Talk:Combined Graduate Level Examination

This article was submitted as part of the 2016 Wikipedia Asian Month.

Including new Subsection

Hello Wikipideans,

I've decided to add a new subsection to the SSC wikipedia article. It's going to be about the creation of it's new Website. I hope it won't get edited out.103.92.42.191 (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your overbroad statement at the end as it's not supported by the source. It would take original research to make that claim from the source you gave, which Wikipedia doesn't allow in articles. It's your personal view based on the facts. A statement like that needs a reliable source that explicitly makes that claim. Ravensfire (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facts don't leave room for errors. Whatever i'have written, straight comes from the SSC website.

103.92.42.191 (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've not removed a bit of what i had written. And, they were well supplemented with docs 103.92.42.191 (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - it's called original research. There is nothing in the source you provided that makes the explicit claim about "proven incapable of conducting examinations on before specified dates" - that's your opinion and nothing more. Use a blog for that, not Wikipedia.

At this point, you are edit-warring over this with me when you need to discuss this and come to a consensus before adding it back. If you continue, you will end up blocked from editing. Read over the linked page for original research and also on WP:BRD which is a good policy to follow. Right now, you're missing that last part - discuss and come to consensus. Ravensfire (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Check the exam delay subsection. An another editor agreed with me. Apparantly, he saw my original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.92.42.191 (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't write personal messages to someone on the Internet User: Ravensfire. 103.92.42.191 (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, quite humorous consider this gem from you. Second, the comment is about the edit, not you, as it should be. Wikipedia encourages discussion, even vigorous, but always about the edit, not the person. Calling something original research and personal opinion when that's clearly what it is isn't personal, it's sound Wikipedia behavior. Ravensfire (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The new website information should go into the SSC article. None of the references that the IP provided say anything about CGL. It should also go in Logistics if it does mention CGL. I agree with Ravensfire that the verbiage of "proven incapable of conducting examinations" is original research. If someone in a news article said that or posted that, then you can quote it with a reference to that article. The SSC article does not say "Hi, we are proven incapable of conducting examinations". IP needs to read WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV.

Also the IP needs to stop edit-warring to putting in inappropriate and redundant references. On the exam delays, the opening sentence is a general statement about there being delays. It does not need to be referenced specifically to the 2018 tier 1 delay announcement as that statement is covered later in the paragraph. IP has been tedentiously editing this back in after I cleaned this, and that needs to stop. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with above. Ravensfire (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And here you're the same editor User:AngusWOOF who wasn't even letting me post about Exam delays.HA!103.92.42.191 (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's because your initial posts were concerning WP:NOTNEWS / WP:FART announcement about one exam being delayed. As discussed on my talk page, that is not a big deal. But having multiple delays reported by multiple news articles independent of the subject (not just the SSC website, since SSC is a primary source), would work. I don't see why you are removing the secondary sources and leaving just the primaries when Wikipedia policy is to prefer secondary sources and only use primary when unavailable WP:PSTS. You need to be careful of synthesizing the reports into thinking the organization is "proven incapable". Go find some news articles with some editorials and other writers that complain about it to do the talking for you. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hello Mister User:AngusWOOF , Don't ever LIE! OK? I never removed your LINKS. And i told you not to throw that WP:NOTNEWS tag at me. I don't need to check other websites on the Internet. SSC website is lethargic enough to tell that they are incapable of running even a website.103.92.42.191 (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're adding the primary source link in front of the secondary. This is not necessary when the secondary has accurately published the information from the primary. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such wiki page yet specifically about SSC. Hence SSC CGL. Stop your behaviour User:AngusWOOF Create One SSC page by yourself and then write about it's new website there. "None of the references that the IP provided say anything about CGL." Check this [1] .The commit which you ignorantly removed. BTW why did you never wrote about the 'new website' on the Logistics sub-section? I doubt your intentions!

I'm removing your undoing of the Logistics edit[2], if you 'try to remove' that. I'll ask WP:30 on it. 103.92.42.191 (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Staff Selection Commission - huh, look at that. Come on now, you aren't even trying, that was even LINKED from this article. Please start discussing, not continuing to force your way. Wikipedia works on consensus. Ravensfire (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those memos you added say nothing about CGL. You just put CGL in the website field when it is coming from the SSC general website. You can move that to the SSC article, but it does not belong in this article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Age range section

The announcement of an age range requirement change to a particular position is too specific WP:NOTNEWS for this article. The pre-requisite section already says the age range in general is about 18 to 32 without going into details on individual positions. Please do not add this. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For age limit criteria you seriously need primary sources.17:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)