User talk:Aryan.for.you

Welcome!

Hello, Aryan.for.you! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 06:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Talkback

Hello, Aryan.for.you. You have new messages at Tamravidhir's talk page.
Message added 08:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Tamravidhir (talk!) 08:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Thank you for your comments. Please note that, on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of the arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. If your comments concerned a deletion discussion, please consider reading Wikipedia's deletion policy for a brief overview of the deletion process. We hope that you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you! Tamravidhir (talk!) 08:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is really getting on nerves. I already mentioned that before making any changes to the article a consensus is required. Please Aryan don't call it "unreliable" without consensus. if the consensus is against it it will be removed. Wikipedia uses consensus, not voting. Tamravidhir (talk!) 09:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without consensus it can't be added as a reliable source. After consensus "unreliable" tag will be removed if its in favour of reliable source. It is still the unreliable source. Please avoid claiming it reliable source at present. Aryan.for.you (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bade Achhe Lagte Hain. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Tamravidhir (talk!) 09:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Bade Achhe Lagte Hain shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Tamravidhir (talk!) 09:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This not a edit war, you are trying to claim a particular site as a reliable source which is yet to consensus. I want to know how can you claim a site as a reliable source which is still in discussion. Aryan.for.you (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to seriously read all the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, especially WP:EW. If you make a third revert to the article within 24 hours you are to be blocked from editing as per WP:BP. Tamravidhir (talk!) 09:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read all the policies and guidelines and following it. Your claim on a particular site as a reliable source is wrong. I request you to wait till the discussion is complete about Telly Chakkar here. Aryan.for.you (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have requesting you to do the same since hours. You claim it to be unreliable without a consensus. I will not remove that "verify credibility" tag now but you have doing so without even letting the consensus being achieved and now you repeat my words and tell them to me! Please be patient. Tamravidhir (talk!) 15:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

@Aryan.for.you: I have disengaged from that discussion at RSN, and "pinging" me there will not have me return. Being on Wikipedia since 2007 and having over 96,000 edits, TRPOD is very experienced. I respect him even when we disagree. Conversely, while you created your acount on March 14, you've been actively editing for just four weeks and have made lass than 200 life edits. Inexperience (newness) does affect perceptions and there is a worry that the similarity of arguments between you and TRPOD gives an appearance of WP:MEAT. Both you he adamantly stick to views which run contrary to guideline (best used with common sense and occasional exceptions may apply) instructing that editorial staff and a source's widespread acceptance by others may be considered in determinations. PR films have issues, yes... but unless one sources a connection between them and a topic being cited, the claim is speculative only. Even the most reliable sites have unreliable portions. For example, The New York Times is generally reliable through editorial staff, policy,and widespread acceptance... but we do not use its letters from the readers nor its advertisements. IE: we do not throw it out simply because portions are unreliable. I've said my piece about Tellychakkar at the RSN. That you have offered links to sites with no discernable editing staff or editing policy is not convincing. Thank you and be well. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: Similarity in our arguments doesn't claims WP:MEAT. At starting I was unaware of discussion and reverted edit done by Tamravidhir on Bade Achhe Lagte Hain claming the source unreliable. I have left the message on his talk page saying "Tellychakkar.com is media wing of PR firm not a reliable source with a rep for fact checking and accuracy. To keep the content add the reliable source to confirm the ratings." After that he replied to it informing me about ongoing discussion. There on discussion page I added my opinion about Telly Chakkar which is similar to TRPOD and 2 other users or I say it only differs to you and Tamravidhir. I have added my point with evidence thats it. Telly Chakkar is one of the Indian Television's properties, but the ratings differ on both sites for the same week. So if we are discussing about Telly Chakkar to add as a reliable source for TV ratings and they are inaccurate in the ratings how it can be added. This is a reason I am claiming Indian Television as a reliable source and Telly Chakkar has a PR firm. Aryan.for.you (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Aryan.for.you: Many otherwise reliable sources have subsidiaries of various reliability, best determined by subsidiaries having an editorial staff which can itself be vetted. No staff = No reliability. Vettable staff = "some" possible level of reliability. But since no two sources agree on ratings data, either we can hold a WP:RFC to suggest that all ratings data be removed from all Indian film and TV articles, or we can more simply include the several contradictory ones with an "as listed by" qualifier and allow that various ratings can then be compared by readers. WE do not say they are true, we simply offer that some sources are in disagreement. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]