User talk:Ugog Nizdast/Archive 4

January–April 2014

Erle_Stanley_Gardner (appearance in popular fiction)
How is it not constructive to add to the list of mentions of Erle Stanley Gardener in popular culture? I see no reason to remove the mention of his appearance in a popular novel, Naked Lunch, by William S. Burroughs, because there is a section in the wikipedia article in mention, specifically for this sort of information (why would one pick and choose what is and is not relevant, instead let the user of the article decide). A section, which I might add, contain only two instances of ESG in pop-culture. Why even make mention at all of his appearance in popculture? How is that section constructive to begin with? Why present this section if only to give a truncated list, whereby one must (seemingly arbitrarily) judge which instances are constructive and which ones are not. Please undo what you have done, or explain yourself better, as I cannot understand your motives for removing it, nor what you intend to mean when you state that you found the additional information to not be constructive (in what sense?). I do not see this as a matter of being constructive or not, but rather simply expanding a list of mentions in popular culture, which I did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.47.200.150 (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Extremely sorry, a mistake while using WP:STiki...I've reverted myself. Sincerely Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations from STiki!

 * Thanks a lot! -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Subhas Chandra Bose
Hello Ugog Nizdast, I am writing to get your views on Subhas Chandra Bose. As you noticed, I reverted changes on this page. I also noticed that talk page of this article has massive discussions. Is there a way to protect this article so that only an admin, reviewer, rollbacker & auto patrolled user will be able to edit it? I am new hence this question. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  09:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Arun, I'm not sure if I see what's exactly the problem with that. The SCB talk page did have numerous discussions since it was fully overwritten recently, but all those threads which are more than 90 days old will be automatically archived by a bot. Moreover, I don't see any disruptive posts made by any anonymous editor; usually talk pages are not protected, since blatant rubbish posts (or personal attacks, threats etc) can be removed individually per WP:NOTFORUM. Plus, they don't do any harm (as compared to actual articles in the namespace).
 * As to whether we can actually get talk pages protected in such rare instances?...I'm not sure myself as I've never come across such a situation over here, I don't think this would be encouraged since everyone needs to be able to participate in editing, especially for anonymous editors (WP:IPs are human too) who for them, this can sometimes be the only way when the article is semi protected. If indeed there is such a case, maybe we could personally ask an admin.
 * I see that you have been here only for a few days and have made many accomplishments...must say I'm impressed. Good work and keep learning! Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Ugog Nizdast, thanks for the kind words and your encouragement. Sorry, I did not express myself clearly. I was talking about putting a more stringent protection on the main article itself. Right now, people like me also can edit it (pending review). However, some new users only come with an intent to express their personal views on some important articles. I got an alert for voting on pending changes discussion and that's where I got this clue. Since I am new, I am a bit clueless as well. Coming back to the article, his death is one of the biggest controversies in India (since 1940s). My entire life I have heard of this and certain pages like the one in discussion will always have massive edits; those too very contradicting views. If I am not wrong, Wikipedia will accept only the official & published version and not a conspiracy theory or rumour (although a mention of such claims can be made in the article). My attempt is to better understand an experienced editor's take on such matter (consider this your interview :-)). Thanks for your time. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  10:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, my network problem. Oh...that's what you meant...I agree with you on that. I too feel that pending review is a sort-of weaker protection than semi and better suited for the SCB article. Hmm...odd...according to the logs, it is actually "indefinitely" protected for pending changes, usually admins give it a proper amount of time. Per our WP:PROTECTION policy, it's entirely up to to them to decide whether it deserves semi or pending. However I think we should request for an upgrade in protection levels; pending changes is put in case there is even one tiny constructive IP edit among the vandalism/disruptive ones--definitely not the case over here...just look at the history of reverts.
 * I've added a request at WP:RPP using WP:TWINKLE. Check it out, and I highly recommend you start using twinkle (in case you haven't)—very good tool for making such requests, reverting vandalism, and warning them using WP:User warning template . If it's accepted, I think even Hyderabad could do with semi protection, it's a recently made WP:FA which prone to only disruptive edits so far...hate to see the two major contributors' hard work get overrun by vandals, regional chauvinists etc. Would you like to try making the RPP request for it using Twinkle? It's easy, you can refer to my request there, I'll check it too just in case. Or else it's fine, I'll make it myself later.
 * Haha okay. Personally I believed this too and our school history textbooks supported this conspiracy theory, so does most of the country, I wasn't even aware of the major scholarly opinion on it until I read this.. the article itself was like this before (See October 2013 version) and only recently, was it overhauled (a dozen praises to Fowler&fowler). Yes, conspiracy theories count as WP:FRINGE views and not matter how popular it is (usually referenced to the media and other such non-experts on this per WP:HISTRS), we should still show them as they are, giving WP:DUE weight to it and mentioning the accepted scholarly view on it first (using books published by historians). However, since this is an extremely prevalent theory, we can devote an entire article (Death of Subhas Chandra Bose), critically examining how it developed and it portraying its popularity in country.
 * Thanks...I'm not exactly an experienced user, barely completed a year over here. If you any time need anything, you can contact me...I'm available throughout the day till late night (per IST); even if I'm not editing I usually am available on my talk page. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Ugog Nizdast, this time I am late in reverting. Saturday evening and was out with friends for dinner. As far as experience is concerned, I am sure you will agree with me that years > 3 days. LOL. Yes, I am just 3 days old. Tried Skiti and I have to wait till I touch 1,000 edits. I am sure that's for a good reason. Have a good weekend. Cheers,  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  17:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Three days and you've reached so far...I'm sure you'll do fine :) Best wishes, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Eurostar
Hi there. My recent edits on the Eurostar page gave a better view of the train itself and not so much the station. It is a better image which is why I used it. I don't see how it's not constructive.

