User talk:Ayeesha Nazeem

Welcome!

A cartoon centipede reads books and types on a laptop. — The Wikipede and the Picture Tutorial. *(image credit)*

Welcome!

Hello, Ayeesha Nazeem, and welcome to Wikipedia! I have noticed that you are fairly new! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. I also see that some of your recent edits show an interest in the use of images and/or photos on Wikipedia.

Did you know that ...

...Wikipedia has a very stringent image use policy?
...most images from Flickr, online news websites, and other web sources are copyrighted?
...Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously?
...freely-licensed images should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, a central location for images where they can be used on all Wikipedia projects?
...we recommend that new users use our "files for upload" process - at least until you get the hang of things?

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Paul 012 Paul_012 (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sudarat photo

Hi. Thanks for your edits, but Wikipedia policy doesn't allow images of living people to be used under the non-free content criteria, as a free alternative could conceivably be created. I know we need a better photo of Khunying Sudarat, but that would require taking a new photo oneself, or asking someone to donate a photo and licence it freely. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That image is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) on Flickr. How to use that image? Please help me. Thank you. Ayeesha Nazeem (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Results

Hello Ayeesha. Please do not remove the full list of parties/results again – there is no good reason for excluding this information and it is usual practice to include the results for all parties where the information is available – see e.g. here. Thanks, Number 5 7 15:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification. Ayeesha Nazeem (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, where do you see in the source that it is 94% counted? I have looked and cannot find anything (although it's a pretty awful website and very slow so I wouldn't be surprised if I am missing it). Number 5 7 15:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] EC declared unofficial results only for 350 constituency seats on Monday. But websites updated 150 party list seats also.Ayeesha Nazeem (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to that source, Palang Pracharat has 7,698,115 votes, but the Vote62 website has them on 7,939,937 votes. This would suggest the Vote62 source is either more complete or actually complete. We cannot therefore have 94% in the table, as it's not referring to the same dataset. Number 5 7 15:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But as of now, approximately 94% votes are counted irrespective of the numbet of votes.Ayeesha Nazeem (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If Palang Pracharat had 7,698,115 when it was 94% counted, the results in the table are not based on 94% counted, so using that figure in the table is misleading (as readers will assume the figures in the table are the ones at 94%). Number 5 7 16:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following site shows Palang Pracharat have 7,939,937 votes out of 94% counted.[2] Ayeesha Nazeem (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre. One of them must be wrong, and I suspect it's the latter. And annoying that the count websites all seem to use the same awful code. A shame the ECT don't have a live results portal like most electoral commissions. Number 5 7 16:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Election commision announced unofficial results for 350 seats on Monday. Pheu Thai (137) and Palang Pracharat (118). [3] As many websites show different numbers, I think the following website is reliable. [4] Ayeesha Nazeem (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another FYI – tables should be ranked by votes, not seats. See the Spanish example I linked to earlier. The issue with ranking by seats is that it creates a two-tier ranking system, because once parties have an equal number of seats, you have to find a different way to rank them. Ranking by votes can be done all the way through the table and is consistent. Cheers, Number 5 7 17:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Number 57, I agree with you. The party got popular votes should be mentioned first. Eg: [5] But please don't remove valid and invalid votes as they are necessary. Thank you. Ayeesha Nazeem (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove invalid votes, although I've just seen that you did. Seeing as the sources match, I don't see an issue with including invalid votes and NOTA even if they aren't mentioned in that source, but I have readdedthe Vote62 source that does contain the data instead. Please stop reverting and messing with the format. Thanks, Number 5 7 15:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your format changes again. Please stop this. If you make the changes again (which included inserting the claim of 100% turnout), I'm afraid I will be asking for your account to be blocked for disruption. Thanks. Number 5 7 01:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confused. Vote turnout is 69.4% out of registered voters. I removed 100%. Please check here here for clarification. Thank you. Ayeesha Nazeem (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not confused and I see you have realised your mistake. As you have decided to continue messing with the format, I have reported you and requested your account be blocked. Number 5 7 02:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have realized my mistake and corrected it. So I request you please don't make my account blocked. If we have any misunderstandings, we will discuss here. Thank you. Ayeesha Nazeem (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll withdraw the request if you'll stop changing the format. Number 5 7 11:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll not change the format. Thank you. Ayeesha Nazeem (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you. I have withdrawn the report. Number 5 7 11:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have changed the format again despite saying you wouldn't. What is going on? Number 5 7 13:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding valid votes is necessary. See here. Also I think you are confused about registered voters and voters cast. Out of 51,427,890 registered voters, 35,866,483 (69.74%) voters cast their votes as of update on 25 March 2019. But you are adding 69.74 to registered voters which is wrong. Thank you. Ayeesha Nazeem (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about the valid votes. You explicitly said you would stop changing the format, which is why I withdrew my request for you to be blocked. I am currently updating all the results again, and if you make any more reverts once this is done, you are going to be blocked. Lying to get the threat of a block withdrawn is completely acceptable. Number 5 7 13:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding valid votes is necessary. Please understand it. I added valid votes in Total section. Thank you. Ayeesha Nazeem (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your view on the valid votes, but firstly, you can do that without changing the format, and secondly, you said you would stop changing the format. Why did you renege on this promise? Was it just a lie to get the threat of a block withdrawn?

