User talk:Sayswalk

Sayswalk, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Sayswalk! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Hello, I'm LeoFrank. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Sri Guru Ram Dass Jee International Airport, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — LeoFrank ^Talk 15:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Leo, I have added source. Hope this will work. Have a Nice Day Sayswalk (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sayswalk, you have to verify the information first with all of the respective parties. 649pardeep (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Amritsar has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Amritsar was changed by Sayswalk (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.891192 on 2021-01-03T03:01:48+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Sri Guru Ram Dass Jee International Airport shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — LeoFrank ^Talk 14:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Leo, I am sorry I didn't intend to indulge in any edit war. I am new to this platform and still learning. If you see your talk page, I actually wanted your help before engaging in Edit War. My question remains same, Why is WP:Burden on me and why not on 649Pardeep Sayswalk (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Leo, I've added all the reliable sources to the article. Now, there will be no edit-war. Thanking you Sayswalk Sayswalk (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: VR Ambarsar (January 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Eyebeller was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Coverage in sources is only WP:TRIVIAL.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:VR Ambarsar and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:VR Ambarsar, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Eyebeller 13:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: VR Ambarsar has been accepted

VR Ambarsar, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Eyebeller 09:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Destination tables

My edit was not about all airport pages it was about this one. WP:BURDEN is clear - it is the person wanting to add or change a piece of detail (ie that's you) that needs to provide a WP:SECONDARY WP:RS citation to support each addition. If you can't do this the detail you want to add is probably not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. On Wikipedia any unreferenced detail can (maybe should) be deleted and not readded until an appropriate reference is provided. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Andrewgroupt,

I think you are a little mistaken. I am not intending to ADD these destinations, in fact all of these destinations have been added in past citing reliable sources and post consensus of all the editors. Now, all of a sudden a user comes and deletes 60% of destination without any source, logical explanation etc. How come WP:Burden is on me? If tomorrow 4-5 users delete all the airlines and destination page of major airports like DEL,BLR,BOM. Do editors like you and me have to add reference of each and every destination again or prove/debate on it. What is added means it has already been discussed. Removing a destination means giving source just like adding a destination. And one cannot delete suddenly all Destinations in a go. I hope you get the point I intend to make. I am very small and new Wiki user and learning from senior editors like you. I also request you to please warn 649pardeep for persistent disruptive edits or take appropriate action. Sayswalk (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sayswalk I deleted the details because they were unreferenced - this is the possible fate of any unreferenced detail on Wikipedia. You added (or re-added) the detail - it is up to you in this situation to provide the appropriate references. You did not do that. That is what WP:BURDEN makes clear. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Punjabi cinema, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inox. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Sri Guru Ram Dass Jee International Airport, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. — LeoFrank ^Talk 05:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Sri Guru Ram Dass Jee International Airport, you may be blocked from editing. — LeoFrank ^Talk 04:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I5 IXR-BLR

I didn't get why you removed BLR from the destinations table stating "route ended" as I couldn't find a source which said that the flight was ending/ had ended and I5's booking engine shows I5-1622, IXR-BLR well into the summer schedule. Bingobro (Chat) 04:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I removed this on the fact that "Ranchi" was not present on destination table of "Bangalore" and also this desitnation was not referenced, I intended it to be added after verification/citing of sources. Just now after verification, I've found that Ranchi was removed from BLR by some random IP without citing any reason which was the cause of disambiguity. Since, we have verified from booking engine that this flight is running, it should remain added. Sayswalk (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sayswalk: No worries, IP's at times can cause a bit of confusion. Happy editing. Bingobro (Chat) 02:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bingobro: Thank you for the clarification. Sayswalk (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sayswalk, I see you have removed UA and AA from BLR as well which have confirmed the launch of SFO and SEA respectively. While it is justified to remove other international carriers which have only given tentative dates, UA and AA have provided firm dates till now for the launch of their respective routes. If that changes, you are free to make the necessary change accordingly.