Thank you. 86.176.5.53 (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Made a mistake, sorry. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Content Removal on Indian National Congress Page
Thanks for guiding me! I will make sure not to repeat it again. But the stated page consists of false information and I would like to make the necessary changes. Wiki_User (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Expertseo
 * Hi, about this edit? The content you removed saying it was false, is clearly referenced to this Outlook report. To quote from it, " Being in power and having presided over several cases of mega corruption, the Congress was seen as the most corrupt political party." Moreover, this has been discussed on the talk page too, recently over here.
 * I agree that the page is in a bad shape, but blanking sourced content is not the way to go. Whatever sourced information you feel is false, can be easily verified by clicking on the reference...otherwise post it on the talk page first so that we can help you with it, rather than removing it. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt reply! Yes, you are absolutely correct about the referenced material but the page also says, "A total of 1,633 adult respondents (1,037 males and 596 females) in eight cities —Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, Hyderabad, Calcutta, Lucknow and Mumbai—were interviewed between January 8-10 for the survey." India is a country with population more than 100 crores. How could a feedback by just 1,663 people that too in 2011 be relevant today and tag a political party as the most corrupt one? It is simply a survey and the results of such surveys change often. Further, the article also says, "Worse, more than half of those surveyed said that none of the political parties had the wherewithal to deal with corruption.". So, it can be deduced that half of the respondents felt that other parties are equally corrupt as they do nothing to curb it, right? A piece from survey has been used in the wrong context and sending out the wrong message.learner (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that this report was made during a significant time which was during the parties rule; there were many such debates and surveys about corruption. It's hard to deny that this period of its governance should be just ignored. Also, what you say about the background about this report maybe true but that is not for us to decide. We merely reflect what to source says and going further to advance a position is original research. Since now you're debating about the relevance of this content, why don't you take it to Talk:Indian National Congress?...there more editors, besides just me, will be able to comment. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Need your help once again. I have started the discussion on Talk:Indian National Congress and one of the editors agrees with my point. But when can I update the content? I mean is there some criteria that 'n' number of editors should agree on the point and only then the content can be updated?
 * Nice work. There is no rigid rule here as to how many have to agree, this isn't a voting game. The main guideline which you need to refer to here is WP:CONSENSUS, do read it; I know it's a bit long...haven't read most of it myself, still try to get the gist of it though...the rest you'll learn by experience.
 * A basic sum of it is: when doing anything you feel will be challenged by anyone, you can propose the changes on the talk page first...if no one responds or objects...you can assume you have a rough consensus for it and make the edit (preferably explaining clearly your intention using the WP:Edit summary). If someone reverts your edit, that means you don't have consensus and need a proper discussion on the talk page (This is called the WP:BRD cycle here). Of course, you can directly "be bold" and make to edit until someone reverts. Anybody can object...provided they have a valid reason. When there is a valid dispute, and editors can't agree on something after discussing, there are various forms of dispute resolution available. But know that, ignoring previously agreed-on solutions, repeatedly undoing another's edits without discussing (See edit warring) and ignoring multiple editors reasoning are considered disruptive—which can lead to anyone being blocked.
 * About the INC page, lately only Vanamonde has taken the trouble to work on the whole page and knows more about it than me. I still have an objection to its removal and would like to know more about Vanamonde's reasoning before its removed; so let's discuss it there first. See you there, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ugog
Greetings,

