User talk:Ugog Nizdast/Archive 5

April–October 2014

Social Media Section of Omar Abdullah's Wikipedia Page
How you can say that Social Media section is pointless? Then why Twitter and Facebook on Wikipedia page? Are they not pointless? And even though mainstream media has recognized it. Articles links are also posted for the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajivgupta33 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi the section is weakly sourced since the given references do not indicate any claims on his social media presence. Have you seen any decent article on our politicians having such a section overhere? At the most you could provide his social media links in the "external links" section. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, The link which I had provide is of mainstream media of India. IBN and Times Of India are the two authentic source of news. We can't point finger on them. So please, don't consider those link as 'Weak'. And for this parody account link is given in IBN news article. If there is no section of social media of other politicians that doesn't mean we should not do the with others. Nowadays social has very impact in India especially in General Elections. I think you are not from Indian origin so you don't know about these buzz else you won't call those articles as 'Weak' source. Better to have debate any Indian regarding articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajivgupta33 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 12 April 2014‎ (UTC)
 * What I meant by "weakly sourced" was, none of the sources mentioned anything about any extraordinary social media notability; both sources, just talk about his parody accounts and contain just passing mentions--the sources were misrepresented. Also, I repeat again, it is simply not encyclopaedic. Even if you do get good sources saying it, doesn't mean we have to add each and every trivial thing written about them.
 * Have you checked the article's history? This was added multiple times before by a new account, only to be removed by different experienced editors, the same is happening to you. Each of them even told that editor to stop too.
 * I'm sorry, we can keep discussing about this on and on but you still need consensus to add it. It will be considered disruptive if you keep adding it again and edit warring. You seem to be a new editor, so please take some time to familiarise yourself with how we work here (policies, guidelines etc, see your welcome message). I can help too if you need anything. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ugog Nizdast,

Dude are you founder of Wikipedia? I think Homespun has clearly requested you to wait and let other editors give their point of view but still you are not agreeing to him. Please be patient and don't take it on your ego. Please wait and wait. Don't be so eager to remove the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajivgupta33 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Ballet image
Thanks for the reply on my talk page, Nizdast. It appears that you do have an opinion about this: you believe the image to be irrelevant to ballet. Would you be so kind as to register your opinion at talk:ballet? Although ballet is probably widely watched, as you surmised, no one else has bothered to comment about this issue there. Thanks! Lambtron (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem but I see no point in intervening yet as long as the editor who added the image does not bother to respond (maybe that's what everybody else thinks?). The image seems blatantly irrelevant to a layperson and that editor has some explaining to do. Tell you what, I'll watch this page for some time and pitch in if needed. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Islam in India
Dude, Islam didn't originate until the seventh century; how could it arrive in India in the first century?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitbut (talk • contribs) 01:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Take a look at this edit again, notice "arrived in the 1st millennium CE" which is 1000 CE, and not 1st century (100 CE). Hope it's clear now, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Have some cake

 * Thanks you may think you're the only one but a really kind IP, few hours before your post, wished me first over here. ;) Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hyuk Hyuk Hyuk been lucky enough to avoid that sort of birthday wishes myself. Just the everyday travails of a policy bound editor, what? Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Good article review of Giving Victims a Voice
Hi! I just wanted thank you for your time spent recently in reviewing and suggesting improvements at Talk:Giving Victims a Voice/GA1. I can see that the content is much clearer to readers as a result. As we discussed there, I'll probably return for a few minor tweaks some time soon. All the best with your continued editing and vandal fighting! See you round somewhere sometime, I expect. Cheers. { -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 19:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem. I always watchlist whatever article I review, so if you want any suggestions or anything, I'll be available. Thanks for your kind feedback, it's good to know I'm doing fine at GA reviewing; being at the GAN backlogs is something I'm only fairly experienced with, and hope to get better (and quicker) at. Good luck with your work too. Our paths will probably cross much sooner if you've got any GA nominations planned for the future. Best wishes, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Aurangzeb
That actually came from so was copyvio. Good idea to check well written text added to these articles - I can just highlight, right click and search Google. Dougweller (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Felt the same too, was just too lazy to do that since the edit had to be reverted for content blanking anyway. :) Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

