User talk:Ugog Nizdast

Feel free to post here, especially if I made any mistakes. I am not experienced enough here and one never stops learning. Need some help with anything or perhaps an article? I generally am lazy and slow in my contributions but with a little prodding or help on an article, I'll get encouraged to work on it.

New to Wikipedia?

Click here to post

Please use the preview button before you post; this helps you find any errors you have made. Also on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date.

Talkback

Hello, Ugog Nizdast. You have new messages at LogX's talk page.
Message added 15:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--    L o g  X   15:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

St. Mary's edits

Whoa. The changes I made to the St. Mary's University Page were to remove the potentially defamatory material, and you put it back. The claim that the chant was about "non-consensual" sex is potentially defamatory, since the on-line video of the students chanting does not include the phrase "no consent" as wrongly reported by mainstream media but rather "no regret." Copying libelous sources is still libel. Certainly nothing I changed it to could be construed as defamation. My wording avoided any potential libel.

I'm not new to Wikipedia. 154.20.41.29 (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, we go through numerous edits daily. Your edit triggered a tag and what gave me a pause was you've changed promote consensual sex to just promote sex; the paragraph is not even sourced and tagged for some time (See WP:V), I think you should just remove it since you're more familiar with the topic. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ugog Nizdast. You have new messages at WDGraham's talk page.
Message added 14:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

W. D. Graham 14:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Opting in to VisualEditor

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit ^beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 50 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal of addition from "Kerala"

Hi, What if there' nothing available for citation? Lies should be allowed to perpetuate under the Wikipedia banner? What I added is a very plain fact. Any educated can testify to it, not just anyone from Kerala or India. Modern education is the product of Western culture and it was brought to India and Kerala by the Westerners - naturally by western missionaries. This is a well established plain fact and no sane person will deny it. If you think something cannot be included for lack of citation you are in effect promoting lies which has the support of cited lies.The page is full of errors and you keep it as they have the backing of citations of lies.It's a joke and mockery of facts. There's no other way modern education or English education was brought to India during the British rule in India. Talking about education without mentioning the introduction of it is non sense and the post miss it.May be purposely avoided it by some one with vested interests, The education mentioned by the previous author is not at all education in the modern sense.You cannot call it education in the modern sense as it was religious training given strictly for the upper class.

The assumption that all cited texts are facts is nonsense.Shame that you deny plain and well known facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monns12 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

@Monns12: Hi and welcome, I'm glad that you have so much interest in improving the Kerala article. Sadly, even statements which you consider bare facts need citations (Read WP:CITE), exceptions are obviously undisputed ones. Overhere, we strictly reflect what the sources say and there is no original research. Excluding you're edit which seems sourceable, if it weren't for this guideline, what will stop people from putting their own opinion saying it's a basic fact?...there are numerous additions everyday.

Surely there must be some reliable sources available which echo what you've added? If you feel there's something factually wrong with the content anywhere, why don't you point it out here or the Kerala article talk page, so that we can do something about it? Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm Elizium23. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Iglesia ni Cristo seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

@Elizium23:Whoa..I was wondering why did I just get templated. It wasn't my intention but all I did was undo a new user's suspicious edit which anyone would have done at first glance while patrolling. But I apologise for not looking at the article history. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ugog- I think there's been a mistake. Your message to me ( User talk:162.78.70.162 ) about posting to Manganese and StudentRND was puzzling, as I didn't do any of that. (I had to look up both of those things to see what they were!) Sorry for the confusion, but whomever posted on those pages wasn't me--Have I been hacked? Aaronfaletto (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sathya sai baba

Hi , Just dropped in to ask you a question regarding wikipedia policies. I had left a message on the talk page of sathya sai baba as well. The controversy section has been pushed so far down as if to imply it is of low importance. Will it be within wikipedia's policies to move it "up" ? Lookinhotbra (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey...Good thing you've asked before editing, I was planning to reply on the article talk page, since currently there is hardly any activity there and no one would likely answer you. Moreover, your question is more guideline-related than something to do with the topic, you're better off asking those type of questions to me, at the WP:Help desk, or any other experienced user.

