User talk:Nyovuu

Welcome!

Hello, Nyovuu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Robert McClenon (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly advice

I came here following RfC discussion initiated by you @ Talk:Arvind Kejriwal which was intimated at my talk page by Feedback request service.

Giving feedback there is practically too difficult for following reasons.

1) Semi-protected edit request, DRN notice, RfC every thing is mixed up. (Usually each of these 3 deserves their own sections to avoid confusions )

2) RfC proposal is not properly formed. Withdrawing it and forming a new one with help of some experienced user may help to some extent.

3) Presenting very large chunk of content for decision usually likely to remain difficult for others to accept in blanket form. Going point by point one by one, may help much.

4) Most users loose due to their haste without learning Wikipedia first.

5) You may try requesting help @ WP:NPOV/N

Bookku (talk) 09:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Nyovuu (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read your posting @ WP:NPOV/N I would suggest following improvements.

a) You gave talk page as section heading but give article name itself as section heading with link. So other readers can read article if they want and understand what that topic is all about.

2) Discussions at common talk pages are open to all, and not just in two persons so personally I avoid addressing other users in second person saying 'you'. Rather I user's user name so discussion remains focused to content and does not become personal.

3) Even if you have personal complaints save those on your personal computer and don't take out unless too necessary. Always focus on content that is the main purpose we are on Wikipedia.

4) I do not see point in pointing new users towards declined semi protected edit request. Create a new subsection with proper summary. Other users are not interested in long write-ups but small summaries.

5) How it should go (Example):

Requesting users to have a look @ the article Arvind Kejriwal (recent article history). Edit difs by user so and so: dif1 , dif2, dif3, Link to previous discussions 1, 2, 3. Seems stripping the article of all the well sourced critical parts failing WP:NPOVHOW* , the response from other side looks like WP:STONEWALL effectively leading to obscurantism. Requesting inputs and help in sorting out the issues so as to WP:ACHIEVE NPOV

WP:NPOVHOW:
.. Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. ..

your signature.

6) from your side it's better to read Wikipedia:Criticism Bookku (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Next small batch of advice.

You seem to have taken my advice partially. I used to post long posts over time I understood that simply does not work on Wikipedia. You need to concise your postings as suggested above. Try to limit yourself 500 words max at a time. That help improvement in understanding of others about what you are trying to say.

Still your post is looking like personal complaint than content dispute. If you want to present any link then just give link, other readers will read for themselves, you do not need to look like you are personalizing the dispute.
Idk if you went through essay Wikipedia:Criticism. Try to read your complaint and present status of the article in light of the essay and see how you can improvise on your position.
Next important thing visit and study WP:RS/P, if any source is noted with negative remark there then mostly Wikipedia community does not allow to cite from such sources. For an example Indian media group Times of India and it's sister publications like Economic Times, Times Now are considered to be non-neutral and generally Pro-Central government. So you will need to drop all such sources considered doubtful in minds of Wikipedia community and look for sources like Indian Express which are considered neutral. You can ask @ WP:RSN if any particular source is considered or neutral.
After above exercise too you do not get response from other side you can seek further guidance from admins who already may have supported that article with administrative activity.

Bookku (talk) 07:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i will try to improve it. Nyovuu (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Next small batch of advice

You are not getting responses probably since your messages are still looking cluttered and not concise enough. And since you are not getting response you seem to be moving from one forum to another.
Before opening up same discussion topic at different notice board 1) generally wait at least 7- 10 days for other users to give response to your post. 2) If you do not get any responses even after a week then you can contact other notice board saying you did not get any responses there 3) but even before that you declare there that you are closing discussion there and moving on to another discussion board with link for another discussion board. 4) Keeping discussions open at multiple places is called WP:Forum shopping which is not appreciated.
You need to learn how to Write neutral WP:RfC
You seem to have approached Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard may be you missed a guideline written @ top itself saying "It is rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here – for the "Incidents" noticeboard, click here" so you can approach WP:ANI if needed but WP:AN is limited purpose and not useful to you.
IMO At this stage you may need guidance of individual admin and not necessarily WP:ANI.

I hope this helps Bookku (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nyovuu (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly advice 2

@Nyovuu

To make my statement look concise I use collapse template

Learn to create a very brief neutral summary/ synopsis of your points.
Sparingly use Underline and Bold font to highlight main points.

Using collapse template

{{collapse top|To make my statement look concise I use collapse template}}

* Longer explanations:

Try collapse template first on your own talk page before trying on other talk pages. Use it for your own long comments if any but not for other's comments. (We are not supposed to edit other's comments)

Probably you are still missing on some points made in earlier set of advice. One more read of my earlier advice messages and help page links given there once again is most likely to benefit in your editing and discussion follow up.

See at my user page User:Bookku#I need this frequently.

