User talk:Nisargstar

Your report to the vandalism reporting board
I have declined action because you appear to not know what vandalism is. Please read our policy on vandalism before making any more such reports.

In addition, I have removed your contributions to Tehelka. All statements on Wikipedia must be verifiable, written from a neutral point of view, and any potentially contentious statements backed up with reliable sources. I suggest you read the pages I have linked in the previous sentence before you make any more additions to the article, or you can contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you. - Running On Brains (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Advice on editing

 * While I was writing the following message, Runningonbrains posted the above message. I find some of my points duplicate what Runningonbrains has said, but I give a little more detail, so my comments may still be helpful to you.

Welcome to editing Wikipedia. I hope that you will be able to make many constructive contributions. However, unfortunately there are problems with your editing of Tehelka. For one thing, a Wikipedia article must be written from an impartial, objective, point of view, and it is not acceptable to add a personal opinion or analysis, or to edit to promote a particular point of view. Thus, such langauge as "Many people thus allege (and rather convincingly)..." is not apporpriate, as what is convincing is a matter of opinion. Likewise "Tehelka's articles are rather slanted and give indications of prejudice in the name of journalism" is a personal opinion, and is clearly written to promote a particular point of view, rather than giving an impartial account. For another thing, information must be capable of being supported by reliable sources, and much of your edits have added unsourced material. Such language as "Many people thus allege..." is not acceptable, because it does not indicate who alleges it, or what evidence there is that people do so. Yet another problem is edit warring, which is to say repeatedly reverting to the same or substantially the same content when others have undone your edits. Articles would become unmanageable if we allowed editors with opposing ideas as to what an article should say to just keep reverting endlessly to their own preferred version. To prevent this problem, our policy on edit warring does not allow such repeated reverting. If you find that your editing is not accepted by one or more other editors, the thing to do is to discuss the issues on the article's talk page, with a view to reaching a consensus. Editors who continue to edit war may be blocked from editing to prevent problems.

In the above message I have included a few links to relevant policies and guidelines, which you may find useful. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: ''I am copying your message about this from my talk page to here, so as to keep discussion in one place. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)''

First thing, as you might already know, i am new to this.So apoligies if my language was a bit misleading. Secondly, thanks for your advice.It helps to get to know the ways of wiki pedia. Thirdly, you allege that my edit was bereft of evidence and liinks.But there was a link provide to a recent debate on a national news channel which basically led me to make that edit.So if you took the time out to see the dabate (which i can say with deep coviction, you did not) it might have helped you understand nad percieve that edit in a different sense rather than just some wound up guy and his biased babble.

You must take some time and read through the the tehelka wiki page, especially major stries and tell me if you can spot even one story incriminating the UPA govt. which has been in power since 2004 and it can be safely assumed (if you bother to open your eyes sometime) has been involved in a far lot more scams,corruption and wrongdoing.As i wrote,in popular paralance referred to as the most corrupt govt this country has ever had (seeing the record of politicians in this country, its no mean feat).

P.S:There are a billion news atricles from reputed and prominent dailies to support the 'most corrupt govt tag'.Another lot of surveys, again by reputed and prominent news organisations are waiting to burst open on your face.

--Nisargstar (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately you seem to have substantially missed the point of my message to you. "It is interesting to note that..." is an expression of your personal view. Likewise "it gets murkier if one notes..." Also, your edits are clearly written to promote a point of view. No matter how much support there is for that point of view, it is still a point of view, and a Wikipedia article needs to give balance to all points of view, not to promote one point of view. "And in true Congress style they indulge in slander and character assassination or stall the discussion" is a comment expressing a personal analysis. Even if there are reliable sources indicating that certain people hold that opinion it is still an opinion, and should not be stated as a fact. You may like to look at the article Adolf Hitler. You will see that, even when dealing with a person regarded by the vast majority of people as utterly evil, the article reports on him in a detached, objective tone, and does not express a personal judgement. That is how a Wikipedia article should treat its subject. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok i seem to be geeting a drift of what you are getting at.But clarify this for me- is analysis of something staring you in the face also unwelcome at wikipedia.