I had seen your contributions for Article Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and want to thank you for the same. Your effort is greatly appreciated, you had tried to make article neutral and encyclopedic. However I had also seen some users are involved in distortion and hard criticism, it seem they are biased editors. However I need you support to make it Good article and also to mock them for biased editing. I will be grateful for your help. KLS 16:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kswarrior (talk • contribs)
 * Hi...I almost forgot about my previous edits over there—I was not so experienced at that time and now I know that we were both right (in a way). Sadly, no one wants to improve it further and it will remain in such a bad state. The user you speak of can be really uncivil sometimes but only the admins can decide what has to be done. I personally don't want to edit there as I've lost interest, lack resources and there is a lot of work. There is such a shortage of good editors on topics on India (not intended to all the present editors and no offence), I'm not keen to try such a mammoth task on my own.
 * I've looked at most of your edits...they are, though in good faith, I'm afraid, not acceptable. Remember that we all have our inherent biases and are incapable of writing anything in a neutral voice on our own. Especially about topics you have strong opinions about, to present that in a neutral voice, there has to be content which you will find offensive, unacceptable and contrary to your personal views. Historians and other academics do hold the view that the RSS and other related organisations have been involved in violence and controversies. Your removal of content sourced to such valid references (see WP:HISTRS) is unwarranted. Quite frankly, some of your edits elsewhere are a bit disputable.
 * My friendly advice to you is, calm down and go slow with your editing. You will deal with lot of people who are of the opposite viewpoint here; you also need to accept the mainstream and scholarly viewpoints in such topics—no matter what you personally think of it. When different editors disagree with only you, realise that it could be your inherent bias and accept it...over here we do not write the truth but just reflect what the sources say. So please, try to withdraw from editing like this before you get caught in an edit war, which can turn ugly for both parties because they can get blocked from editing. You are not so experienced here, there is a lot to learn, maybe you can try editing non-controversial articles or similar such easy-to-write topics first? It's highly recommended that one refrains from editing subjects they have strong view on especially if they find themselves frequently in disputes.
 * Besides this, you can ask me any time if you any issues in basic editing here--I'll be happy to help. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Frank Borzellieri
In reference to my accusations to this person and the changes that were made to the page concerning him. I was planning on adding a link to a reference page to back up what I said. I did not however, because he was terminated from his position as principal on Friday thus there were no articles, videos, stories, etc. to yet support what I have personally experienced. I understand why you have removed it. A person can not only depend on pure word of mouth (or type) to receive information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironhorse459 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, don't worry...once you find some new sources available...you can re-add it. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Miklós Fehér, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ummm....pardon me but take a look at the edit again...you have unintentionally re-added "but messi is the best striker and penaldo is world's best, kiss you." along with "but ronaldo is the best while"? Care to revert yourself?
 * I think you owe me and that other IP an apology for mistaking our edits for vandalism...and hope this is the first time you've slapped a final warning template on the regular user for vandalism ;) Henceforth be more careful, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Sorry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Phyllis George
I received a message from you saying that changes I made to Phyllis George's page had been removed.

That's odd because I have not made any changes to her page. Ever. Although, oddly, she is a close family member of mine. So, I'm a bit curious as to what is going on.

What were the changes you were talking about?

