User talk:Ugog Nizdast/Archive 2

August–October 2013

Hyderabadi Haleem
Hi, Thanks for your review at Hyderabadi Haleem. As per your advices I had fixed some of the required corrections. Please have a look and let us know if those are okay :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Saw your changes and was just about to start, still left to briefly go through it. I'll see if I can dig up anything more and my suggestions will be ready in a few hours. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Indian independence movement
You do know that "Indian Hindu nationalism" has not been created yet shorting it to "Hindu nationalism" is better and that page exist. Also if Muslim nationalism is not going to be on there what do you say about Muslim nationalism in South Asia it talks about India? Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for taking time and asking. I understand that this page too, should be included in the See also section, as that would seem like a fair representation. However, do note that adding that over there will likely cause a disturbance, as it is a bit controversial. No one wants edit-wars and unnecessary attention. Whether anyone feels it belongs there or no, it is just a see also section in the end, it makes no difference to the article and is quite trivial. The topics which are there currently was there since it was a GA/FA and there was a consensus for that. I'm sure you understand. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Great!!
Not sure if you check stats but a friend just shared this link.... http://stats.grok.se/en/201308/Narendra%20Dabholkar I see you were involved, great work. A friend of mine is currently translating this page into Russian!!! Be in touch soon, been hectic :-( Joolzzt (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice to hear from you again! I do occasionally check it and that sure is a big burst in views, but proportional to the recent flurry of editing activity. Thank you and till next time, when your life is less hectic. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
For support of Narendra Dabholkar in wikinews --

Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 


 * Thanks a lot! But I'm not a pet person :) Actually, you should be thanked for seeing to its promotion and initiating it. Nothing has happened yet and let's hope it gets nominated. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time. I was also not aware that BBC has covered it. I was about to give you some food but I am on a day long fast in protest to killing of Dr. Dabholkar so was a bit confused. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thackeray support
Hello, as a fellow physicist, I am surprised that you support the politics of hatred. How could you be so blinded that you apply the Biographies of living persons to a dead man? I fail to understand it. I hope you get a broader outlook of the country than the Marathi Manoos theory given by the exiled Magadh criminals. --Pee3.14159 (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC) I am not that surprised now but I really hope that you woke up to a higher level of thinking.--Pee3.14159 (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant it for Raj Thackeray...I'm happy that you've replied but can you at least refrain from personal attacks? I've replied on your talk page. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Getting exercised over a gunda's public image isn't very reassuring. --Pee3.14159 (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Swaminarayan
I was looking at the users that were banned and I feel for what they did. I believe inherent biases from the users who control those articles manipulated administrators by using policies lingo that the other users did not know and ending up getting banned. I conclude that those two users had to sock because they were attacked. They were no saints either but I feel like that isn't what Wikipedia is about. People need to be taught that this is not a place where one person rules all. I read the stuff that was put on the Jay Sadguru Swami and the users refuse to acknowledge that the aarti's are different. I want to pick up their work because I am familiar with ISSO and BAPS. I wish that there were more users like you that reach out. Thank you and I appreciate that.

Breadinglover (talk) 03:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Ugog Nizdast, 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: 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Hello, welcome to the Wikpedia. I noticed that you came to Wikipedia just a few months ago to unsuccessfully campaign to get pages on people you disliked deleted citing "not notable enough" as a reason. Please do not do not take tags personally; there is no reason to make an issue out of a non-issue. Thanks for welcoming me but I wish to point out that I have been editing the Wikipedia for the past 10 years. :) --Pee3.14159 (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Kerala page - Amendment
Dear Ugog Nizdast,

in the wiki page - kerala, under the title 'Post colonial period', it is written that "In 1957, elections for the new Kerala Legislative Assembly were held, and a reformist, Communist-led government came to power, under E. M. S. Namboodiripad.[89] It was the first time a Communist government was democratically elected to power anywhere in the world.Italic text[90]" This statement is wrong. please refer to the page 'San Marino'. under the title 'History', you can see the sentence "San Marino had the world's first democratically elected communist government, which held office between 1945 and 1957."Italic text I checked this fact and got the clarification that it's a true statement. So please remove the false statement from page - 'Kerala'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoopcb (talk • contribs) 07:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi I'm glad that you pointed this out and you seem to be right. I apologise if I made a mistake and don't worry, what I've removed is still there in the article history, you are free to undo me. I undid you because what you removed was clearly cited to this


 * and to anyone at first glance, it made me doubt.


 * If what you are telling me is true, why don't you propose this on the article talk page along with your source which refutes this claim? Even better—can you find some more reliable sources claiming to this fact, which everyone can access? Which exactly is the first democratically elected communist government? Also while removing cited content, it is extremely necessary to provide an edit summary or ask first on the talk page if you have a doubt. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Ugog Nizdast,
 * Sorry for my stupid act (removing cited content). My ignorance made me do so.You had asked me, " If what you are telling me is true, why don't you propose this on the article talk page along with your source which refutes this claim? Even better—can you find some more reliable sources claiming to this fact, which everyone can access? Which exactly is the first democratically elected communist government? Also while removing cited content, it is extremely necessary to provide an edit summary or ask first on the talk page if you have a doubt."Italic text I am a newbie here and Do not even have a vague idea about the things you are talking about.All I know is I am right about the first democratically elected communist government.
 * please google 'san marino first communist', and you will find innumerable web pages containing this fact.


 * 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marino (Read under the title 'History'.)
 * 2. [] (Read under the title 'Election to state Government'.)
 * 3. http://pgovindapillai.info/ArticleFiles/29bf4af8-922d-dd08-8b10-00005c8810d4article%20to%20ganasakthi.m.pdf
 * 4. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_is_the_first_elected_communist_government
 * 5. http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/San+Marino+Communist+Party


 * I hope all the above given links are enough to make a clarification.
 * Anoopcb (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relax...I promise to help you add this and give a proper reply on your talk page within an hour. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for guiding edit. Can we discuss about how the article needs to be improved on the talk page of the article? That would be great. And thanks a lot for improving the article. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, but currently I feel that we have 'milked' enough information from whatever sources are available. If you've found new some references which provide more information than what we currently have? Why don't you make a proposition on the talk page and I'll reply. As to having a separate article for the black magic bill I don't feel that's wise, it will be very narrow in its coverage, as not much as happened regarding it. We'll be better off improving articles related to Superstitions in India. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

 * Thanks Abhijeet, this really made my day :) -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

hello
i think you belongs to terrorist organisation. which country are you from? let me tell you one think the reference you taken for 2000 death in babri mosque demolition its nowhere mentioned majority causality were from muslim community. you did it because you want communal riots in my country. i warn you not to do this. good luck to you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.221.37.70 (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi stranger, this is probably the funniest thing anyone has called me so far. (Please read Good faith, No personal attacks and No threats) Anyway, I've arranged your edits more properly and I agree with your first one. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Kerala Page - Amendment
Dear Ugog Nizdast,

You are the best. Thanks a ton for the amendment. now I read it " It was one of the first Communist government (In 1945, San Marino, a sovereign state in Italy, elected the first[90][91]), which was democratically elected anywhere in the world.[92]". By the way, could you please tell me how you found a reliable reference source for this amendment and what was it?

Anoopcb (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You are most welcome Anoopcb, but I should be thanking you for pointing this out.


 * Searching didn't take that long, I searched through Google news (try advanced search shown below, when results are not good enough) and Google books. Within about ten minutes, I found these: Report in The Hindu, One about San Marino in Mirror.uk and some books 1, 2, 3. Most famous news sources and most books found in google are considered reliable enough and regarding using them, read more at citing sources help. There are some tools available for formatting citations (in this case, google books) like this one, where you just enter the link. Let me know if you need any help, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Mango
Hi, Ugog Nizdast. We meet again, in another context. I wanted to let you know I'm removing the "multiple issues" template you added to the article back in July but didn't fully explain. I find that unless the issues are blatant and apparent to any clueful editor, it's usually better to note on the talk page precisely why one is placing such a template. It's not clear to me why the lede needs to be rewritten. More copyediting would be welcome but the prose is relatively clean and clear. I do agree that the references could be improved, but I don't think the problem pervades the whole article and I'd prefer to see problematic sentences or sections tagged individually. The article is subject to sporadic bouts of vandalism, nationalistic POV-pushing, and dubious unsourced additions, but I spent quite a while cleaning it up last year and have tried to keep it in relatively decent shape since then. Any help you can offer with sourcing or improving the wording would be appreciated! Rivertorch (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Salutations Rivertorch...again! Thanks for notifying me about this, I will watchlist this article too after reading what you wrote. I still remember this edit and at that time, there were instances of horrible (which I thought at that time) English and I agree about removal of the Copy-edit and Lead rework clean-up tags, should have explained them too. Tagging each section for refimprove seems too much (I can count at least three sections which are completely unreferenced) so I guess an overall tag would do. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * All right, I've tagged the article and two of the three sections. The third section, "Cuisine", has sourcing problems across most of the articles it appears in; sourcing there doesn't seem quite as urgent, as long as nothing implausible gets added. The "Description" section's total lack of citations is very troubling. When I tried to address that last year, I found that there was identical wording used by a wide array of sources, and in many cases it's hard to tell whether a WP editor borrowed it verbatim from them or they borrowed it from WP. I'm going to try to find some scholarly sources if I can, but it's going to take time. Rivertorch (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, sections like cuisine do get a lot of drive-by additions. Good luck, I'll try to improve anything else over there too. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

editing of page
hi, you recently re-edited a page after i edited it (about timing of pandyas). please see the talk section of the respective page and prove me wrong before changing dates. also, the dates you gave and the dates that were there before i edited don't match. 59.184.143.186 (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Raghav Sharman
 * Hi Raghav, sorry I took some time to find out what exactly you were referring to and thanks for bringing this up. From all the vast number of edits we observe, it is really helpful when you fill in the edit summary so that there is no misunderstanding. I was planning to revert myself but I see you have done it. I looked at your post on the talk page and it sounds plausible but I'm unfamiliar with this topic. I think you will be interested in posting this on Talk:Pandyan_Dynasty where I see you've made a similar edit, then maybe some interested users might respond then. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You edit wikipedia only since 4 months ?
I just cant believe that you are on wiki only for months. You know so much in months!! -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and you're too kind with your praise but I've seen many (equally new) users better than me. Good to hear from you again :), Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Transferwise
See Transferwise talk. 2.100.93.151 (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I didn't get what you were trying to say on the talk, you still didn't get any reliable sources. Moreover, another editor too explained clearly what was wrong. If you still have questions, feel free to ask, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I have given the reliable sources for the Govinda Sport in the External Links...Pls check... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldwinner2013 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi while using talk pages please click on Add topic and sign your posts by typing ' ~ ' (See Wp:Talk page guidelines). If you're referring to this version which I've seen last, you still clearly haven't; I think you'll benefit from reading WP:CITE and I have mentioned what was wrong in my edit summaries there. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Why did you delete my changes to the New College Worcester page? As a former student I feel quite upset about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.198.210.90 (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:V and WP:OR. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Your request for rollback
Hi Ugog Nizdast. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

A barnstar for you!

 * It has? Amazing! Thanks a lot for this and I really feel you are the one who deserves it! -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Swadhyay Parivar
Hi Ugog,

Thanks for the sources you provided. In History section, I have removed citation-less text and inserted stuff citing books you referred. Unfortunately the foundation calls itslef: Silent But Singing Revolution, and has a policy of abstaining from media. So it is hard to find sources apart from Controversial issues arose in 2002-06.

Keep me posted if I could be of any further help.

Rakesh.goyal2019 (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your time, I see you've made some improvements in Swadhyay_Parivar. I think this article is having the same problem which the Asaram Bapu article faced (See difference between now and some months ago) as you can see the 'controversy' section is just growing without the rest of the article. If this continues I won't be surprised if this draws the attention of everyone just like how the Asaram article did which can get unpleasant and simply waste everyone's time.


 * I think a simple solution would be to trim and tone down the 'controversy' section and give it a more WP:NPOV wording. I have tagged it for neutrality dispute and you can refer to all the good articles and featured articles on wording it better. I may try to do this myself if I get time later. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for advice. I agree that there is scope of improvements, specifically Overview and Activities section can be made more reader friendly, and citation less material could be replaced with sources. Each of the activity deserves at least 1 line brief description. Also Criticism tone can be improved.
 * All over I think the article is well balanced and gives whole picture of movement, from motivation, activities to current state. One beginner doubt I have. Article specific discussion should be done here or on the talk page of the Article? Thanks again. Rakesh.goyal2019 (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Then it's good, I hope you get time to improve this article further. Generally, problems and issues about articles are discussed on its talk page but on pages (like Swadhyay Parivar) where there is not much editing activity, and when you doubt anyone has it on their watchlist, you most probably won't get a reply. It is still necessary though to raise important issues (suggestions, content which seems problematic etc) about the article there, as later on, editors who stumble on the article might read it.


 * If you have a problem about an article or about the user's edit on it and if you want a quick reply, you then post it on the user's talk page. There is no strict rule here regarding this and you are free to post wherever you prefer but on articles which have normal or significant activity, it's better to post on the article talk page as that will be seen by more editors (Also see WP:Talk page guidelines). Hope this helps and feel free ask anything, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for vandalism repair on Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo page
Hi, I really appreciate your help with the ongoing vandalism on the Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo page. It's turning into a daily project with one particular user coming back to add references to demons, The Exorcist.... Longchenpa (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I just did what anyone in my place would have done. It doesn't take a person who is familiar with the article to realise that those edits were disruptive and almost to the point of vandalism. Interesting...I've checked the history of the article and I see that you had this trouble many times before. I'll keep a watch on this article (and the user too) for a while, if this happens again. I recommend you enabling WP:Twinkle so that you can revert those troublesome edits easier and warn users. Have a nice day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks for the resource! And yes, it's an ongoing problem. I'm kind of wondering if it's this guy. He did send her 8,000 Tweets of the go-kill-yourself variety. Longchenpa (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting, well if this user continues this most probably someone (if not us) will report it, judging by their edits and warnings given. Glad to be of help, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

regarding Akhilesh Yadav
Based on media reports and large scale violence, the section has been included in the profile. If you insist so much as to not include negative aspect in the BLP of any politician, please address the same issue regarding to other politicians first like narendra modi, Rajiv Gandhi to name a few. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B20 (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm assuming your intent is good (also you clearly know about editing here) and warn you that the same content has been removed a few times before and will be removed again. The examples you provided have clearly discussed and consensus based edits, the usual way we go about adding controversial information. Edit warring does not solve anything. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've already opened a discussion on the talk page of the above mentioned article. But none of the editors/ users responded. If you go through recent media reports/ news reports the above person has been in the limelight for continuously for months 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots. I suppose that if the wikipedia article does not change as per with the ongoing events and developments it becomes less and less reliable. I hope that editors/ users do join in to inprove the article, but at least the information should be available on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B20 (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good that you did that. Be patient, the users concerned will reply. Also do read Talk:Akhilesh_Yadav on the article talk page just above your section; there it is nicely explained by Sitush. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your appreciation. But the nice explaination by Sitush is open ended with the last comment by me unreplied. Moreover, if the explanations Sitush provided are assumed to be true, then they are blatantly violated in the article about Narendra Modi by the user Sitush himself. I hope you can provide with your guidance in that article also. Also the next section in the talk page of Akhilesh Yadav has been left unanswered for more than a month. Talk:Akhilesh Yadav. I thought it is necessary to keep the article abreast with the current events, so made the addition.2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B20 (talk) 10:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a minor point: I have done much at Narendra Modi but my contributions have mostly been trivial in nature - copyediting and suchlike. I'm not the one who has added chunks of stuff either for or against the man, although I have argued repeatedly that balancing was required. I've got a lot on at the moment and will be away for a couple of days from Tuesday but I'll try to get to the AY talk page soon. - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry wasn't aware those previous posts were by you with a different address. I've looked through the talk page on Modi as you said, but don't find any violations. For example this topic has multiple replies by many users and not just Sitush. Looks like after a heavy discussions (with some warring in between), the article has reached its current stable version. Even on the Akhilesh article many users have commented, I really don't see what's wrong here. I can understand your frustration when the consensus goes against your favour but it's really not recommended to keep dragging this along. Wp:Let it go, this issue at the Modi article must have no doubt have been raised by many before you and I think, is answered. Balancing an article (especially ones where users may have a multitude of opinions on) is extremely hard and takes a lot of time and discussion. If it's over at the Namo article, what's the point of doing it again. I urge you to undo your edit at the Yadav article and wait for more input if you want, you are close to violating the WP:3RR. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's better to discuss the points regarding Namo at his talk page. Many do feel that the page is still unbalanced; you may please ontribute with your viewpoints/ inputs, where the issue is still under discussion. Talk:Narendra_Modi 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B20 (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I also hope you're okay with the compromise which I proposed in the Akhilesh Yadav article. Thanks for inviting me there, I've not participated/edited much about the article but I'll see what I can do and make sure to follow the discussion. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi
Thanks for your edit. But, According to Neutral point of view, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

"information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias."

Then, if that edit is allow at here, then, iphone explode, htc one x explode are also can issue ? there are Tons of news article about that. I think edit is unfair and bias. and feel like slander. Thanks. --02fagE67 (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for asking on my talk page. Well, the exploding phone incidents was reported extensively in the news and deserves to be added in the article. If you think that violated the WP:NPOV, you can word the section better rather than removing it fully since it was properly sourced. Also please do not undo other peoples edits too often, asking on the talk page is always better (See WP:BRD and WP:Edit war). Hope this helps and feel free to ask anything, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But There are 3 questions. First, The investgation is not CONFIMRED explode battery was genuine battery with normal use. so, i think problem here. article has controversial edit by unconfirmed fact. Second, I think that article should go to each product page, not corporate page. what do you think? Third, Is it OK to add every single faulty product news at other companies ? (if faulty product incidents was reported extensively in the news. eg. iphone, HTC explode.) I think this is not fair and reasonable. Thanks. By the way, i go to sleep. i will see your message next day. Thanks and Bye --02fagE67 (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're honestly not making that much sense., what do you think? Dan653 (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the User obviously does not have English as his native language. Also, all the edits so far seem to be in good faith (I first thought the opposite seeing the username). I'm not good at guiding such new users and hope other editors don't be too harsh just because of the communication gap. would you consider watching the user? I'm winding up my editing for today too :) Thanks, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. No more edits were made today. Dan653 (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

To avoid edit war. I did not edit made today. and i first know that my id looks offensive to someone. You said, "I first thought the opposite seeing the username" i realize i made mistake about that. so i request change my user name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CHUS#02fagE67_.E2.86.92_02FE67

WP:UNDUE "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view."

Like i mentioned before, It does not sense to add every single faulty product news at corp page. For example, They sold around 50000000 phone products per year. However, If two or threee phones were faulty. then, it says evey single samsung phones were same issue? it does not make sense. "who" and "how many" people decide it as safety issue? I think the edit is not reasonable and fair. --02fagE67 (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hope you didn't misunderstand me and we'll continue this discussion on your talk page. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding recent changes to Qassem Soleimani
Hello, you removed the edits I made to Mr. Soleimani's biography even though I clearly referenced the recent article in the New Yorker that supported these claims. The New Yorker is as legitimate a source of information, if not more so, as Al Jazeera, with which you clearly don't have a problem. I will be adding my edits once again. Please refrain from removing them unless you have a real objection to the source I referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.131.9.129 (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read how to cite sources first and then you are welcome to add it. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Sorry, I overlooked your edit and was too hasty. I have undone myself. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=574558590 your edit] to Domestication may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ] (such as wool, cotton, or silk) and for types of work such as transportation, protection, warfare, scientific research, or simply

Reverted edit
A recent edit made to Britney's main page was reverted due to 'unverifiable sources'. All sources added pertained to the sections they were added to and were direct quotes from Spears and Jackson from reputable sources such as MTV News, Shape Magazine, MuuMuse, FHM, Hip Online, and AOL. Is there a specific reason why they were removed? It often seems like bias or favoritism at work, they were notable additions to her main page and really should be a part of it. Thank you - User5482 (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, when I looked through the edit, there were three things which got my attention. First, more than half of the sources seem to violate WP:BLPSOURCES, that is, they may be big and prominent agencies but they are still what one would call 'gossip' or 'entertainment'. If this guideline did not exist, by now all famous celebrity articles would be overflowing with speculations, minor quotes and other trivia. Second, it seemed to quote excessively to get a point, which is a little POVish. Finally, most of the content seemed trivial and there has to be a good reason to include it within this already-lengthy article. If you still feel some of it is worth adding, I would suggest you getting better sources as per BLP and asking on the article talk page, to see what those interested in the article have to say about it. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you tell me which sources were considered unreliable? The first is a quote from Spears from her interview with Shape Magazine this year, which seemed notable to add since she spoke about her new album's overall sound. The second was a direct quote from Spears speaking to MTV about lip synching allegations, which was vital to the article. The third is two brief quotes from Spears about Janet Jackson as an influence - one from an interview with Hip Online and another taken from FHM magazine. There is already a quote about Madonna there which seems to be taken from a book and has no other source, but whenever a quote about Janet is added they're quickly removed by users who generally contribute mainly to Madonna pages. This comes across as extreme favoritism and bias. She is a massive influence to Britney, which is why these quotes about her should be included in an article about her influences. A quote taken from an interview with AOL was also removed.

The final addition was a quote about Britney from Janet, which pertain to the section it was added under. All sources are reliable and are direct quotes from Britney. None are POV or overly detailed and, if anything, the removal of these quotes seems to be the POV of whoever is reverting them. Most of the websites used as sources used were already used for other references on the page. User5482 (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm unfamiliar with the subject. To anyone like me, your edit at first glance seemed contentious, and clearly I'm not the only person who felt so (you were reverted twice I believe). Remember as I said before WP:BLPSOURCES, so gossip/entertainment magazines are a no-no (to point a few, Today and MTV).


 * I can see your interest in improving the article further (It's a Good Article currently and that's why people are a bit strict when it comes to more additions) and yes, you do have some valid points. I suggest you post this on the article's talk page, surely someone will address this. I personally think your content with some changes can be added. Don't worry about it, all you need to do is contact anyone who has edited it significantly and plan it out, then it will be fine. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Edits to Roger Peckinpaugh
I am the grandson of Roger Thorpe Peckinpaugh and while reading the information posted I noted a couple of mistakes. First, his father was Frank Cotton not John. Second he had four sons, Roger Allan, Walter Stidger, Ralph Lynn, and John Stidger. I am Walter Stidger Jr. I really don't intend to be an editor so learning all the reference rules will be time consuming, maybe at a later date. But if you want to create a reference for me us the following book published in 1975 by Edwin T. and Athea Peckenpaugh Brace, "Descendants of Johnann Adam and Anna Maria Beckenbach". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.103.72.2 (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry if there has been any misunderstanding, it's quite easy to cite. Keeping all formatting complexities aside, all you need to do is add your reference within a and it will appear like this . Read more at WP:CITE, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ugog!
Hi Ugog, Thank you so much for your note - this is Uma Ramiah, I'm the new communications director for the Yale World Fellows. I'm the only one who uses the account we just signed up for, so I'll be happy to change the username. I'd love for our page to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. I'm going to work on the language for the page (so it indeed reads less like an advertisement) and submit a draft to you - would love any help you're willing to offer. Or, if there's another way to do that, let me know.

We've also changed our logo, which is why I was trying to change the image (with no luck). Is this something you might be able to do? I've uploaded it to Wikipedia Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yale_World_Fellows_logo.gif

You can check our homepage (http://worldfellows.yale.edu) to see the change reflected - it happened about a year ago.

And if we'd like to add our 2013 World Fellows to the list at the bottom of our page, is that something we can submit to you as well? Really appreciate your notes and help as I'm trying to figure this all out, Uma Yaleworldfellows (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Uma Ramiah, I'll be happy to help and will reply on your talk page within ten minutes. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Working Man's Barnstar

 * I appreciate your thanks, made my day! -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok
Ok I will make sure to write reasons for my editsLuckydhaliwal (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Very good! It can be very time consuming when we see someone not explain using the edit summary, and does things like changing figures, removing content etc without any apparent reason, this can make anybody suspicious. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi
I am the citation; nobody else who is a citable source has said this. (politely) go look. Otherwise I could source about any aircraft recognition book, but then that would be a long debate, not a 'fact'. Seriously!

what do you think?

Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.224.46 (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Peter, unfortunately that's not how we work here. Such uncited statements are considered as original research and not accepted. Please see WP:V and WP:RS. Thanks, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Help
so I should go publish a page and then cite it. many thanks. Lolgorien (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)lolgorien
 * I'm sorry but I'm not quite sure I get you. Exactly what page are you talking about? Please provide the links. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
—Prhartcom (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arani Power Systems Limited
You tagged it G13 - that's only for AfC submissions and unsubmitted drafts that haven't been touched by human hand in six months (bots don't count). That wasn't at AfC, and was only created today. 8-( I've moved it to Arani Power Systems Limited in main space, so if you want another try, feel free. (But not G13...) Peridon (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone's already tagged it G11... Peridon (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Really sorry, I saw that it was created twice by the user, only to be deleted. I realised that this time, it was in Wikipedia namespace so didn't know what criteria to use; I've never used G13 before. Anyway, it's fine now. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of the G13 work is being done by HasteurBot (to the great relief of those of us who were struggling through the vast stores of dead stuff at AfC). The actual deletion isn't by bot - that was suggested but overwhelmingly rejected. Anyway, if it doesn't say Articles for Creation on it, and it's less than six months old, it's not G13. I'd have tagged this one A7 rather than G11, but the intent is fairly obvious... Peridon (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

help with yale world fellows page
hi again ugog...

this is uma, hoping you're still willing to help me get the yale world fellows page up to standards.

looks like you've already done quite a bit of editing - thank you! i've looked at the language and tried to neutralize it as much as possible. this is, I'm sure, way too long for wikipedia but I thought you might be able to use it. Let me know what you think and if/how I can make this better. really appreciate your help.

one last thing - Yale World Fellows has dropped the "program" from their name since it's also about the network of former fellows - any chance we could change that? Umerama (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yale World Fellows is an organization that seeks to build a network of emerging global leaders and broaden international understanding at Yale. Every year, the program selects 18 Fellows from around the world and brings them to spend a semester at Yale University exploring global issues, with the hope that they will contribute to international awareness and dialogue within Yale University. World Fellows are typically selected at an early point mid-career, and come from a variety of sectors, including government, business, the media, nongovernmental organizations, education, religion, the military, and the arts. The program is designed to help the Fellows expand their professional and personal horizons and prepare for greater roles of leadership. While at Yale, they guest lecture in classes, meet with student groups, deliver campus-wide lectures, and contribute to informal dialogue and learning across the campus. The Program runs each Fall, from mid-August through Mid-December.

History On the occasion of Yale's tercentenary, in 2001, University President Richard C. Levin launched a number of internationalization initiatives. The Yale World Fellows Program was among these, and was launched in 2002. The Yale World Fellows network now comprises nearly 250 World Fellows in 81 countries. The Fellows work across national boundaries and disciplines: in technology, art, finance, politics, social entrepreneurship, journalism, advocacy and other sectors.

The Program During the four-month program, Yale World Fellows are immersed in the University community. The core aspects of the program are a seminar in global affairs, skill-building workshops, conversations with local leaders, and self-directed study through auditing Yale classes. While most activities take place on campus in New Haven, the Program sponsors trips to New York City and Washington, DC and an off-site retreat. The Yale World Fellows Program is offered annually from mid-August to mid-December and is sponsored and fully funded by Yale and supporting partners.

The Seminar The cornerstone of the Yale World Fellows Program is a 15-week global affairs colloquium taught by faculty from across Yale’s undergraduate, graduate and Professional schools. Through exposure to classical philosophical texts, current academic research, and practical thought, the program aims to create a real-world experience unlike traditional academic programs. Stated goals include encouraging Fellows to test their own boundaries, to think differently about their work to date and to consider new and potentially multi-disciplinary directions.

Activities The program sponsors a variety of events every year, including global conferences, multimedia exhibitions, and panel discussions on current events. The Yale World Fellows Forum is held every other year, and brings together current and former World Fellows and selected guests to meet and engage in debates about contemporary issues. In 2011, the Yale World Fellows hosted Yale University's first TEDx event TEDx Yale World Fellows. The next Yale World Fellows Forum will be held this October 2013, with the theme Rethink. The World Fellows Program also sponsors an annual Global Leadership Series conference. At these conferences held in cities around the world, World Fellows alumni, leaders in the region, prospective World Fellows nominees, and others debate selected international topics and provide input into solutions to critical problems. Past conferences have addressed issues such as the United Nations Global Compact's contribution for addressing corporate social responsibility.[1]


 * Hi again, I'll reply on your talk page after going through it. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Your rationale
Ugog,

"Hello, I'm Ugog Nizdast. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Milky Way, but you didn't provide a reliable source. "

Your rationale is totally ridiculous. Not every single sentence in wikipedia has, or needs, a "source". It simply makes no sense, it is nonsensical. (Less than one sentence in 100 is an assertion with a source.)

Note that the original sentence simply gave an example (relating to the timescale involved). Note that for example, that sentence was utterly un-sourced, except that it linked to a wikipedia page in question, where it is totally evident. Since this was a very poor example, I simply added another example -- which is a superb example, because the time scale in question is close to one in order of magnitude. (Read up on order of magnitude if you are not a mathematician.) Note that - again - it simply has a wikipedia link to the "dinosaurs" page where, the first sentence verifies the example involved.

Again, if you simply just did not like my edit, or if you feel you're a specially important writer of that page, it's absolutely OK to change the edit, and say something like "you know, that was a poor example" or "another example was not needed there" or better yet .. make no comment at all - obviously the only reason anyone edits anything on wikipedia is they think they are improving it.

(in this case, there was a totally crap example of the timescale involved, and I added an excellent example.)

Again, this is not a social site and nobody wants to chit chat with you. I get the impression you're a fairly new user, I've been wikipedia'ing since the start. So to be clear, if you want to edit ("because you didn't like another edit" or you think you're particularly the owner of a page), just go for it - this sort of chat is a waste of time.

But please don't offer "reasons" such as "no reliable source" which is plain silly, unless it is absolutely relevant to the type of edit in question.

Please, please don't reply to this as I have no time for such chitty-chat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.148.150.2 (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
--     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)