User talk:Sampatsamshodhak

Welcome!

Hello, Sampatsamshodhak, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ism schism (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer be able to have them marked as minor by default. For more information on what a minor edit is, see WP:MINOR or feel to get in touch.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keren / East Africa

I don't want to discourage you so I thought I would explain why I reverted your recent addition to the Battle of Keren. I did so because 1) you added a large amount of text with no references at all. Ideally each relevant point should have an in-line citation to a book and page number. 2.) It was way too detailed. An encyclopedia should not try to replicate a detailed history but cover the relevant facts to give the reader an understanding of what happened. The references and bibliography should provide pointers to readers to dig deeper if they wish 3.) Stylistically it was rather POV and written in a narrative rather than encyclopaedic style 4) It didn't fit with the rest of the article - just a lump of text that was dumped into what was already there. Overall, try to bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and as such should be measured and authoritative rather than breathless and exciting. A tight descriptive writing style and plenty of in-line citations are a good guideline to make this happen. Regards Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 10:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]