And even if i have used the phrase 'It is interesting to note that', what i go on to state is a fact.A fact confirmed by the website and wiki's own article on it.Its just a case of glass half full,half empty. I'm sorry to bother you by harping on the same point (sincere apoligies-you have been very helpful ) but as you may find, if you look, that a vast majority of the scams unearthed by this magzine in question have been from 2000-2004 (check the major stories section of the aforementioned magzine's page on wikipedia). Now a logical person might wonder what has it been doing since that uptil now when a different regime is in place.Maybe my use of popular parlance does not stand wiki's stict verifiable and fact based policy, but to stare away when facts are right in front of you would be pure buffoonery.

'''AGAIN LET ME STATE IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, THAT I HAVE GOT THE GIST OF YOUR POINT AND RECOGNISE MY FOLLIES WHEN I READ THE EDIT IN LIGHT OF YOUR ADVICE.IT SEEMS LIBELLOUS AND SLANDER FROM MY SIDE. WHAT I'M TRYING TO ENGAGE YOU IS ON A DISCUSSION ON WHETHER A GLASS HALF FULL,HALF EMPTY CASE IS CONSIDERED AVOIDABLE BY WIKI POLICY'''

Secondly, how does on explain the behaviour of the executive editor on a television debate( to which i provided a link to )when she accuses a member of the civil soceity for accepting real estate situated worth butloads of money at subsidised rates from some state govt which was contrary to the truth, without using the words 'slander'.Agreed my reference to the political party is incorrect but her statements are on record in the video.So how do i support this point?? And i think you might gain more context of where i'm going if you care to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lokpal.Its pretty brief and might give you more context.

You asked me to refer to hitler's page. I did.And i found this:

'Hitler is most well known for his central leadership role in the rise of fascism in Europe, World War II and the Holocaust.'

How far is 'most well known' from 'in popular parlance' or 'most people allege'.As ambiguous as the other.

Nisargstar (talk) 09:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the sentence you quote about Hitler is not ideal, but I don't think that one sentence detracts substantially from the point I was trying to make about the overall tone of the article. Also, the content of that sentence is pretty uncontroversial: few people would deny that he is well known for his role in the rise of fascism, whether they regard that role as good or bad. By contrast, your edits were clearly expressing the view that certain people's actions were bad.


 * The only reason I became involved in this issue at all is that, in the course of checking vandalism reports, I saw your report, when I checked it out I found that your editing was being reverted, and I thought it would help you to explain why. I am not acquainted with the background to this case, and don't want to spend the time necessary to learn all about it, so I can't go into details about what is and what isn't supported by the available sources. However, in general terms, if a particular person has expressed a particular view, then it may be justifiable to report that the person has expressed that opinion, which is not the same as simply stating the opinion as though it is a fact. Please note that I said "it may be justifiable", not "it is justifiable", because it still depends on there being reliable sources, and also on the person's opinion being notable. For example, if Winston Churchill said that Hitler was evil, then providing I can find reliable sources to confirm the fact, I could include it in the article on Hitler. If, however, my sister said that Hitler was evil, there would be no justification for including the fact in the article, because my sister's opinion, unlike Churchill's, is not significant.


 * Another point which I hope you may find helpful. You have rather dived into editing Wikipedia at the deep end, by making a substantial contribution to an article as your first edit. There certainly are many editors who do that successfully, but in my experience far more often it is a mistake to do so, and much safer to start by making very small changes. The trouble is that very often an editor who start in a big way finds that, because they are not used to what standards are considered acceptable, their editing is repeatedly reverted, which can be very frustrating. Often such editors finish up leaving Wikipedia, totally disheartened by their experience. Editors who start in a small way can gradually learn how Wikipedia works, and if their small edits are reverted it's not such a big deal, and they have not had so much of their time and effort wsted. Once they have been here a while and learnt how things work they can then successfully make bigger contributions.


 * Finally, I will post you a (rather late) welcome message, which will contain links to various pages which you may find helpful. It is not realistic to expect anyone to read all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before editing, but you may like to at least have a quick look at some of them and see if any of them are useful to you. Also, you can always come back to them in the future when you find the need for particular information. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * }