User talk:ArbaazAli15

Sdmn
Why remove the caption names? Gilbert.JW (talk) 19:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

- Formulaonewik originally removed it on 23rd Feb by calling it redundant, that's why I edited them out. You can add it if you feel its necessary but Formulaonewik might remove it in the future. ArbaazAli15 (talk) 20:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok I see. I don’t see it being redundant. What do you think? Bearing in mind most groups usually have names listed in the image. Gilbert.JW (talk) 20:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

- Works either way. ArbaazAli15 (talk) 21:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not especially fussed if other editors feel it appropriate to include; to me it just seemed unnecessary particularly given that only one (KSI) is especially notable. Happy to leave it as it is. —Formulaonewiki 13:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

- Fair enough. Also, I recently added an award to KSI but you removed an award (different one) after my edit saying "If an award isn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia page I fail to see why it is appropriate for inclusion in this article. Reads heavily of WP:FAN" Are you saying that to me ? Because I didn't add that award, that was already added before. I added a different one - British Book Awards which does indeed have a wikipedia page and no, I'm not a fan either. ArbaazAli15 (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * My comment was not aimed at anyone in particular. I didn't bother looking up who added the award, I just said the edit reads like fancruft, which it does. This isn't personal. —Formulaonewiki 15:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Sidemen
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Sidemen, you may be blocked from editing. —Formulaonewiki 11:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm just doing what's right. As I earlier said on the talk page, most of the YouTubers' wiki pages that have multiple article, their sub count of their multiple channels have been added & shown like that, so again. KSI's main channel has around 21 million subscribes & his second channel has around 8 million subscribers, yet we show "30 million (combined)" as his subscribers and have been showing like that for a long time. Same for Logan Paul. Same for MrBeast. Same for Etika. Same for Lazarbeam. Same for Smosh etc etc etc. We're showing the "combined sub count" in all those pages. And there's nothing wrong with that. You yourself admitted combining sub count is a common practice on wikipedia. So again why is that a problem here ? Why all of a sudden do you need a reliable source for showing combing sub count when you didn't need one for all the above pages that I just mentioned ?


 * Combined sub counts is not unsourced content. Its a sum total of the subscriber counts of all the channels listed in the infobox, all of which are sourced. There's not a source attached beside the combined sub counts in the infboxes of any YouTuber that has a combined sub count in its infobox so again why is that problem here specifically ?


 * Seems like you're setting your own rules specifically for this page and when someone questions it, you scare them with block warnings. No, for the record I'm not doing disruptive editing. Disruptive editing disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia. What you're trying to do is disruptive editing because you're adding outdated stats and showing them as current stats. -ArbaazAli15 (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You are not doing 'what's right'. You are choosing to neglect Wikipedia policy in pursuit of what you believe to be 'right'. All information should, where possible, have reliable sources; I have provided such sources. How about instead of repeatedly adding original research, or using baseless arguments (quoting other articles which also have multiple issues and lack sources), you find reliable sources to back your claim? —Formulaonewiki 11:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Unblock Request
@Yamla So you're saying if someone from my college has happen to use wikipedia on the college computer in the past, then I get blocked for it because I use the same computer ? How does that make any sense at all ? Are you kidding me ? I'M IN A LITERAL COLLEGE, HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS OF STUDENTS HAVE PROBABLY USED WIKIPEDIA ON THIS COMPUTER AT SOME POINT. In what shape or form does that justify me being blocked ? Also, the reason for which I'm blocked is completely unfair as I've explained below.