STiki
Hey, I had a quick question for you. I just started using STiki, and I've been wondering if I've been erring on the side of strictness. So, just as a benchmark, what proportion of edits do you mark innocent, and what proportion do you revert good faith? (I'm asking for ballpark figures, obviously I don't expect you to keep track of precise numbers.) Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * At first, I felt I was 'overdoing' it too since I thought, I shouldn't let the difficult good faith edits 'slip away' by tagging them innocent. Now, it just depends on the recent usage option or on my mood. On 'full-blown' vandalism obviously, there's no compromise, so I assume you're referring to just good faith edits when it comes to being strict. If I feel like and if I have time, I sometimes revert most instances of good faith edits. This can be tedious and involve some outside-STiki article/editor checking, fixing bigger problems etc so I do this rarely. Rest of the time, I just open it for 10–20 minutes and if I want to revert the most vandalism, I mark "innocent" to all the time-consuming good faith edits and revert only the vandalism and some easy good faith ones.
 * If you didn't check yet, for 'Recent usage': go to the 'Revision queue' option on the top-left and select it. That option displays the queues and their respective usages by the amount of classifications and percentage of reverts from it, in the last one hour and last five. So if one of the two queues almost zero, it shows no editor has been active there, then I switch to that and do some classifying. I check this every time I launch the application. Hope I answered eveything, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks man that was helpful. Yeah, I was specifically wondering about seemingly innocent, unsourced changes, that are occasionally subtle vandalism, but often good faith editing that requires effort to check. And I'll look at those options too. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

