User talk:Ugog Nizdast

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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, I'll get encouraged to work on it.

Current status (.) - Available daily 07:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


Assassination[edit]

Assassination is typically applied to a prominent person. John Saunders was a junior police officer, still on probation, and around the same age as Bhagat Singh. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

PS You could write: "In 1928, Singh and his associates fatally shot a British junior police officer, John Saunders, mistaking him for the British police superintendent James Scott, whom they had planned to assassinate, and who they believed was responsible for the death of Indian nationalist leader Lala Lajpat Rai. Scott had ordered a lathi charge in which Rai was believed to have been injured. Singh and his associates also shot dead an Indian police constable who came to the aid of the dying Saunders." The reason why I prefer to use "murder" is that, according to the sources, Saunders who was riding a motorcycle was first shot by an associate of Singh. After he fell, and after his assailants discovered their error, Singh pumped four or five more bullets into the injured Saunders. I'll have to look for the sources, but I'm pretty sure they're around. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
We could use:
  • wikt:murder - a loaded word, mainly for involving relatively unknown people and usually for personal/petty reasons.
  • wikt:assassination - a more technical term, in addition to what you said, also has to have political or religious reasons.
  • killing - the most neutrally and almost weightless word, isn't there in the Words to Watch but almost like the case of WP:SAID.
Here we have an officer in authority (okay, now you're saying junior, so we're threading on this part being disputable) and being killed due to an obvious political motive. I'm thus more inclined to use assassination. I'm more or less fine with any of them, IMO no need to get sources to back up this wording. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Another thing: remember what I you to do about the lengthy lead first statement about that DYK you created at WT:INB? Same issue with both Bhagat Singh and SCB. Singh (...was an Indian nationalist whose participation in acts of dramatized political violence against the British in India, and subsequent arrest and execution at age 23, turned him into a hero and martyr in the popular folklore of the Indian independence movement.) and Bose ( was an Indian nationalist whose defiant patriotism made him a hero in India, but whose attempt during World War II to rid India of British rule with the help of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan left a troubled legacy.). It's just too long...yes, you've tried to put the main notable aspects of the subject, but we can stick to just "was an Indian independence activist." Put the discussion about them immediately after. Much more readable. Typically, only people notable for a single event get such treatment in the first statement per WP:LEAD. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure assassination cannot be used in a case of mistaken identity in which an officer on probation is shot by accident in place of the police chief. If authors use it, they're making a mistake. Can't summarize Bhagat Singh with one lead sentence, "... was an Indian independence activist." It is too vague, too inaccurate. It is the same with "revolutionary." I have reduced Bhagat Singh somewhat, but violence and folklore are an essential part of his story. In controversial subject topics, creating Simple Wikipedia-like lead sentences cause just as many violations of Wiki rues as do overlong sentences. In less controversial subjects, such as Gandhi or Mandell Creighton, both of whose leads I have written, I don't have any such issues. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
And what is the point of referring me to Wiktionary, which in any case is not a reliable source, and then editorializing, "a loaded word, mainly for involving relatively unknown people and usually for personal/petty reasons?" Where is that written in the Wiktionary entry? The two leading dictionaries in the English language say no such thing. Murder (n), OED: "The deliberate and unlawful killing of a human being, esp. in a premeditated manner;" Webster's Unabridged: "the crime of killing a person under circumstances precisely defined by statute: such as, ... a first-degree murder that deserves either capital or severe punishment because of being willful and premeditated, being committed with atrocity or cruelty (as by poisoning, starvation, mayhem, or torture), being committed in the course of the commission of a serious felony (as arson, burglary, or kidnapping), or being committed after lying in wait for the purpose of killing the victim." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Was only trying help. I made it clear above that I felt all those were really minor and just suggestions. Really no need to take me on trial for that. To be fair, I didn't even use wikt but my in-built OS dictionary, I just don't like copy-pasting definitions here and I don't see any major disagreement in the definitions from all three of them. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I know you were. I mean, today I know you were. But yesterday I had woken up on the wrong side of the bed. Many apologies. I hope you will not let my peevish response deter you from offering honest feedback. Best regards and thanks, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry, of course it won't if you're looking for feedback in future. Happens to the best of us. Warm regards. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Updation of India's population in lead[edit]