And back to the valid votes, I disagree that they are necessary, and they are not normally included in results tables (the Spanish case is a minority). Instead of repeatedly reinserting them, you should try and gain consensus/support for your idea on the article talk page. This is part of the WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle that editors are expected to follow. Number 5 7 13:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly check out 2011 Thai general election and 2007 Thai general election. Thank you.Ayeesha Nazeem (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly answer my question about why you said you would stop changing the format and then didn't. Number 5 7 13:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I said I won't change format. Kindly forgive me for breaking my promise. Because adding valid votes are necessary as per previous election pages I had mentioned above.Ayeesha Nazeem (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valid votes are not generally included in results tables. You can find a few examples (as you have done), but it is not the most common format. As discussed, please can you commit to abiding by WP:BRD and starting a discussion on the talk page rather than continue to change the format. Are you able to do this? Number 5 7 13:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But all other pages of previous Thailand elections did mention valid vote counts. So I think it should be included. Ayeesha Nazeem (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason most of them (like March 1992 Thai general election) have them listed is because a different electoral system was used where people could cast multiple votes. The number of valid votes was therefore different to the vote totals. Anyway, let's discuss this at Talk:2019 Thai general election#Valid votes. In the meantime, any further reverts will result in a block request, which will not be withdrawn. Number 5 7 14:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request to update results

@Number, Today election commision of thailand had announced number of votes but the websites are not updated. This website have updated results. Can you please add it? [6] Ayeesha Nazeem (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ayeesha. The figures on the Standard are not consistent – the total number of votes for parties is different to that on the Twitter feed (35,532,645 vs 35,532,647), and also their party votes + NOTA + invalid do not equal the total votes cast (35,532,645 + 605,392 + 2,130,327 = 38,268,364, but the total given is 38,268,375). You might want to join the discussion here about where the real final results are coming from. I think the Twitter pictures are two pages from this document that Paul mentioned in the discussion there (which also doesn't add up properly). Number 5 7 12:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I think we'll wait for the results to be updated in The Matter website as it is reliable. May be they'll update tomorrow as EC going to declare unofficial results for remaining 150 party list seats on that day. Ayeesha Nazeem (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Hi Ayeesha. I've had enough of your disruption so you're blocked for a week. You're welcome to make positive contributions when your block expires, but if you start doing the same thing again, it'll be a permanent block. Number 5 7 14:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Number, Thank you. Now I'll be free. I am going to leave Wikipedia permanently as it is only for individuals and not giving value to opinion of others.Ayeesha Nazeem (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]