re: see also section
sorry for the late response. I had an unexpectedly busy week a work. In my opinion it would be wisest to just ignore something like that, but it's really up to you. If you want to try dispute resolution in those kinds of cases, you're more than welcome to, but again I don't personally think it's worth it. But yeah protecting the page is probably not the right option regardless. Cheers. Thingg &#8853; &#8855; 23:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey no problem, and really thanks for your response. No doubt it was not right for RPP. I did it mainly because I got frustrated with someone so blatantly disregarding the manner of style and fighting for it. Of course, it's also pretty lame to seek dispute resolution for a minor obvious MOS violation. I realise that this isn't much of a disruption since it's just on a single article, not worth wasting time on. Someone else, will probably fix such a glaring mistake later. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikiphilosophy
I see, my 3O colleague, that you have the WikiPrayer on your user page. You might also appreciate the Wikiderata. Thanks for your work at 3O! Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I must say it's very well written, but to be honest, I never was that much into philosophy...he he. Really great to hear from you, I've learnt a lot initially regarding 3O by observing you editing. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Ugog Nizdast
Hey Im Sorry I didn't mean to remove anything I'm new in this so I didn't know what I was doing sorry.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puerto Rican05 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey there, no problem...you can use the Show preview button to minimise mistakes. I know it can be really confusing when you just start editing, so if you need any help, feel free to ask here. I've sent you some useful links on your talk page. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Defunct infobox fields
Hello, hope you don't mind but I've had to remove a couple of old, non-working infobox fields from the Video game infobox that you have in your sandbox. This is to make it easier for volunteers in the future, when we start the main clean-up of 10,000 video game articles, and it prevents your sandbox getting caught up in the edits. - X201 (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey there. Sure, no problem. Non-working infobox fields? so should I remove them from the main page Dwarf Fortress too? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You can if you want, or you can wait until the clean-up list gets around to the letter 'D'. Only 11,000 of them to do. - X201 (talk) 11:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014
(warning removed by Racerx11 09:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC))
 * Hey there Is this some sort of Huggle bug? I see that you reverted vandalism by 80.44.231.249 and the warning came to me instead...connecting me to my December 2013 warning on User talk:80.44.231.249. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am so sorry! Actually it was 100% my fault and not at bug at all. Usually when I revert from Huggle, use the revert/warn button. In this case, for some reason I used the revert only button. Then I changed my mind and decided to come back and warn the IP using the warn only button. The more I think about this, I am fairly certain I clicked the wrong talk page link (yours) and issued you a bogus warning instead. I have removed the warning template. Very sorry. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  09:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. So that's what happened, I never used Huggle before. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Saadi Shirazi
I thought you might be able to clear up a discrepancy in the article on Saadi Shirazi raised in a comment on the talk page at Talk:Saadi Shirazi. CorinneSD (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I gave it a shot, also replied on the article talk page. And I used to wonder how horrible our articles on vital Indian historical figures was... Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Saybrook University. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Saybrook and third opinion
Thanks for your help on the Saybrook page. It's been proving very time consuming and somewhat exasperating to deal with--and your cool headed help is appreciated. I'm not as familiar with Wiki standards as you, but have left a message on the users talk page that I am debating with in the hopes that this will help improve the editors conduct or at least start a 'paper trail' for administrators to start to weigh in. I do have some concern that the users IP address will just change before that happens though.-Pengortm (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for your feedback. Good, I see you have taken it to the DR noticeboard since it came to a standstill again. I was just going to tell you both to do it on the article talk page. This process may take long so be prepared to wait. As you know, I'm quite unfamiliar with this topic so beyond 3O, I'm afraid I cannot be of any more help. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment, your comment
Hi Ugog, many thanks for your 3o on this page (Navarre). I opened a Request for comment on user Jotamar, you can find here in this link. It requires a comment of someone participating in the dispute (section Users certifying the basis for this dispute of the above link), your input is much appreciated. Iñaki LL (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for your feedback. As you know, I'm quite unfamiliar with this topic and in this dispute, I've had a role only via 3O so my involvement is minimal (it is based on content, not editor behaviour anyway). Beyond 3O, I'm afraid I cannot be of any more help. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, appreciated your wp criteria based 3o. I am new to the RfC resource, but it requires a note by two people who have somehow intervened, so I guess it is just consists of explaining what your intervention was. I am afraid that this long journey may come otherwise to a deadlock, since no one is commenting but the issue remains there. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm also not experienced with the WP:RFC/U process. But from what I just read, I think it is meant for a more broader scale...that's why more than one user needs participate. Me and TransporterMan's involvement in your dispute is on the bare minimum through dispute resolution, this doesn't count. RFC/Us are for cases where more than one editor has a problem with someone, they can together start one for that user. It says there that if your problem is on a smaller scale (like just between you two), to use the WP:ANI instead. I see that you had even opened a regular RFC on the article talk page to no response. Sorry that it's been fruitless so far, this is mainly because this is a conduct dispute involving you both.
 * Hope I've given the right advice here. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * O, since by now there had been three people intervening (me and you as requested external parties) that should do, perhaps that point should be clearer, it's taking hours... Anyway, thanks for replying so soon. Iñaki LL (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ugog has it exactly right. In any event, the RFC at the article talk page has been closed because it's not the right place for a RFC/U. I've also responded to Inaki at my user talk page. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Third Opinion Service Award

