User talk:Ayeih Na

Welcome!

Hello, Ayeih Na, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JarrahTree 05:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in this edit to Ahsan Khan (actor), you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 05:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to University of Mumbai. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. DVdm (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference swap-out

Hi there, I don't understand the purpose of these edits where you swap out references that seem to work, with other references. And as I look at the content being supported, for instance:

"Khan was married to businessman Ali Askari from 2007 to 2015, and has a son with him" - You switched to this reference, but the reference doesn't resolve.
"Her father, Hafeez Khan, was born in Delhi during the British Raj, and migrated to Pakistan after the partition of India." - You switched to this reference, but again the reference doesn't resolve.
"Khan enrolled herself at the University of Southern California for a bachelor's degree in English literature; during this period, she worked as a part-time waitress in a restaurant." - You switched to this reference, which says nothing about USC, English, being a waitress, or anything about a restaurant.

So it's really unclear why you made the changes, and to my expert eye, this is the sort of thing a reference spammer might do, namely changing references for no clear reason except to drive traffic to these sites. Anyhow, I've reverted the changes. Feel free to respond below if you have thoughts about this. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your response here, I really don't think that anything was cleared up for me. I still don't understand why you switched the references when they were useless in supporting the information present in the article. Further, in these edits where you resubmitted the link replacements, you removed a link to India.com with no explanation, leaving content unsourced. I have to ask you to please stop doing this, as there is, in my estimation, zero benefit to the link exchange, and there is definitely a negative impact when you remove a reference that supports the subject's year of marriage. If you plan to reply, I'd appreciate if you'd please keep the conversation here, since it's easier to track who said what rather than jumping between two talk pages. In the interim, please don't change the references until we get this sorted out. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I am sorry. I'm new to all this, but I want to contribute as much as I can. And I would appreciate, if you would guide me. :) Ayeih Na (talk) 12:37, 12 November 2016 (PTC)

If Khan is your first cousin, as you've indicated here, you really shouldn't be editing her article or articles related to her, as you have a clear conflict of interest. People who are intrinsically tied to a subject have a very difficult time writing objectively and are strongly discouraged from editing in these areas. These problems with objectivity are manifest in an edit like this where you introduce puffery in the form of phrases like "blockbuster" and "highly successful". These are not neutral terms, and we present content from a neutral point of view. There was an additional issue with your introduction of "and received praise for her role in the 2015 biographical drama Manto", an unsourced statement that was wedged into the article in front of a reference. This is problematic because at a glace the content appears to be sourced, when in fact it is not. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that I don't understand you. I think that you have some sort of problem with or trying to be over smart. There are millions of articles on Wikipedia that indicate the terms, " highly successful" and "blockbuster". I really don't understand you!! I have improved this article without any jealousy or interest, like I've done to some many other article. Instead of helping me to improve this article, you are discouraging me. This is not a Wikipedia editing policy. And by the way I can edit it in a more significant way, than others, because I know more about her then others do.

Ayeih Na (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2016 (PTC)

The Wikipedia community (not just me) strongly discourages users from editing subjects they are close to. Please see WP:COI where that appears in the third paragrah. You should also take a look at our policy on "original research". This term basically means information for which no reference exists. When you say that you can edit the Mahira Khan article "in a more significant way", the implication is that you would be adding your personal knowledge to articles, like your knowledge of where and when Khan met her ex-husband or where they got married, or what the custody arrangement is with their kid. Much of this probably constitutes original research, and this is why it is problematic for people with conflicts of interest (COIs) to edit articles. Biographical articles must be impeccably sourced, which means published in reliable mainstream sources. Moving along, the presence of language like "highly successful" and "blockbuster" in other articles doesn't mean that it's welcome, it only means that people unfamiliar with our neutral point of view policy have made some questionable choices. "Blockbuster" is a subjective term that has no specific meaning and only serves to promote the subject. Same with "super hit" and "disaster". Here's a real-life example where a user describes something as "a decent hit". "Blockbuster" is puffery. We're not here to promote/demote people or films. When RottenTomatoes.com decides that a film's critical response was "rotten", we don't used that terminology because it's a disproportionately negative word that doesn't represent neutral tone. Saying that a film's critical response was "generally negative" conveys the same idea far more neutrally. I can envision times when "highly successful" might be appropriate, but the content would have to be amply sourced. Feel free to ask around at the help desk if you'd like some input from someone other than me. Note also that I'm not faulting you for being unaware of our various policies and guidelines, I'm asking you to please adjust to them once you are made aware of them. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I think that you should see the articles of Deepika Padukone, Kareena Kapoor Priyanka Chopra and several other articles, that says a lot of things like "blockbuster", " highly successful", "proved her versatility in a range of unconventional characters", " all if which earned her critical acclaim as well as several accolades" and so many others things without any references. I think that you should improve those articles too. Because if my editings are unspecified then their articles are not only unspecified but also without references and are not according to the Wikipedia editing policy. Ayeih Na (talk) 11:42, 15 November 2016 (PTC)

Change of content???

Hi there, I just seen the message you left me on my talk page, and don't know what you're talking about. Can you link the specific edits you are referring to? You asked me to look at the Kapoor Haveli article in regards to images you added being removed, but I checked the history of the article, and there are no edits made to that article by your account. There are also no edits made to that article by me, so you'll have to be more specific on my role in your issue. Looking at your history, I see you did make edits to Kapoor family, is that article you meant to put in the message you left me. If that's the article, I don't see any edits made by me to that one either. I only remove images from articles if they are red-linked, meaning they either don't exist or have been deleted, so I can say with certainty that I never removed any image you added to any article unless it was already deleted. I'm sorry, but unless you point out the edits in question, there's nothing I can do to help. Cmr08 (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that you removed the image, I said that someone else removed the image. And I am asking for your help. Please see the history of that page and help me. Ayeih Na (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2016 (PTC)

I really don't know what you expect me to do. I have no knowledge of the subject, so I can't say for sure if the image belongs or not. However, the editor who reverted you several times is an experienced editor, which should tell you there's a problem. The best thing here would be to stop reverting and post a message on the articles talk page so other editors could give their opinion. Other than that, you could message an admin familiar with the topic and ask them for help. Cmr08 (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 18 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Karisma Kapoor page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet

I just saw that you called me a sock puppet on Kapoor family article. Van I ask you why?? And why are you constantly reverting my edits on the sane article. Ritu Nanda and Nikhil Nanda are part of the Kapoor family. And since one generation of the family lived in the Kapoor Haveli so it can be used on the article. Answer me on my talk page. Ayeih Na (talk) 7:09, 20 November 2016 (PTC)