I know I didn't make them, but how did you get my IP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1619:4031:50EF:A39B:ABAB:AD93 (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that's a coincidence. This edit is the only one I've removed recently and I assume it's the one you're referring to. It was made by 96.29.85.210 and you must be sharing this IP address with others who use the same service provider. You can ignore that message since It's normal of IP addresses to change periodically and that's how you got the message which was not intended for you. If you don't register an account and make edits like this anonymously, you are identified by your IP address. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

use of non-free media in Asia Bibi blasphemy case
I would like to question your decision to tolerate the inclusion of the non-free image of the subject in the above article for the purposes of the GA review. According to my understanding, provision for such fair use do not extend to images of living subjects. Another editor has. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame! 03:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Guilty on all counts. Apologies for this blunder, from all the GA criteria, this was the one I didn't give much attention to. I only did check the license of the image. Thank you for telling me about NFC, I honestly had no clue about BLPs not having it. I've done only three reviews so far and that was my third as part of my GA recruitment, thankfully, the previous two didn't have any fair use media. I'm not good with image licensing and there's no other common mistakes made while dealing with non-free content, right? For example, is it allowed for recently deceased subjects like Narendra Dabholkar? Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would not have made the connection had I not seen the deletion tag on the article for the image. I don't think it's a serious problem as it would have been deleted soon anyway. Glad to have you on side. regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame! 07:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a good and interesting article, and I endorse your GA verdict. Sad case, though. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 08:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Mumbai koli people ....
may in know why my edit has been reverted by you ???

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mumbai&oldid=591995602&diff=prev — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prshntsathe (talk • contribs) 05:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi The change of wording which you did (previously->also) was explained in my edit summary. The other statement which you added did not belong to the lead section of the article...you added it in the part about its history, how was it even relevant there? Moreover, that statement belongs to the Koli page and not Mumbai (I think Kolis are already mentioned in the Mumbai page anyway). Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Kiss Tour Dates
Hello, my reason for changing info on the Kiss Tour Dates is that Mark St John infact developed arthritis during sessions for Animalize. That caused him to be unable to perform with the band anymore, except for one partial show on the Animalize Tour. Bruce Kulick came in at first to replace the lead guitarist just for the tour, but was then landed a spot in the band during the tour. Bruce did have blank picks because the band didint want the public to know that Bruce was unable to play with the band anymore. I hope this helps, and if intrested in looking up Bruces blank pick go to KissPicksandSticks.com. Thanks, Benjerm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjerm (talk • contribs) 19:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi and welcome. I seem to have reverted you by mistake. Could you next time add reliable sources to back up those statements? They may be already there in the individual sub-articles (copy it from there), and the website which you mentioned sounds like a fansite (cannot be used since it is not a reliable source). Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Again, Wikipedia does list the Mark St John information. On YouTube Paul Stanley is interviewed in a video called Kiss- Goodbye Vinnie, Hello Goodbye Mark, Hello Bruce. I hope this helps as well! Good talk! Benjerm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjerm (talk • contribs) 20:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted! Good Talk! Benjerm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjerm (talk • contribs) 20:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice, then you can cite them while adding it. If you need any help in editing you can ask me here. Good day to you, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Robert Irvine