It's all about our neutral point of view guideline here, moving a criticism section upwards on an article about an individual (no matter how bad...see Hitler) violates it and is definitely biased. Also, adding a "criticism/controversy" section is usually discouraged (See Criticism section), better to join such sections within the article and avoid harsh words. It should be in the most objective way possible. Of course, in the topic you're referring to, it cannot be helped...given the amount of controversies. I recently managed to re-work a criticism section in the Sagarika Ghose article (see my edit here); here the subject is a living person so we are even more strict, and anyone would agree she easily fails the criteria for being that controversial to have such a section.

I would advise you to exercise caution while working in such areas...wait till you learn more about basic editing and how we work here. As you've mentioned on your Userpage, why don't you try expanding G. R. Gopinath? Currently lacks sources, poor language and overall looks like it's in a bad condition. If not confident, you can edit in your sandbox and then copy the content into the article. Some pages you will need to read are: how to cite, reliable sources and no original research...I know there's a lot to read at first but I'm sure you'll get the hang of it soon...you already seem to know the basics. Additionally, you can refer to the good articles to see how to write better articles or read this essay. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for the reply. I had also contacted a veteran user name Sean.hoyland re: the issue of structure of article. He also replied that there aren't many solid rules when it comes to internal structure of an article..According to him, WP:STRUCTURE and WP:DUE are important points. Oh ok, I understand what you did with the sagharika ghose article. You merged the criticism to the relevant sections like ravi shankar interview.Hmm i guess you are right..Wikipedia has so many rules , and i guess it will take some time for me learn the ropes before diving headlong and deleting entire articles..Thanks for the tips re: writing articles in wikipedia..I like the idea of using the sandbox to write up the article , instead of editing the original page..Thank you for the answers and tips, sincerely, Lookinhotbra (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

@Lookinhotbra: Most welcome, if you need any more help you can always ask me. Have a nice day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire

Hi Ugog. Why did you revert my edit to the Ottoman Empire article just now?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Extremely sorry! I knew I had misclicked rollback but when I checked it first it didn't show up...so I thought everything was fine. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

No worries! Stuff like that happens to the best of us.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the 25 october post

The statement that Carei was the la romanian city to be liberated by the soviet and roman armies is wrong. Carei was a Hungarian city and it was (occupied) not liberated just like the rest of the Erdely region — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnrikeKeXy (talk • contribs) 08:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi @EnrikeKeXy: to this edit of yours, it's better to explain it on the article talk page first. If no one objects, you can surely remove it and I hope that you have a source for your reason for removal (See verifiability). Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Ugog Nizdast. I wanted to drop a note of thanks for your help in dealing with the Burton-on-Trent vandal. He has been around at least three years so we will probably be dealing with him for some time to come. Your vigilance is appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 16:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks MarnetteD. I must admit I'm quite baffled with this long-term mass disruption. As you may know, they're back after a two week block with a different IP address and I've reported this here to Bishonen again; this time, a one month block. I really won't be surprised if this happens again exactly after one month and wonder what's the motive behind all this pointless and silly disruption. Have a good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Just noticed that you have done the dirty work this time and reverted all the edits. Thanks a lot! Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. I am sure there are many and differing motivations for these long term problem editors but the simplest one may be that they do it because "they can" :-( It sure is nice to be able to go to Bishonen to get blocks handed out. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Mistake in User talk:162.78.70.162

Hi Ugog- I think there's been a mistake. Your message to me ( User talk:162.78.70.162 ) about posting to Manganese and StudentRND was puzzling, as I didn't do any of that. (I had to look up both of those things to see what they were!) Sorry for the confusion, but whomever posted on those pages wasn't me--Have I been hacked? Aaronfaletto (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey @Aaronfaletto: Don't worry that wasn't you..the IP address User:162.78.70.162 is a dynamic and the vandalism was done by someone else who shares it you at that particular time. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for the barn star! I was wondering are you aware of the consequences of violating talk page guidelines and the WP:3RR revert rule? A new user is constantly reverting edits on an article, is refusing to discuss things on the concerned article's talk page, therefore engaging in WP:WAR, violating talk page guidelines as well as removing references in the process. The user is also trying to glorify a particular article while constantly degrading other well cited articles. I could really use your help, thanks! - Animefreak234 06:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, you're very welcome. Referring only to Ruqaiya Sultan Begum right? Just looked at it and this is bad, there has been pointless warring for almost a month. In more technical terms, the 3RR has not been violated (if I'm not wrong this case won't be considered in the WP:3RRN since the gap is +24 hours) but anyhow edit warring needs to be stopped. I've sent a personal invitation to the user (also curtly mentioned about civility, no personal attacks) and initiated the discussion on the article talk page.