 * The 14th?...wow, thanks a lot. I'll remember to give this to others in the future if I find any. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk page reorganization on Bharatiya Janata Party.
I was unsure if all such comments go under one section so I clubbed them with yours as feedback. I am okay to have them in separate section. And since the other editor is working quite hard to get it up to GA I want to not interfere with the article changes and let him do all of it, because that way the article may become unstable(if he reverts), he pinged me on the article talk page after which I did the review. --Jyoti (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. In my opinion, I don't think you should "restrain" yourself from editing just because of the GA review. There is a huge backlog of reviews and very few reviewers, so this will take more than a month to start. Even if it does start, and if you both are having a bit of a dispute...you can use the reviewer for a third opinion. Most reviewers are patient even if the review gets delayed because of such discussion. Criteria 5 fails only if there's continuous revert and edit warring. There is plenty of time to sort things out is what I'm saying. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Languages of Azerbaijan
Hello, Ugog -- I haven't forgotten about the work needed at Saadi Shirazi. I promise I will get to it. I have another article that needs attention, and I thought perhaps if you had time you could work on it. It is Languages of Azerbaijan. First, read User talk:Dougweller and the earlier exchange on Kwamikagami's Talk page (to which I provided a link). CorinneSD (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, take your own time on that. Of course, I'll look into it in some time...it's good to work on something different for a change. I hope I'll be able to help like last time in this unfamiliar topic. Best, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure how to go about helping in this topic; other than not being knowledgeable or familiar with Azerbaijan of course. I have to admit I was quite lost reading all those links. You want help for those tags and comments on the page, right? I think you'd be better off asking any currently active editor from WikiProject Azerbaijan/Members. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice sock, man
Since when Azerbaijani interested in Wilbert Tucker Woodson High School? Oh, wait, are you the boogey man? Happy you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.197.236.101 (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Turta Sport
A well known player in a well known team should be mentioned. I don't understand how this is good faith when it's mentioning a notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.252.131 (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See Verifiability and consider adding a reliable source to support that statement. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

3O Award grant
Stfg is at 51 edits. Would you like to do the honors? Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes that did cross my mind, but like I mentioned before at Wikipedia talk:Third opinion/Service award log, what about completing six months? or did I read it wrong? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the six months is only that the last, usually 50th, edit must be within the last six months; they don't have to have been around for six months. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright then, I'm off to it. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You've got email. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

edits to lawn mowers
Hello I got your message that you felt the need to correct some alterations I had made to the lawn mower page, absolutely no problem at all. I would point out that I was neither experimenting nor messing about, any error was made honestly. Thanks for helping out.

Scarteg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarteg (talk • contribs) 15:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey there, no problem at all, you can use the 'view changes' or 'preview' button to avoid mistakes like these. Also, sign your posts by typing ' ~ ', this will automatically produce your name and date (further info: Talk page guidelines). Need anything else feel free to ask here. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Thanks for tendering your carefully considered third opinion here. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome! Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made&#32;to Sarojini Naidu‎: you may already know about them, but you might find Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Wikicology (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey there already did that. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * thank you for doing that. Accept my unreserved apology. Cheers Wikicology (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hafez
I noticed an edit to Hafez today in which an editor undid disruptive edits to the article. Looking at the recent Revision History, one can see several disruptive edits, including an edit saying that Hafez's parents were Bakhtiari, the same information added by the same editor to Saadi Shirazi on 8 August and undone by you on 10 August. I'm wondering whether an admin should leave a note on that editor's talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, the said editor has been blocked and the disruptive edits reverted by someone else. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Hello Sir. I've respond to your queries. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 18:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...no need to be so formal with me and I watch both those pages so I see your work. Great so far, we can continue on the review page. I'll respond there when I get time to continue my review of it. Expect a day or two between my responses. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles Future GAN Backlog Drive
Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!

TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.

If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.

At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.

As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!