Ugog Nizdast Please consider the following about Robert Irvine's page. There have been serious problems with an editor removing factual information from at least three different contributors regarding the closure of Irvine's restaurant. Believe me, the restaurant is closed. There are plenty of sources. A previous post from another user had citations. Unfortunately, it was swiftly erased. This begins to look like there may be an editor, or editors, with business or personal relationships with Irvine, acting in an editing capacity, that are determined to expunge any mention of a closure of Irvine's restaurants. Considering that Irvine "fixs" restaurants for a living, the distinct possibility that Irvine or his publicist is organizing the removal of this information looks fairly possible. It must be highly embarrassing for Irvine to purport to "rescue" restaurants when he can't keep one of his own in business. Numerous other celebrity chefs have mention of the closure of their restaurants without citation. Why is Robert Irvine's page being guarded so closely and treated so differently? Are there Wikipedia editors on his payroll? If so, that might make for a nice mainstream press story. 74.70.107.142 (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that what you added is factually wrong, but repeatedly adding it without a citation to a reliable source is considered disruptive. The argument of otherstuffexists is simply not valid here. I did see the previous references but they all looked like blogs, not reliable...especially when dealing with living people. I don't think anyone would have a problem once you add one reference and perhaps frame this statement more neutrally. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The prior citations were not blogs. They were from a published newspaper that has been around since 1970 and Irvine's own website. Unfortunately, that post was almost instantly undone by User:Drmargi, and it now irretrievable. An article that has had good faith contributions systematically remove from a few different contributors on a factual subject hardly constitutes a reliable source. As an IP, I don't edit much, but I feel that it is important to fix glaring mistakes and open fraud that I find of Wikipedia. If doing that is considered disruptive,but systematically undoing good faith edits that are cited is not, then Wikipedia editing is a pathetic farce. Using this article as a case in point, three different contributors have had to go to two different talk pages to make a one sentence edit of a fact in this article that still is not included. The arguments for withholding the mention of the restaurant closure have shifted from "trivia" to "not a biographical detail" to "please discuss on talk page" to "pointy edit" to "Also fails" et cetera. These shifts in rational occur every time the prior rationale for expunging the mention is refuted. It seems like there is some effort being exerted to guard this page more than that of other celebrity chefs. Why do other celebrity chefs have mention of closed restaurants without citation? From my reading of otherstuffexists, the restaurant closures can be mentioned the same way as other celebrity chefs pages. Is it because Irvine runs a restaurant "fixing" show, and a restaurant of his own closing is embarrassing? I think that something surreptitious is going on with this page.
 * Okay, I've replied and moved the discussion to User talk:Drmargi for it to be more easier to follow. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A discussion has already begun on the Robert Irvine talk page and that's where it should continue. The discussion on my talk page has been hatted, and given his recent personal attacks, 74.70.107.142 it no longer welcome to post on my talk page.  Once the various parties are prepared to stick to the issue instead of attempting to micro-analyze me in an attempt to bully me, and instead to work toward consensus, I'm prepared to rejoin the discussion. What I'm not prepared to do is continue to be the object of personal attacks and wild, unfounded accusations.   In the meantime, I would encourage the IP user to take advantage of the time to learn the basic policies governing sourcing, relevant content, talk page conduct,  and civility when editing.  --Drmargi (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's all fine then and I agree with you. I just was dragged into to this and gave my 2c on this matter. The edits if added again, remain against policy, and I'm going back to what I was doing. Have a good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought you probably would. Your help is appreciated, but until the IP is prepared to discuss in line with Wikipedia policy and to avoid the tactics he's favored so far, this is going nowhere and I have no intention of rejoining the discussion.  --Drmargi (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_token
Hi,