Since this a new user we need to be lenient, but if the warring still continues (I hope you don't revert now EVEN if the user does it to you till the discussion is over) we can report this on the WP:ANI or WP:ANEW. I'm not so familiar with this topic and if discussing also remains fruitless, I'll try to contact some users who are good at articles related to this; other options include WP:Third opinion and WP:Dispute resolution. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE @Animefreak234: Well, the discussion has gone off to a good start. There has been some logical issues raised and whose ever is supported in the end, remember that we can all learn something and benefit from this, as the content will only be improved. Awaiting your response there, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Note

Hi, Ugog Nizdast! As you can see, today and yesterday I reverted category spams, overcategorizations etc which Erim Turukku did on numerous articles. Despite your warnings, he continue doing exactly the same things as before - category spams, overcategorizations, Turkic/Turkish POV, edit warring, etc... Do what you think is the most appropriate in this case. As you may assume, I have other things to do here than to constantly follow around a category spammer, Turkic/Turkish POV nationalist or whatever he is and to revert his nonsense edits. --Sundostund 15:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, your efforts are deeply appreciated. I know exactly how it feels to see someone doing so many lame edits and to feel even more lamer going around undoing them. As you may well know, the user has got a 24-hour block (I expected this large scale disruption to attract the attention of the law by itself) and hopefully doesn't resume this. I guess it's my turn to do the dirty work and have cleaned up whatever was remaining, hope I didn't miss anything. Have a good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the rest of his nonsense edits. By the way, according to what Kansas Bear said on Erim Turukku's talk page, it may be possible that Turukku and User:EMr KnG are the same person. If that's the case, would it be a WP:SOCK? As you know, in most cases its illegal to have two accounts on WP. And, edits of both Turukku ([1]) and EMr KnG ([2]) look really similar... --Sundostund 21:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, Turukku's 24h block expired and it seems he plans to continue as before. How he's reverting at the article Attila, which is as you know a subject to the 1RR limitation. --Sundostund 17:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm interesting...I'm not sure if just their area of edits and such similarity in their posts is enough to warrant an investigation. You, the other users and the admins involved will probably figure out if a WP:SPI is needed; I've no experience in this sort of detective work yet. Violated the 1RR rule eh? I hope someone has posted in the WP:AN3RR or on admin Dougweller's page. Looks like the user can't edit here as per WP:COMPETENCE. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I just informed Dougweller. As for WP:SPI, I myself don't have much experience about things like that too... --Sundostund 19:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

After some looking into how to do it, I just opened an SPI on EMr KnG / Erim Turukku, you can see it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EMr KnG. If you have something to add, etc feel free to do it. --Sundostund 19:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Savarkar

Take the issue to Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I will. Thanks, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment

(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.8.72 (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment posted by banned User:CharlieJS13. Remove comment per WP:BAN. Feel free to remove the section if you want. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 18:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

India

Thankx a lot for notice that one.Really,i wasn't aware of,pushed it while using mobile.---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 20:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey no problem, it happened to me recently too (see this topic some places up in this page). I guess even the most experienced editors can make this mistake. Good day to you, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking For Your Response Related To Asaram Bapu Page Edits

Hello,

I'm glad that I got a change to share my thoughts with you. This message in context of Asaram Bapu page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asaram_Bapu which was just lately modified by you.

As you said "POV-pushing, mass replacement of much-discussed" :- Your comment is not justified, you reverting the whole text matter. May I know what do you mean by "mass replacement of much-discussed" the truth remains truth even if it is written 10 months ago or a year ago, I and couple of other fellow members contributed to this page and made it accurate based on our research and deep knowledge about this topic.

You used a phrase in your comment "much-discussed" none of the matter was discussed, eventually it was removed by one after another user and replaced by fake matter which was none other than accuses to a noble person without any grounds.

Have you noticed one by one few users deleted the original text matter which was representing the accurate data and that was added by me and other members by the passage of time (In last couple of weeks and months I was not able to contribute to Wikipedia) and eventually the text matter was getting deleted and replaced by irrelevant material by some users who just tried to experiment.

I do respect of everyone's opinion but first of one must know the facts before posting and they are most welcome to contribute but rather than knowing the facts and figures few users just started using insulting language and alleging to a person who does social service merely to help people. Was there any ground of saying all that, no. All the ref links are unreliable sources and this is considered as vandalism.