Also, please note that the only scheduled international operations currently are DEL–ORD and DEL–SFO by UA. Both these routes are not operated under the VBM agreement. — LeoFrank ^Talk 03:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leo, I would like to get some more details on this as follows-

1) What is the official date of ending of air bubbles? (Kindly mention source too from where this information is retrieved)

2) Suppose the date in 1st question is X (which I presume is before May 2021)- What about the flights whose bookings are open for as long as beyond these dates. I am referring to flights in the likes of "BLR-SFO(AI), BLR-FRA(AI) or HYD-ORD(AI) whose bookings are open till as long as December 2020. What is reason these flights should not added in that case?

3) Which source mentions the only scheduled operations are DEL-SFO and DEL-ORD by UA. Not objecting, but I would like to personally verify this statement from a reliable source Sayswalk (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Coimbatore International Airport, you may be blocked from editing. Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jetstreamer I will update the information by proper sourcing. It was a correct information! Sayswalk (talk) 12:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sayswalk, Could you stop your obsession to prove a point and ensure you do not remove destinations that are actually served like you did here? Mangalore is definitely listed in the flight schedule and yet you have removed. I see you seem to be in a race to prove yourself right in conflicts with Random Haste. — LeoFrank ^Talk 08:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leo, 1) First and foremost, my edits at Coimbatore International Airport were correct and we'll researched. The Airline has left the station, which is also visible in the schedule of SpiceJet on the official website. However, I missed to reference it which was corrected in a later edit by me on the same page (which is the latest edition of page)

2) Regarding the edits at Bangalore Airport, the destination Mangalore Airport of Air India was unreferenced and I removed it along with other unreferenced additions which as per my research were possibly "false flights", Now the WP:Burden is on User:RandomHaste or you or anyone who intend to add it back. Notice the fact when you referenced it, I didn't not reverted it. Nothing to prove a point in this case. Your anticipations are entirely misinterpreted. I have no more words to say in this matter. Regards. Happy Editting Sayswalk (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Fly787 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fly787. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sayswalk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have already clarified that the handle User:Fly787 is not managed/controlled by me, but my brother who happen to use the same internet which made it look like my account is a sock of Fly787. Secondly, I was not aware of Wikipedia guidelines on this subject that this in fact was not allowed, After knowing this, I strictly made sure that my brother doesn't use to contribute to Wikipedia from that account. Thirdly, the pretext given in the investigation by User:LeoFrank is my extra interest in the topic Sri Guru Ram Dass Jee International Airport and Chandigarh Airport, which is entirely false. You can check it from my past history. In addition, another pretext given is my way of writing is seemingly/apparently similar to @Fly787 which is not a strong evidence against me. I believe instead of a an indefinite ban, I am eligible for a warning at the first place considering the fact my contributions to the platform and I never vandalised any article. I donot believe it is great to take any decision without a warning. Hoping this is reverted back. Regards

Decline reason:

The combined overlap of writing styles and topics of interest makes the little brother excuse implausible. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sayswalk (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sayswalk, read WP:LITTLEBROTHER. Your argument related to Whackcakes (talk · contribs) is not valid. You also replied here on User talk:Bingobro and it looks like right after that, there have been no edits from Whackcakes possible to avoid suspicion? — LeoFrank ^Talk 15:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:LeoFrank, I have already iterated in the request that reason behind no activity from User:Whackcakes is because I was not aware of the rule, and I made sure that my brother doesn't uses that handle again as it violates the policy. Had I been aware of guidelines, I would have made it sure at the first place that it doesn't happen. Secondly, I have read WP:LITTLEBROTHER, While it may be used by some of users to create an imaginary narrative, this is still the correct represention of my part of happenings. Just because it is too vulnerable to be false doesn't mean it cant be true.

The evidence against me are based on supposition

At the end I would reiterate that I have realised my mistake that I violated the Wikipedia guidelines, unknowingly by giving access of my Internet to my close contact but I am now aware of the guidelines and pledge to abide by it. Therefore, I request to User:General notability be given a warning before an edit ban. I would also want to make it into account that no warning was given to me, and secondly this is an issue with Wikipedia servers, If they donot want one IP Address to have multiple Wikipedia Accounts, then it should have not allowed it create the second account at first place. No warning as such was given to my brother by Wikipedia when he opened the account that this IP is already having one active Wikipedia account and this violates Wikipedia Guidelines. These are some of the reasons I strongly believe be given a warning, instead of an indefinite ban. Sayswalk (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]