You've removed 2 links I've added. I think they were in the right place, because VASCO Data Security is a notable vendor of Security tokens and MYDIGIPASS.COM is a notable model.

Can you elaborate why you've removed them?

Thank you.

SvenVH (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, I hope you've read that message I've sent you about adding external links. Besides that, if what you speak of is indeed notable, there should be secondary coverage by reliable sources or it have its own individual page here. Read more at WP:LISTCOMPANY. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Some Advice?
Hi, I was wondering if you could give me some advice. I found this page recently, and I really don't think it should be a page at all; the content in there can be found in Hinduism, Judaism, or History of the Jews in India. Besides which, it is a poorly sources, poorly article. Could you take a look, and see what you think? It's always possible, of course, that I'm wrong. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Very interesting, I think Hinduism and Judaism makes a strong candidate for deletion. Besides those three pages you've mentioned, only the opinions of two people (both just notable, not exactly scholars) are there, nothing else actually mentions the relation between Hinduism and Judaism; there's no indication of it being a majority view. Then there's a copy of Golwalkar's opinion, again only relevant to his page detailing his views on the state of Israel. Finally, some content taken from some inter-religious dialogue (didn't read much through it).
 * It is possible that we both are wrong but there seems to be a strong enough reason to consider it for deletion. Yes, you can AFD it and let's see what happens when it's given a wider community scrutiny.
 * Before doing it, I assume you've enabled WP:TWINKLE on your account. This can be done in the 'preferences' option. It's a very useful and essential tool where you can AFD something quickly, besides other shortcuts. Regarding deletion, read through the main AFD page, WP:BEFORE, WP:ATA and WP:ATD. Tell me if you have any issues with using Twinkle or anything else. Good luck, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, friend. Here's the discussion. If you have the time to weigh in, I would be grateful. Cheers. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's see how it goes, I may participate later if required. Good day to you, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Haha...thanks a lot. Reminds me that long since I've given a few myself...See you around! Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Seemandhra`
Have you checked out Seemandhra? They're jumping the gun there too. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoa..looks like this one went unnoticed. Sorry but I'm winding up my editing for today...have posted it at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics for some more backup. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Thanks a lot! Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Tamil people[Edit]
Hi mate, If you are curious enough, you can get a copy of "The Tamils: Their History, Culture, and Civilization" by N.Subrahmanian and read it. And for your dubious claim of me copy - pasting, it really how you managed to do so much edits. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabarikarthik91 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, you really could have saved us a lot of time by adding it in your first edit itself. I was merely asking you in good faith, since that's a common mistake made by a new user since it's mentioned in some other articles. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No worries mate. I really appreciate your effort to avoid vandalism. Thanks. Sabari. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabarikarthik91 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Your edit
Kindly put my edit back as the citation was at the beginning of what I posted. Which, if you had read it, began "In the March 2014 issue of the Atlantic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.61.99 (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I would like to help you incase I've made a mistake but what article are you referring to? Could you provide me with a link? I'm not quite sure I remember which one and your contributions doesn't show any recent edits. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

bounty
I think the bounty section for super bowl 44 is irrelevant to the game at hand, as it was well after the game was over, it doesnt need to tarnish that page, especially since it already has its own main page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.84.13.198 (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, you can read this edit where another editor explained why it's relevant there. I don't know much about this topic but per the Neutral Point of View policy, we write all significant viewpoints whether good or bad on any article and never separate them just to make something look "clean"--that would make it a WP:POV fork. Also, it's recommended to use the summaries while editing. If you still feel that this needs to be removed, you can propose it on the article talk page (first see if it's been already asked before). Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Decline of Newspapers
Gave the IP a 6 month block and will ask for copyright cleanup as so much of their edits were copyvio. Thanks for reverting, Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Editing and Footnotes
Thank you for your message re my edits of the Basava Premanand article. I have just been checking and find that the correct reference for the footnote should not be "James Randi Educational Foundation", but "JREF Obituary", as appears in the External Links list at the end of the article. If you click on that, it takes you directly to the correct page on the "James Randi Educational Foundation" website. However, I have no idea how to change the footnote! Please could you do it for me? Many thanks. -- P123cat1 (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi I think I got what you mean and have made the change here. Citing sources is fairly easy actually and if you have any trouble, you can ask me any time. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I see what you have done, problem nicely ironed out. Thanks also for the useful link and offer of future help should I need it. I would award you an online Barnstar if I knew how, but as I don't, please accept one from me verbally!  --  P123cat1 (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Haha...no problem, it was no big deal. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the 3O...
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Christian law in india.
Majority of the content on wikipedia related to christian law in India was uploaded by me, and almost all of it is from Dr. Sebastian Champappilly's various books(not pamphlets). But yea I do not want to revive the page for the author as he has risen to high rank in the courts of south India and jealous competitors were vandalizing his page from public ip's. After the personal attacks make against the author via wikipedia, the author no longer wishes to share his content online and has requested that i remove all excerpts from his books. Hence I'm marking all my articles related to christian law for deletion and i expect you to not make use of the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HolyFist (talk • contribs) 11:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi : I'm very well aware of about your contributions here and was of the impression that you were no longer active in editing. I wanted to contact you myself to sort this issue. You must be well aware that I had nominated your page on Champapilly for deletion, other members of the community found that it failed our notability requirement and it was finally deleted--see the discussion here: Articles for deletion/Sebastian Champappilly.
 * Let me clarify first, that whatever content you added was a copyright issue itself and your close association with the subject (previously one editor did tell you about your conflict of interest) was another problem. The best and safest solution I found was to trim down all the content you added and merge the remaining into a single page Christian Personal Law...I've posted here for further explanation especially for future editors having resources to improve it further: Talk:Christian Personal Law#Merge report
 * Finally, nominating Christian Personal Law for deletion is will not likely succeed because this is not a valid reason for it. There is still a little content which added by me and another editor based on other references. I think the best solution here is that we blank out all of what you added and leave the rest there, making it a short stub page. This copyright issue could have been easily solved by addressing the close paraphrasing issue (read this link)....sorry to hear that you've decided to completely remove it. So shall I go ahead and remove whatever you've added? Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed it here and kept back material containing just bare facts or cited to other sources. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

