User talk:Nomadichistory

October 2024

Hello, I'm Yue. I noticed that you recently removed content from Kazakhs without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Be specific in your edit summaries or on the talk page. "Check the studies" is a vague reason that means nothing. Yue🌙 19:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yue,

I have restored the original version of the text that existed until October 12, when it was vandalized by some of the users who made changes without providing any references or academic papers to support their edits. Now, both you and Vofa have cancelled my restoration attempt. On October 12, one of the users added the following information without any proper links or references:

1 - The user wrote, that President of Mongolia, Punsalmaagiin Ochirbat, stated that "Kazakh women in Mongolia will now be offered sterilisation in exchange for money and resources." – This is false information.

2- Regarding the origin of the Kazakhs, there are numerous academic papers on the subject. Please refer to sources 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 in the list of references for more details regarding to the origin of kazakhs. Nomadichistory (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomadichistory: You may want to include this explanation on Talk:Kazakhs. Also, be careful not to immediately dismiss others' edits as vandalism, because vandalism is a deliberate act done to disrupt Wikipedia. It seems to me that your removals of being reverted by other editors because you did not give a policy-based explanation. I think what you're arguing is the reliable sources do not back up the content you removed, so say that instead of "vandalism". Yue🌙 18:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hank you for your feedback, I appreciate it. The issue with Vofa is that I have provided explanations several times before, but it seems he is either not considering them or not offering appropriate responses. The text he is adding promotes harmful and false narratives, such as claims like 'Kazakh women in Mongolia will now be offered sterilization in exchange for money and resources' or 'Mongols may dislike Kazakh traditions, culture, or their presence in Mongolia overall.' These statements are inflammatory, and there are no valid references to back them up. I feel this can be regarded as vandalism, as the edits lack credible sources and seem intended to provoke rather than inform. Nomadichistory (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomadichistory, you must go to the talk page to discuss this. What you're doing right now is an edit war, and is not an acceptable way to solve a content dispute on Wikipedia. Yes, Vofa is also edit warring, and yes, Vofa should also stop and go to the talk page. Please see WP:DR for more information and advice on how to resolve this kind of issue on Wikipedia. -- asilvering (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your feedback. Thanks Nomadichistory (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yue, I’m not sure whom to contact regarding this, but perhaps you could assist. I wanted to ask for your advice on an issue we discussed earlier. Despite multiple notifications to avoid making changes without providing credible sources or academic papers, Vofa continues to disregard this and repeatedly alters the original text in Kazakhs page. As a result, the text is becoming misleading and contradicts the original references from academic and credible sources.

I’ve attempted to address the issue on the his talk page and also provided clear reasoning and explanations in the edit section of Kazakhs' page, but these have been ignored. Additionally, Vofa claims to be providing sources for his edits, but there are no actual sources, as seen in his edit on 14:19, 23 October 2024.

Could you please advise on this matter? Nomadichistory (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your account is suspected to be a sock puppet.

Your account is suspected to be a sock puppet. An investigation of your actions may be launched. Vofa (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your accusation. My edits have been made transparently and in good faith, with adherence to the guidelines on credible sources and academic integrity. If there is a concern about my actions, I welcome a fair and impartial investigation.

I kindly ask you to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and policies by ensuring that any edits you make are backed by proper credible sources, and to engage in discussions on the talk page for any matters you disagree with in order to collaboratively improve the quality and accuracy of the content. Nomadichistory (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vofa, if you think someone is a sock puppet, the correct course of action is to open an investigation at WP:SPI. It doesn't look to me like you have done this. I know you've been having a rough experience of editing recently, but you can't go around accusing other editors of things like this without evidence. It's rude, for one thing, but also it's usually considered an WP:ASPERSION, which is a form of personal attack. Please focus on content, not the motives of other editors. -- asilvering (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remember to always assume good faith. Vofa (talk) 09:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]