Talk:Bilariaganj

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: Uttar Pradesh / Geography Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Uttar Pradesh (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian geography workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Reversion to state 5 months ago[edit]

Somewhere in this series of edits, Gufranazmi (contributions) ascribes a population figure for 2011 to material published well before 2011 and indeed about the 2001 census.

In this long series of recent edits, the same editor adds a climate chart that's "Retrieved 22 December 2010" and appears to be for Varanasi.

In this edit (16 March), some IP (Sikka Broadband Pvt. Ltd.) added an unsourced table of "Religions in Nizamabad"; in this edit (16 March), the same IP added that this was "by (Gufran Azmi)"; in this one (16 March), the same IP changed "Nizamabad" to "Bilariaganj".

If you want to cite material from at 2011 census, provide a reliable source. Don't pretend that the information is in the 2001 census.

If the climate in one place is near identical to that in another, cite a reliable source that says this.

If the distribution of religions in one area is near identical to that in another, cite a reliable resource that says this.

In view of the incompetence -- and I'm being kind; I could call it fraudulence -- that has marked almost all the changes since the version of 13:03, 9 November 2014, I have reverted to that version. (I regret the time wasted on this by at least one highly competent editor, Arjayay.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: I have to agree. The most recent batch of edits by the user also appears to have introduced some fraudulent information, or at least original research. Additionally, several of the bluelinks for schools were broken for no apparent reason; the names were changed to an abbreviated form the editor apparently prefers, and the links removed entirely. I suspect the user either didn't understand what they were doing. While I'm sure the edits were made in good faith, an a few of them may have even been helpful, I'm rolling them all back as most of it appears to be OR, and changing reverting each of the changes manually to retain a few marginal ones of dubious quality is a bit counterproductive.

User:Gufranazmi, please respond here so that the other editors can help you. As I said, I think your edits are in good faith, but I doubt the veracity of some of the claims you made in those edits... Breaking the Wiki markup is an honest mistake. Whenever you see something linked, it's a good idea to leave it unless it's a link that's duplicated elsewhere in the article, a common term, or links to a disambiguation page. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 03:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]