Sent by Dom497 --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

"Defaultsort"
What is the use of the "defaultsort" on Human evolution? Dt Mos Ios (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC).
 * Hey there, it is mainly for categorisation purposes: read more about it at Default sorting and Help:Category. In this case, it properly splits Human and Evolution from the article title "Human evolution" for categorisation. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand the use of this to replace special letters or to place a surname first in categories (unlike in a page title); but I must admit I do not understand why it is useful and how it works in this case... Could you explain the use of it as it is the same as the page title? Dt Mos Ios (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC).
 * You know what? apart from that (maybe it capitalises Evolution for the title), I'm not sure myself...all I know that it should be placed in that order there. Why don't you try the Help desk, linking this discussion? If you get a better answer, let me know here. It could be, as you say, not needed there. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe the answer is the same as on Wikipedia talk:Categorization? 16:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC).
 * Ah, I see...the capitals is important. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Re:Overpopulation in India
I don't have time for debates but I looked at the discussion and it seems people arguing against overpopulation in India have no serious sources to prove their point. Even the CIA world factbook states this fact. It has nothing to do with opinion. I even added citations in my edit. Even if majority disagree, they need some reliable sources.--Taeyebaar (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding that edit, whether referenced or not, adding it was against the current consensus so I had to revert; if I didn't, someone else would have probably much later. I've had no involvement in that discussion, so have no opinion on this.
 * However, I can tell you that if you're really inclined to add it and disagree with that discussion, to take this to the talk page. Consensus can change. No doubt it may not work out according to how you want it, but you might learn something new, and that discussion could be used for future reference. Time is really not an issue here, you don't have to actively participate in the talk page...take as long as you like.
 * Anyway, that was just my two cents on this. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Does community consensus override wp:rs? I'm not sure how this works, but I'll be happy to at least partially participate in a discussion to ensure that it goes into the article. As you wrote there's no deadline. Thanks for informing me.--Taeyebaar (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not seen the discussion in question, but I can say that in theory WP:RS stands paramount; in practice though, as with all policies, they are not 100 percent precise. It frequently occurs that there is community consensus against using what might superficially seem to be a reliable source. Of course, that consensus can change, and occasionally it can be wrong; there are places to sort this out, like the talk page, WP:RSN, WP:DRN, and so forth. Hope this helps. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Phrasing would be important; what exactly do you state? "India is overpopulated", "population pressure", or "Indian goverment works hard to provide food and income for a growing population"?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   13:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Vanamonde for your response, the discussion is Talk:India/Archive_38. To Joshua Jonathan, the edit added "Overpopulation" to the statement "India continues to face...". Since you have been involved in it before, you may want to go ahead with Taeyebaar in case anyone of you both want to start it again.
 * To WP:RS is a content guideline, so as Vanamonde said, it cannot be overrided and even if it does, it may be in extreme situations and rarely be done in such a way as you have said. Looking back at the discussion at hand, I personally see the dispute as being regarding whether that term is used by majority of the reliable sources or not; finally, it seemed like most who opined felt that it wasn't. If you feel like starting it again, you can go ahead at Talk:India and start a new section. It's best to keep the discussion at one place and the old participants may need to be notified. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responses guys. In response to Joshua's comments above, the area where it says the country continues to face pressing problems. In response to Vanamonde93, we should go by how reliable the sources are. To start with I could mention the CIA world factbook, which is in fact used as a source on wikipedia on country topics, including India, so that would be the strongest source in favor of adding overpopulation to the India article. Otherwise it's questionable that wikipedia uses it as a source but denies it in other situations. But I think what's agreed is it requires further discussion and I'm willing to share all the input I can in the time i have--Taeyebaar (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I have started a new discussion on the subject. You are welcomed to post there.--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've seen it on my watchlist and notified those previous participants for you. Remember to indent your replies using ":"--for more, see Talk page guidelines before taking part. I hope you've prepared to be patient and relax for this one, you've probably seen in the old discussion, one of the editors lost their cool since the very beginning, thus not helping their side of argument much. Anyway good luck, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nizdast thank you.--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

About India's map which is shown by writer.
I requesting sir please remove that Map which is showing some part of India is missing & shown in adjacent countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.248.247.54 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're referring to. Maybe you need to read Talk:India/FAQ Question 6. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This may be just me and my dirty suspicions, but I'm guessing this is a veiled reference to the fact that maps on Wikipedia show territory as it is currently held, and not as the Indian government would like it to be shown; ie Azad Kashmir in Pakistan, and the Aksai Chin in China. Of course, this is necessary thanks to NPOV, and it's unlikely there is anything to fix here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup
Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!

As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:

For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.

For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).