As you said "sourced content with poorly cited". :- May I know what made you feel it was poorly cited. I always write on the basis of facts and I provided well documented matter with bunch of media reports, videos etc.... in order to support each statement. We're here to add value to Wikipedia not to promote what personally we like.

This is true that one should be aware of Hindi language in order to understand all the facts and media reports which were provided, it might possible that Hindi is not your native language so I can understand that but unless you understand something completely you should not modify or remove anything on Wikipedia page which is contributed by other members. I also noticed that in past, approx. 3 times you removed the data from this page by mentioning you did fixes, formatting etc... I appreciate whatever formatting you did but removing data without any grounds is not acceptable unless someone has solid grounds for it (it's not a matter of personal choice).

I can see that you are a member of "WikiProject India" so might be you can understand Hindi language, if it's so then I encourage you to go through all the facts which I provided and also watch the videos which will give you insight what made me write each phrase and sentence in the page.

If anyone go through the text matter which was added then they can say it well documented so question doesn't arise.

Thanks Devoutly (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

@Devoutly: Hello, I appreciate you taking up this matter with me and your civility. But you still seem to be name-calling people who don't agree with you in other areas, please stop that. I'm sure every editor must have told you this by now, wherever you've posted your query. Since you have been away for months over here, you have missed the drama which unfolded on his article because of his coverage in the media. Long story short: like all Indian articles his was of poor quality and his controversies in the media spiked a sudden interest in editing (where many disruptive new users were blocked), within no time quite a significant part of the community (even Jimbo Wales, see this link) got involved and resulted to how the article is currently...more or less. It was stripped down to only its relevant content, many users continue to watch it in case disruption occurs again (when he again makes the headlines)

I really don't understand your question about my edits though. I always try to leave an apt (sometimes even silly) edit summary, just look at my recent contributions. What edit are you referring to? this is pretty self-explanatory, here I said "slight fixes" since all I did was fix typos, some minor copy editing by removing some redundant wording as part of it (no meaning of any statements were even changed in this process). It is true though there have been many disruptive editors attacking this page, see I reverted one recently with this edit.

Look, there is so much anyone experienced here can say about your version of this article. It does not follow the manner of style, loaded with WP:PEACOCK words, non-neutral, poor language; in short, it is not written like an encyclopaedic article, more like something which belongs to his website. All your references in fact are from there or only the postive media coverage from there. His website (and other such) are not considered as reliable sources. The main view of the media is removed and there is strong defence/support for him. Since you're not an experience editor here, look at any of our featured articles or good articles, then you'll get an idea how quality articles should look like.

You did replace well-sourced content which was put there with the WP:CONSENSUS of the community. If I didn't revert you, someone else would have. True, there have been disruptive editors and a few vandals who try to sabotage this article but they have been take care off, you needn't hold the everyone responsible. I can understand you urge to improve it further, since it is focusing only on his controversies as that has plenty of available references and it is covered well by the media; whether it's your personal view or not, there is not much you can change in that section. We write what the majority of the sources say, not the WP:truth. I do understand a bit of it and Hindi language sources can be used (English is preferred as this is English Wikipedia) but cherry picking them in order to change the main view won't be allowed. If you still feel otherwise, post this on the article talk page and more experienced users will address your issues. I think I've answered most of them here though, there's no need for asking every member of the community the same thing, it's bit a waste of time.

My advice for you regarding improving the article is: After you've seen how quality article should look like, try to expand his "Life" and other sections. In that way, we can get rid of neutrality tag which is placed there. I see that you have good intentions and since you're so interested in this topic, surely you can try this. If you're edits get reverted, they obviously need to be improved and find out what that is. Feel free to ask anything else. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yale World Fellows Program page

Dear Ugog Nizdast,

I'm working on improving/re-writing the Yale World Fellows Program page you've been involved with editing lately. I've got a new draft in my sandbox that I'll be editing more over the next week or so, and I was wondering whether you'd like to take a look at it and give your feedback before I make any changes to the actual page. Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RagnarFsks/sandbox

Thanks, RagnarFsks (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

@RagnarFsks: Of course, as you may know previously User:Umerama asked me the very same thing over here and I told the user to make a draft too. Not heard anything since so I assume the user is inactive and you know about this person right? Anyway, I'll check it out when I get time and will reply in your talk page when I'm done. Good day to you, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Fuck off