Bookku (talk) 06:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Try to understand WP:ANI is about personal behavior of the users like some one is behaving in uncivil manner. If your post their talk of content dispute, readers over there get confused and ignore your message.
Where as WP:NPOV/N and most other discussion pages are for content disputes and if your post appears like personal complaint users will again ignore because users in other forums wish to focus on what is content issue and less interested in '..s/he did this/that ..' statements and your posts may continued to be ignored.

Bookku (talk) 06:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this stage, what you can do is, collect all the references you want to use in the article to WP:RSN ask users there which sources are okay to be used.
After WP:RSN discussion go back to article talk page drop all those sources which which were not agreed upon by other users at WP:RSN. In new article talk page section write again only on basis of agreed sources. See what response comes.

Bookku (talk) 06:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Kejriwal

Hi Nyovuu, I have reverted your edit again at Arvind Kejriwal. I did actually participate at the NPOVN discussion you started and I closed your BLPN discussion as redundant. Nothing happened with your DRN case because it was closed after the other party didn't respond. (I will note that the closer advised you to follow WP:BOLD and not to edit war. Our bold, revert, discuss model is part of BOLD.)

Not that participation in any of those noticeboards matters, because your edit violates plenty of our policies and guidelines—at a glance, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:RS (especially WP:MEDRS), and likely others. BLP specifically says that we should remove disputed content immediately and then we can discuss adding it back. But it's up to you to convince everyone else that it belongs. Many of your sources are insufficient for negative or controversial claims about living persons. In addition, our BLP articles generally shouldn't include "controversies" sections or paragraphs of allegations, as I told you twice at the NPOVN. In your edit summary, you wrote "There was no outcome in consesus", and I agree. What that means is that you don't have consensus to restore the disputed content. Reading through the discussion at Talk:Arvind Kejriwal, I don't see any editors who agree with you.

I also noticed that you created a conflict of interest subpage and added Arvind Kejriwal there; if you have a conflict of interest with the subject of the article, you should read WP:COI in full and comply with its guidelines, including not editing the article and instead making suggestions at the Talk page. COI or not, I strongly suggest slowing down, listening to other editors' advice, and working with others to develop a consensus. I don't believe you'll get consensus to include everything, but it's possible that some of it will stick. Woodroar (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But why well sourced can't be added which was removed. & It has reliable source.It also doesn't violate blp guidelines. Nyovuu (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:Woodroar to keep discussion in one place.

why are you reverting this.All sources are reliable & you can also check this.which guidelines it break? You're edit warring.If you don't want to initiate discussion, so don't revert. Previously also nobody wanted to discuss. Nyovuu (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the sources aren't all reliable. Just glancing at them, I saw a press release, The Times of India, and Business Insider. But the issue is more about how you're using the sources, including reliable sources. For example, we should avoid "controversies" sections (see WP:CSECTION) and allegations without a conviction (see WP:BLPCRIME).

We follow a bold, revert, and discuss cycle on Wikipedia. You made a bold edit, I reverted you (as others have done previously), and now it's up to you to convince editors that your edits should be kept. The place to do that is at Talk:Arvind Kejriwal. I've started a section for you, please use it. (If you'd like, you can even change the title and remove my text this time.) What you shouldn't do is edit war to your preferred version; BLP is very clear that disputed content should be removed until there is a consensus to include it. You need to build that consensus at the Talk page. This is especially true if you have a conflict of interest with the subject. Woodroar (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough reliable sources & about critism section, it was already in previous discussion. & Lawsuit are convicted where kejriwal accused others but got counter-lawsuit, so he has to apologise. Nyovuu (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Woodroar (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Nyovuu. Thank you. Woodroar (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Due to your history of edit warrring and pushing a point of view against consensus, you have been indefinitely blocked from editing Arvind Kejriwal. You can make well-referenced, neutrally written edit requests at Talk:Arvind Kejriwal. If your proposed changes gain consensus, only then will they be implemented. Please be aware that bringing disruption to any other Wikipedia pages may result in an indefinite block. Please read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 04:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take this to your heart

@Nyovuu, Though belatedly if you have admitted to 'conflict of interest' then I will read that positively as part of your sincerity. Like you, other's too in Wikipedia community Many times take time to understand and moves slowly but eventually in long run thing seem to balance, so try to have faith in Wikipedia and read & learn more with patience. I suggest you to read User:Woodroar's over all advice again and take User:Woodroar's following advice to your heart (I mean take positively, seriously and abide).

" ..I also noticed that you created a conflict of interest subpage and added Arvind Kejriwal there; if you have a conflict of interest with the subject of the article, you should read WP:COI in full and comply with its guidelines, including not editing the article and instead making suggestions at the Talk page. .. "

Bookku (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I will not be participating on this page. Thank you for your kind advice. I will keep it in mind. Nyovuu (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]