My Bad
Sorry, I meant to put that last edit in the talk page. I was not paying attention at all, totally my fault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.138.93.203 (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, but in any case, talk pages are meant for discussing improvements on the article...not general discussion on the topic itself. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Alphabet
bt i have added a genuine line bt at may be wrong position. so I want you to correct only that mistake and not just the whole line. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajatGarg0063 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I would like to help you out but how can I be sure that what you added is verifiable? Could you provide a reliable source? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Some Help
Hey UN, since you've helped me out before, I thought I'd ask again. I've been tangling with a remarkably obtuse POV pusher at Medha Patkar. I do not in any way imply that the article was perfect earlier, it's just that some of his statements are so outrageous that I do not know how to deal with them. I also do not believe my conduct has been perfect, but I have tried hard to keep it so, and I would appreciate your input very much. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello again...I'll check it out when I get time and reply here. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It would appear that my redoubtable opponent has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry on an unrelated page. So I don't need your assistance any longer, although the offer is much appreciated. Of course, the page is still a mess, so if you're willing to look at it you're more than welcome. Have a good day, my friend. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I didn't respond soon enough. As you can see, I've not been very active these past few days and looks like I missed the fun. I've briefly skimmed through the really long discussion and commend your resolve in continuing it for so long. Though I'm not exactly sure about your "opponent's" exact reasoning for deleting some quite non-controversial content. Curiously enough, I couldn't find any Sockpuppet investigation report filled under that username...maybe just got blocked per WP:DUCK. Best regards as always, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Tim tam dunk
Good call. I was wondering how that would get answered. --Stfg (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hehe thanks, nice to know that you too have started volunteering there...now the list will be empty more often. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

NaMo
Hey, it's me again. A couple of editors appear to be making an attempt to modify the lead of the Modi article, which almost seems like a pre-election push to me. I cannot revert any further, as I have no intention of getting blocked; could you look into it? Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you've already called the cavalry (Sitush and DS), you'll probably get help soon plus...this is Namo's page we're talking about...this is not going to be ignored. Why don't you tag the "though it was cleared" statement or whatever you dispute with the "dubious" tag yourself till it gets resolved, since you can't revert?
 * You probably know by now that I have a generally avoid such topics since I can't tolerate the usual heated discussions and pesky POV pushers. I don't know how anyone can manage it and I really salute you along with the other editors who do it. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks friend, no worries. I called on all the help I could, seeing as this is during the election, and POV tampering is even more of a problem. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Benfold (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Stop vandalising
I am asking you what is your problem with Freedom of religion in India why ? are you removing shiite section. If it is not reliable that is kind of problem. But you are vandalizing the section of an encyclopedia. Please behave normal. You are being warned else i should report you in case of vandalism after a user has been warned. Hope you understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inside99 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry I 'vandalised'. Why don't you report me to the WP:AIV? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Uniform civil code
Hi Ugog, can you provide a quote that verifies the claims in this diff? I see that it is supposed to be verified by this Google Books link, but it is currently broken.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, you may not believe me but I've was just on your talk page about to leave you a message asking if "if the article was fine now". Odd, the link worked before... I've found another duplicate one, see the preface page. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Mullah do-Piyaza
I made some further edits to Mullah Do Piaza and added a few more "clarification needed" tags and notes to editors (different from before). I also wondered why the name in the article is spelled differently from the name of the article. There is also a third spelling at the bottom of the page. If you would like my help formulating sentences that clear up the ambiguities, let me know. CorinneSD (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll be delighted. I never actually gave much attention to that article since I expanded mainly as a by-product of writing Birbal. I will check out your latest edits soon. See you there, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)