User talk:Jhelyam

Hello, Jhelyam, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Happy editing! JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources![edit]

Hi, I see that you main activity on Wikipedia so far has been to complain about the lack of sources in a number of articles. A more constructive approach might be, if you could instead try and go to actually find sources, and then add them to the articles. Placing tags just makes an already obvious flaw even more obvious, and doesn't really help to improve the encyclopedia. Adding sources yourself, however, would result in an immediate improvment! --Latebird (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Finding sources is all well and good, BUT: many of the statements made are too specific, or would require specialized library access to find. When someone repeatedly makes unsourced claims on specifics which are not easily accessible to the layman, it may very well be quite difficult or immpossible to find sources. And also remember: the object is not just to find sources, but to find reliable sources. I place tags because many people aren't serious enough to consider that what they're reading might be poorly sourced. We need obvious error to be very obvious, or the encyclopedia's articles just languish in a poor state. When we see long, encyclopedic-looking articles, sometimes we forget just how flawed they might be. Putting reminders on pages serves to Warn the public about accuracy/substantiation.--Jhelyam (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finding reliable sources is not an objective in itself. but it is an important tool to improve articles. Are you interesteed in helping to do that, or do you prefer to just downtalk Wikipedia? Not that criticism is necessarily bad, but if you criticize, please be as specific as possible, so that others actually have a chance to improve the situation. Other than you seem to think, an article without sources doesn't necessarily need to contain any incorrect information. But if you do find incorrect information, please don't hesitate to point it out. --Latebird (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't criticized Wikipedia, just dusting up some articles by Alerting readers of certain article's flaws. Wikipedia, isn't at fault; it's that some seem to create articles impulsively, with the result being unacceptable. As I have said, finding reliable sources is a policy here, as I understand. Of course, it isn't the sole objective, but once an article has been created, finding reliable support, accessible to readers, for it's content does become necessary, I believe. But, advice always appreciated.--Jhelyam (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August[edit]

Hi, just letting you know that it is still August, and putting a future date in maintenance templates causes the page to show up in Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template. Thanks, ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 23:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and sorry.--Jhelyam (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, we all make mistakes. Happy editing! ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 00:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010[edit]

The {{Citation needed}} template and related inline templates are intended for specific passages that need citation. For entire articles or sections that contain significant material lacking sources (rather than just specific short passages), other templates, such as {{Unreferenced}} or {{Refimprove}}, may be more appropriate. (See Template:Citation_needed#When not to use this template.)

Your tagging at History of the Baloch people, while obviously intended to draw the reader's attention to certain statements' unreliability, reflects a counterproductive overuse of inline templates, rendering the article nearly illegible while not offering future editors a sense of which problems seem to you especially important to fix. When you find yourself adding 40 tags to 25 sentences, that's a good sign it's time to just mark the whole section. Or help us actually improve the article by removing or rewriting inaccurate material. The ultimate goal is not to merely identify problems, but to fix them.

On a related note, when adding section-wide templates, it is standard practice to add them at the beginning of the section, rather than at the end. AtticusX (talk) 10:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you are correct, and thanks for the advice. Although there is a practice in many such articles of using one inline citation for a whole passage, which often isn't sufficient. I do not much like to remove or rewrite information because I do not have time or sources enough. But thanks for the advice.--Jhelyam (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Burusho people, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. See also WP:IBID. Auric talk 11:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mazanderani people[edit]

Thank you for adding the genetics section. However, I had to edit some of your text, because it was clearly a copyright violation. Bearian (talk)