Hello. I changed India's population from 1.2 billion to 1.3 billion in the lead while adding a source of Worldometers (also used as a source in lead of "good article" China) which showed real time population of India but you reverted me saying that relevance is more important than accuracy. I didn't get it. OK fine. Now, some other user did the same as I did earlier but without adding any source. This time, I added the official source from UNdata which places India's population at 1.326 billion (2016 UN projection). This is the source I am talking about.[1] When I first changed India's population from 1.2 billion to 1.3 billion in the lead but without a source, I got reverted and was told that I could do that while adding a reliable source. Can there be a more reliable source (other than official census) than UN projection ? UN projections are used even on article List of countries and dependencies by population for countries which do not have official population clocks. Now, I think there is absolutely no problem in keeping 1.3 billion figure in the lead. All country articles mention most recent population in their lead as per estimates. Besides, India's population has exceeded 1.2 billion in 2010 and crossed 1.3 billion in 2015. We can't wait for 2021 census of India which will place India's population somewhere near 1.4 billion and then we will update the population figures in lead. These figures have to be changed from time to time. India's population is likely to increase by 170-200 million between 2011 and 2021. That's a huge difference. No doubt, I will start a discussion on this topic on talk page of India. Vibhss (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Vibhss: Yes, please go ahead and start a discussion there. That article, being an FA, has its changes (even seeming minor ones) done mostly via discussion where it's scrutinised and reworked. Sourcing is usually never the problem, relevance is. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Help on Tamil Nationalism article.[edit]

Hi. This time, I want your help on this article. The India section of this article doesn't look neutral and seems a bit biased. Although most part of this section is sourced, some claims made in this section highlight only part of what is mentioned in the source while some claims are somewhat misleading. Parts of this section of article seem to be written as per a user's own POV. Please look into this section of this article. Regards. Vibhss (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Vibhss: I've been a bit less active these past few weeks and can't do much on my own. Briefly spot-checking it: the section is a bit lengthy and can spot obvious blatant problems besides this para (In 1958, S. P. Adithanar founded..) being sourced to dubious references. Additionally over-reliance on Indian media rather than global ones or better quality sources (academic sources etc) on such a cross-country historical issue but this is probably needs more checking, just a REDFLAG alert. Disclaimer: I've also rarely touched Tamil-nationalism articles and this is just my two cents (paisas) on it.
Do you have anything specific in mind? I can tell you my thoughts on that. Else you're better off raising it on that article talk page (seems to be maintained by at least one experienced enough editor) and taking a stab at editing. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

But the Shola page ...[edit]

... uses lower-case "s" throughout except at the beginning of a sentence. See the lead of Shola. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

And the South Western Ghats montane rain forests use it with italics, still confusing and probably needs to be made consistent (we probably don't have an interest in pursuing). I've heard of biology related topics like species having such capitalisation. My bad, overlooked that. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Your post prompted me to rummage the history of the page. The section was written in 2006 or 2007 by Saravask and me, and originally titled, Flora and fauna. Here is an edit, mine, from 2007, and the shola is italicized! See here, however, sal, babul, etc are not. MOS:FOREIGNITALIC says do not italicize foreign words which appear in Merriam-Webster Online. Shola and sal do not appear but babul does. So, it's neither here nor there. But just to be safe, I'm going to italicize shola and sal, but not the rest as they do appear in MW. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for noticing that someone had removed all the instructions on Third Opinion and correcting it! I made two intermediate edits and didn't notice so I'm feeling a bit sheepish! Anyway, thanks again. -=Troop=- (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem at all, I've been watching it for long and besides me there are quite a few WP:3O longtime members, baffled me that none of them noticed that. :) Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

History of Pune[edit]

Hello Ugog, Please help in moving this article from Start class to C or B.It is not ready for GA yet but if you like you can help with Peer review process to bring attention to shortcomings in the article. Thanks Jonathansammy (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Would be happy to review it for you but note that I've been not very active as of late so will take time to begin. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Take your time.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Re-initiating INCOTM[edit]

It's been almost an year since "Indian collaboration of the month" was active. Firstly we need to restart this as soon as possible for development of India-related articles to greater heights. The members page was blanked, where many of them are inactive. This mass message is to all the members of WikiProject India, about this and interested editors interested will sign up. After this message gets delivered, we'll wait for 7 days before we start a discussion under a thread on the collaboration's talk page, among the members. The discussion will include what to clean-up of sub-pages, a new set of guidelines for smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the collaboration etc. Please keep all the discussions under this thread only, so that it will easier for future reference. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Re-initiating INCOTM[edit]

It's been almost an year since "Indian collaboration of the month" was active. Firstly we need to restart this as soon as possible for development of India-related articles to greater heights. The members page was blanked, where many of them are inactive. This mass message is to all the members of WikiProject India, about this and interested editors interested will sign up. After this message gets delivered, we'll wait for 7 days before we start a discussion under a thread on the collaboration's talk page, among the members. The discussion will include what to clean-up of sub-pages, a new set of guidelines for smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the collaboration etc. Please keep all the discussions under this thread only, so that it will easier for future reference. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Indian military history[edit]

You are invited to join the Indian military history work-group, an initiative of the Military history WikiProject. This group is to exclusively deal with the topics related to Indian military. If you're interested, please add you name to the participants list. Ignore if you are already a member. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Indian defence services[edit]

You are requested to participate in the discussion of Wiki Loves Indian defence services on the talk page of WikiProject India. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)