User talk:AyanP

Welcome!

Hello, AyanP, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ism schism (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digital spy[edit]

Who told you that? And it was not only that - another problem is that your other edits go against WP:MOS. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short sections are discouraged. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009[edit]

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to U Me Aur Hum. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalized, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Marek.69 ^talk 02:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BH images[edit]

There has been some negotiation with the site. Images which the site owns, like ones from parties and events can be used on the page. Screenshots and wallpapers are not allowed. You can see whatever image you want and you'll find a license. However, you cannot upload an image yourself. You should contact User:BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

In regard to your words in the edit summary: "STOP trying to push your agenda" this is a personal attack which could get you into great trouble. I hope for you that it was the last time such a tone was adopted by you when directed to me. As for Kaif - firstly, don't even dare to start an edit war. Secondly, she is NOT an Indian only, her mother is English and her father is Indian. The right term for her is Anglo-Indian because she has a mixed ancestry. That's it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edit warring and your personal attacks. If you revert the Katrina Kaif page again without discussion OR attack me personally once again, you will be blocked from editing. And WTW, we mention a person's origin regardless of what his profession is. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, your next revert will be in violation of WP:EW and WP:3RR so beware because it will instantly lead to your block. I started a discussion on the article's talk page and added one more source. Being a Wikipedia user you should know that sourced information cannot be removed without a discussion. If you keep your incivil language, you will also be reported at WP:ANI. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring about this issue and instead discuss the issue on the article talk page. Also, please leave threats and accusations of agendas out of the discussion. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: The issue is not other article talk pages, but the one specifically for Katrina Kaif. I have no knowledge about Shshshsh's removal of talk page comments and I do not have time to investigate the issue. However, the possible removal of comments on another talk page is not particularly relevant to the issue regarding Katrina Kaif nor do I find it funny. What is relevant is that a discussion has been started on the article talk page, so please join it instead of continuing to edit war. Another editor has now joined the discussion, so work out a consensus. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never ever deleted anyone's comments from talk pages unless they were improper and did not adhere to policies like WP:NPA. If you can provide a DIFF which will prove your statement, then do it. And if you ever write a comment which contains a personal attack on any talk page, I'm happy to inform you that I will delete your comment as well.

Anyway, back to the issue - use the talk page first and then revert sourced information. Your opinion about Indian newspapers is of least interest to me. Wikipedia works with sources, not opinions. First disprove the fact that she is a British Indian, and then edit. Otherwise remember that your edits are closely watched. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ask me . Ask Zora or whatever her name to prove is after arguing with you on multiple talk pages and then some of page conveniently "disappearing." And yes, I've noticed that you (and many other editors) take advantage of Wiki's loophole where any printed material can be used a "source" no matter how unreliable it is or if it's actually true or not. Now we have this fool on Udita Goswami's page who's reverting my edits (with a valid source!) to what he wants it to say and using a fansite as a source over my valid one LOL. AyanP (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Ayan[reply]

January 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on Udita Goswami. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Killerdove 04:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Killerdove 04:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killerdove (talk • contribs)

This is your only warning. If you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at your talk page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Killerdove 09:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Killerdove 09:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killerdove (talk • contribs)

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Priyanka Chopra may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

/online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324809804578511200128025398.html |title=Miss World Goes Pop]] |date=30 May 2013 |accessdate=25 July 2013}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at In My City shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Priyanka Chopra. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit captions for Manika[edit]

I noticed that in an edit caption on Manika, you admonished me to 'Stop making up "facts."'. The change I had made was to remove a comment that Manika was a professional catfish. Are you asserting that Manika is in fact a professional catfish? If so, please provide a reliable source. If not, please try to write edit captions more in line with the actual edits. Thanks! Jacona (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was not aimed at you. If you read my edit, you'll notice that I didn't include anything about Manika being a catfish. It was aimed at the main article, which is full of lies like charting on Billboard and being played on Top 40 radio. It's ridiculous. AyanP (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)AyanP[reply]

Please keep the discussion in one place. Posting here and on my talk page is confusing and disruptive. The changes I reverted included the comment that Manika was "a professional catfish.", which I thought was rather amusing. I also thought your caption in reverting my edit which removed the catfish comment was "stop making up facts". I'm sorry you don't see the humor in your own comments. Jacona (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC):[reply]

I'm trying to see the humor in your thinking that my edit caption was aimed at you, but it's just not funny. Anyone intuitive would have noticed that the "professional catfish" comment was not in my edit so the "stop making up facts" caption clearly wasn't aimed at your removing that comment, but rather the person who wrote the original article that you reverted it back to.

That said, I do see the humor in your accusing me of being a vandal because I removed false information like Manika charting on Billboard and receiving Top 40 radio airplay even though a quick search of Billboard and AllAccess' chart history don't show her name anywhere. I find it even more humorous that you reverted the article back to the original form with all these "facts." Haha? By the way, I'm sure you've noticed the article nominated for deletion. Maybe you've finally realized why. AyanP (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)AyanP[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding various problems with the Manika article. The thread is Manika. Thank you. Bondegezou (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll check it out, but I'm tired of that mess. FYI, those 3 accounts "close to the subject" are definitely Manika or at least her father and her publicist. Do a Google search to find out who owns "Wamaframa" and her father's history as a scam artist. 02:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)AyanP

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, AyanP. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Invite[edit]

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take 5 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH?Q_DL=3dz0m2ubQw1KSnb_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH_MLRP_bDzR6065ugvYJV3&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, AyanP. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, AyanP. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Fox(film)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Fox(film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 4 § Fox(film) until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]