Please accept my apology for that revert. Sometimes, when you can spend just a few seconds on evaluating a revision and you evaluate hundreds of revisions in a row, mistakes happen. Thanks for your contributions! I am sorry you had to take your time to explain this situation. Ad Orientem, thank you for removing warnings from the user's talk page. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 23:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Ad Orientem: awesome! Thank you so much for understanding. I was just trying to help. Thanks again! 2600:1001:B008:A8F9:4AB:F3FD:9FBF:F628 (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- After looking at the redacted material in more depth, I think you are on solid ground here. I have removed the warning from your talk page. The redaction looks good to me and should not be reversed w/o improved referencing at the least. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Ad Orientem: The template does not say discussion is needed. It states “clean up” and “lead too long”. So, I trimmed everything that was not related to the article, unsourced and most importantly, the English written here is not even acceptable for primary school, let alone an encyclopedia. I have no issue, if there is anything valid there, put it back, with proper grammar and English acceptable for an encyclopedia. 2600:1001:B008:A8F9:4AB:F3FD:9FBF:F628 (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- I haven't reversed any edits. While you may have a good case for redacting uncited claims, in the case of large scale redactions you should open a discussion on the talk page first as these kinds of actions tend to get quick attention from various patrollers of recent edits. See also WP:BRD. That said, if there are controversial claims that are unsourced they can be removed until they are sourced per CITE and V. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Tymon.r: why did you reverse my edit? Did you read my explanation or see the template which states clean up is needed? Or, lede is too long? 2600:1001:B008:A8F9:4AB:F3FD:9FBF:F628 (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)