User talk:SPGSec

August 2024

Data dumping removed material is not good Wikipedia practice. All the best. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a Wikipedian even if I were to disregard suspicions of sockpuppetry, I can see that there is not a single reliable source, such as a published secondary source in your addition. You have used government reports, government website, university websites, ... Even if I were to ignore that, which I cannot, I can plainly see that your additions add nothing encyclopedic, no qualitative high-level description of what the canal was or is about. Also suggestions of man-made-river which ignore the extensive salinization are not credible. May I suggest, respectfully, that you self-revert and take to the talk page, rather than bring penalties on yourself. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, you expect newspapers and magazines to write about ages old canal, rather than governmental sources, old books or university papers. That's why I say admins on Wiki are nothing but dumb. SPGSec (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not newspaper and magazines, but reliable published sources, especially peer reviewed published WP:Secondary sources such as scholarly books or journal articles.

Ian Stone's Canal irrigation in British India: Perspectives on Technological Change in a Peasant Economy, Cambridge, 2002, for example is such a book, as is
biography of Proby Cautley in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, or
Joyce Brown's 1980 Memoir on Cautley in the Royal Society Journal of History of Science all three of which are relatively recent,
But Cautley's own Report on the Ganges Canal Works, volumes I, II, or III, or his account of the dispute with Arthur Cotton from 1860s is too old to be reliable and also as it is the canal's projector's account, it begins to look like a WP:primary source.

To view an example of sourcing please see Darjeeling, an article I recently co-wrote, especially its list of sources (both books and journal articles): Darjeeling#General_and_cited_references.

In other words, we are required to read such sources and then summarize them in encyclopedic prose, citing each set of related sentences to its source. Your additions are not helpful at all, as you've added table after table of discharge etc statistics, ... which give an average reader of this English Wikipedia no insight. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. DanCherek (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]