The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * That's very kind of you and welcome to Wikipedia. If you need any help here feel free to ask me. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Favor
As you can see I get very less time (because of office work) to check Wikipedia. I request you to add Uttar Pradesh, Indian National Congress, Vivah, Allahabad, Maine Pyar Kiya, Amrita Rao and Maharashtra in your watchlist. I have spent so many hours to write these seven articles but IP users doesn't understand and they often vandalize with no genuine reason. Please help.-- 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 07:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ added all to my list + I already watch Maharashtra and Indian National Congress--my general observation is INC already looked after by many and is in good hands. I'd be happy to watch your GAs Maharashtra (soon-to-be), Allabhabad and Uttar Pradesh. The rest, since I'm totally unfamiliar with, I might have to ask you occasionally regarding reverting certain IP edits. The IP edits mostly aren't vandalism but misguided edits which unfortunately plagues our Indian-related topics due to most being from vernacular backgrounds. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Why edit removed though reference was made available?
I did give a valid reference for my edit. It was listed as 187th in the list of references. Then why was my edit removed???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rampy.g (talk • contribs) 09:58, 19 September 2014‎ (UTC)
 * Hello because " http://www.theprasanthireporter.org/ " is not considered as a Reliable Source. Please read what consists of one and what does not. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Beijing #Air Pollution
I wonder why you just mentioned a single word. The whole section should not have been removed just for the dispute of a single word. The other parts of my post has been reliably resourced, including the annual(and decade) mean value and the trend of air quaility in last 14 years (ex. http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2014-01/03/content_17212783.htm).

The conclusion of "changeable" can also be drawed from one website of Chinese http://bjwb.bjd.com.cn/html/2014-01/02/content_139456.htm that I posted before, where the number of good days (daily mean value, moderate for US standard) was published. Although it was not a strong evidence compared with the calculation of hourly mean. Though won't be accepted as an evidence, I would also like to show you my personal research as I'm a Beijinger: Among 2013, the daily highest visibility reached above 50 km in about 60 days, above 80 km in about 24 days, above 100 km in about 10 days. We have north wind normally once three days at winter, which can reduce the air pollution index in 1-2 hour as Beijing located very near the little pollution area of Mongolia Plateau. In Feb 28, 2013 and Jan 18, 2014, I was surprised to saw that a clear bound over the sky seperating it into 2 parts with yellow color and blue color, with the air quality index jumped up and down in several hours. BeijingCup (talk) 08:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Please attentioned that my post was NOT for refuting the statement "Beijing air quality is often poor...".On the cantrary, it was quite neccessary for describing how poor it was exactly and showing us the trend in last 14 years. BeijingCup (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey there, sorry but I just participated there via WP:3O so my involvement in minimal, and I cannot give my opinion on what you have just said. I usually only respond to the participants to carry the discussion forward or if they have minor doubts about something. When one of the editors disagrees with the 3O they can always seek further dispute resolution or repost at the 3O for another uninvolved editor (if they're lucky). -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit war
Hi, user Jonathansammy seems to be in mood to have edit war. He's making lot of irrelevant edits in Maharashtra. You know article took so much hard work and dedication and this particular user making it suck. Please help.-- 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 07:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked yet but once I do I'll try to pitch in and voice my opinion. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay checked it, I have a proposal for you: why don't you take it to the talk page first since the other editor hasn't yet? This is facilitate discussion if anyone's interested and I would like to see both of your views on this. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Left a message long ago which was his edits in Indian National Congress. But anyway will notify him, if he do that again. Just don't understand why people indulge in edit war. Improving an article is much better job than this so called edit war. -- 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 14:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Assume good faith and Twinkle
I have the page Third opinion on my watch list. I have raised an issue at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle about a problem with the default wording of Twinkle that is a breach of "assume good faith".

You made a revert using Twinkle here. Have you any reason to think that Davidbena, who is an established editor makes bad faith edits? If not why start an editorial comment with "Reverted good faith edits by Davidbena:". If you assume good faith then there is no reason for such a comment unless you think that Davidbena makes bad faith edits.

