User talk:74.47.124.218

December 2023
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generaliation, other talk pages such as User talk:74.47.124.218 are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. Panian513 23:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for a calm reply. The main talk forum wasn't found anyway to apply this stuff to the article earlier and removed some of this leaving it blank like it was as this also started the first of it being used at all - trying to get the term influencer included without any reference to a reliable source but implied being an area of interest now also, we should study her use of social media as she's a potential winner in her queen of the world aspirations and it must be pretty good, anyway for ourselves and maybe the talk forum here can supplement the article for those interested in the subject if she also is an influencer now, that being the ongoing event since.  While what may now be considered a complex Wikipedia psychological subject and maybe no longer open to easy edit there, the reader of this stuff here could get something out of it to think that maybe she is an influencer whatever that is now?  The subject is also more diverse than that etc.  At least you didn't just remove it from how it is and it is fun to throw out some of your thinking like this so if it still seems I'm breaking some serious rule in your reply to this, I guess I'll stop for as much as you state it's not going to work to get the term influencer included by itself, whatever that term means, if that's what I'm doing also and to just find something better to try like from a reliable source in how we like to do it; as a lot are aware of this standard. 50.32.151.178 (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Since the discussion that has occurred has been about improving a specific article, then that discussion should occur on that article's talk page. I've been able to deduce that this discussion is about Sini Shetty, then it should go on the talk page for that article. Make sure that this discussion remains on topic about improving the quality of the article - it's been hard for me to understand this talk page due to several issues in spelling, grammar, and phrasing, but it appears that much of this discussion has strayed off topic into simple celebrity gossip. Panian513 15:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The talk page for Sini Shetty removed the total context of this page so far when it was made blank again like it sits now here, also, if you've missed that particular part of things that are happening here but that can be found in the talk page's history however, but in that total context the relationship for what I've pointed out here in my discussion with you as having had occurred already for this supposed reasonable enough discussion maybe can register as at least fact of what's going on and it is more than gossip that has been going on but in part useful supplement to the main article's development and a current information available for a reader to browse, also. I understand that even in talk pages it's most important to follow some of the serious legal rules.  I doubt the article's talk page bought it enough eventually or would again and moved off well below even that and was going along still until you somehow arrived here and found it to be too far off into simple celebrity gossip for your understanding it. 50.107.138.201 (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that the crux of the issue is whether you have any interest in editing in article space or not. The comments on the Sini Shetty talk page were removed because they had little to do with editing the article. If this talk page continues to just be used for discussion without any indication of the discussion being used to help with editing in article space (basically, to help build and improve the encyclopedia), then it will be considered as a violation of WP:NOTFORUM and be removed. Panian513 16:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Certain kind of discussion is encouraged and if a consensus can be found than that perception is acted on for an article, you can agree to that? I eventually put in and uses social media that still remains in the article and tried some discussion about the influencer term, which I thought would add some flare here and be more accurate in her description, as the first topic created in the talk page. I successfully removed some information not found in a source cited and tried an unsuccessful edit with the terms influencer and perceptions included but no consensus of any sort was much worked on following that block of what I was saying was my thinking in doing that to the article at that point.  Just because one or two editors don't understand any sort of relationship between the article's development of information provided and what's being found in the site's discussion points about the subject, rather seeing in this case, simple celebrity gossip and at times simply removing the content as a stated waste of time as in before, with little or no real discussion first and just concluding they've personally seen enough would seem possible to having an error that's being worked on by its requesting a consensus at least, even for a discussion within a discussion forum itself? 50.107.138.201 (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. ''I will be removing the off-topic discussion for now; make sure that all future discussion is relevant to improving a specific article. Do not interject keywords such as "article" sometimes to walk on the line of plausible deniability - remain on topic.'' Panian513 17:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Not to be a problem, but your interest in improving the Sini Shetty article if you have one questioned now a bit, do you personally think she's an actual influencer? 50.107.154.175 (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If there are reliable, secondary sources that specifically use the "influencer" to describe her, then that word may be added. Please see these guides on citing sources and reliable sources. Panian513 18:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's good to know. What might have also happened is that she's a very talented one maybe etc. but also she's part of a larger system at work with some resources. 50.107.154.175 (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)