For example you would not expect me to save this edit with "Comments on gold faith revert by Ugog Nizdast: ..." because anyone who reads the edit comment may think that I think you make bad faith reverts, if not, why would I write it if I assume good faith? I have recently been told on Wikipedia talk:Twinkle that you do not have to select that default wording -- but I would not know as I don't use Twinkle. -- PBS (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You do have a point there, but I use it mainly to make my revert seem "nicer" rather than the bland "undid revision by..." and mostly do it for new users. For example if I do it to someone I've dealt with before and have good relations with that user, then I use the normal reverts. AGF revert I also use for users I'm not met before, like in this case. For a general case, yes, it does seem a little redundant but the fact that it's used shows it has some value here. With Twinkle you get three options: AGF revert, normal revert, vandalism revert (which rollbacks without any summary). -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with your over its appropriateness with edits by new users and IP addresses, and I made that point on Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. If I was a Twinkle user, I would do what I do now when I revert an edit and check the editors edit history before making a revert. -- PBS (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yemenite Jews
Can either of you tell me how to best proceed in a dispute over an image displayed (in my view, provocatively) over the Yemenite Jews main article? See Talk page, sub-section "Flouting an Ethnic Group," for further details. I am loathe to begin an editing war with someone who may have the power to block me from editing, and, yet, I feel that I am in the right here. Please advise.Davidbena (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did see Talk:Yemenite_Jews and you already started a Request for Comment there so all you need to do is wait for input from interested users; that may take a while. I declined you 3O post because of this reason. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:Ugog Nizdast. I will wait as you said, and will see how things develop.Davidbena (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry
I am sorry for my post I will refrain from doing this in the future — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.249.74 (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Err I'm not sure what you're referring to, please provide links. Anyway, it's fine. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read and comment delete or keep Dao's theorem
Hello Ugog Nizdast,

I see history of Euclidean geometry I think You have knowledgeable classical geometry, please read pages Dao's theorem and comment anything You think. Delete or keep pages Dao's theorem. Thank to You very much.

Best regards

Sincerely --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, I don't know what gave you that idea but my knowledge in that subject is limited to my school days. Anyway the deletion discussion Articles for deletion/Dao's theorem has a good number of participants, so I see no need for my involvement there unless you say so otherwise. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank to You dear Ugog Nizdast, --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to thank, I've done nothing. By the way, while using talk pages and replying use ":" or "::" to indent it (Like how I did here for you), for more information see the Talk page guidelines. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Goat Simulator
hello ugog nizdast, Pewdiepieisepic here saying I am sorry or my indecent edit towards goat simulator and will refrain from this in the future I hope you can forgive me 86.159.249.74 (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh I saw it and it's fine, why don't you log in and edit to prevent confusion? You can start doing serious editing in topics you're interested if you like--I can help. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Geiger-Marsden experiment
Amazing! For the first time ever somebody has actually responded to a peer review request! Will pigs evolve wings next? I thank you sincerely for your support. Kurzon (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Lol thanks, maybe people were intimidated by the complexity of the topic. Though I'm no expert myself, I can do a rudimentary check against the GA criteria for you. See you there soon, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments in the peer review, though I was more looking for feedback on the science rather than the layout - did I get the maths right, are all the facts accurate?Kurzon (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you say so while I was doing the review? Alrightie, I'll see what I can do about it. I can't promise you anything great in my checking of your factual accuracy though. Remember that I did check it casually against the GA criteria, so if you would follow those comments, I can check it once more and maybe we'll have ourselves a potential good article ready for nomination. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought "peer review" meant assessing the factual accuracy and methodological rigor of a work.  That's what scientists do when they peer review a colleague's paper.  Checking things like formatting and spelling is called "proofreading".Kurzon (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, there's a difference between Peer review in academic circles and PR here. Overhere it just means any editor who is willing can comment on what he/she thinks will improve the article. Not many editors are expert academics here but we do know our Wiki-guidelines, policies and improving it for the general audience. In the old Featured article review, I noticed that some editors seemed to be knowledgeable about this topic, why not personally invite them to comment in this peer review? Sometimes personally asking does the trick.
 * I didn't just check formatting or spelling: proofreading or copyediting can be done at the Guild of Copy editors; I checked it against the Good article criteria and am willing do check it further if you are willing. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)