User talk:Rayan wind

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Rayan wind, 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 complete 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. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

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! SanAnMan (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Rayan wind[edit]

Hello, Rayan wind

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Rayan wind for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

JW 1961 Talk 10:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hello Joseywales1961, this is to tell you that I wanted to create my wikipedia page (Rayan wind), but I think I made a mistake by creating any other page, but I corrected myself and there it is good I have created my wikipedia page. As for the other page that I created by accident, you can delete it because I already have my page so it's ok. Rayan wind (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rayan wind, Hi, that's good, you are learning already, I hope you have a good time and enjoy editing here. JW 1961 Talk 11:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hi Rayan wind! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! JW 1961 Talk 10:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Alvin and the Chipmunks (2015 TV series), did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please provide detail next time DXLB Muzikant (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content 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. Magitroopa (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Angelo Rules, you may be blocked from editing. Magitroopa (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia. Magitroopa (talk) 04:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The best cartoons in the world moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, The best cartoons in the world, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). Rating movies based on own system constitutes to original research. You may consider using List of films considered the best as an example for the article. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. – NJD-DE (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understood Njd-de, I would like to create the article "the best cartoons in the world" as you have noticed and therefore to do it I will need a lot of work. To bring together the most popular cartoons, I told myself that they had to be ranked according to the number of prizes he won at the Kids Choice Awards, Teen Choice Awards and People's Choice Awards. I explain my choice, the more a series wins such awards and the more its popularity grows, so that partly defines their popularity. Then after that we could judge by their success, ie if they are broadcast in many countries or not. Will this be suitable for the classification?but I know that even after that the article will not be ready yet as it will need a little more information and also sources but I will take care of it. Rayan wind (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rayan wind, before investing a lot of time into this, I recommend you discuss with the others at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation first. I admire your plan, and as Simpsons fan like seeing them on second place. I am afraid though that the article would be a case of original research, as the rating system for best cartoon is being developed by you, and is not from a reliable source.

Anyways, in the future please create pages that require lot of work in your user sandbox, or in the draft space first. Then once they're ready for the general public and meet the WP standards, they can be moved to the main article space. – NJD-DE (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:List of cartoons considered the best[edit]

Hello, Rayan wind. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of cartoons considered the best, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits[edit]

The issue with the children's channel edits are that we have articles about the international versions of those channels already, and the main channel is specifically for the United States, thus we focus the article on that one since it's the primary network. 'World-class' is also by far, a subjective opinion that should not be written in any article, as the definition of 'world-class' can vary between people, and is just a marketing term (there are radio stations that claim to air 'world-class rock' for instance, but don't state what makes that music as such. The hijab writing was a personal opinion that had to be reverted, as again, one person's definition of 'modesty' varies from another. Nate • (chatter) 20:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“Minor” edits[edit]

You are marking all of your edits as minor edits. This is not acceptable. Please review the policy at WP:MINOR for when to use this tag. - SanAnMan (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rayan wind: No, the minor notifications has nothing to do with if the user is a minor or not. It has to do with if the edit itself is a superficial edit, one of a very small change. Please read the policy at this link: WP:MINOR for more information. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, thanks for telling me. I will be more careful soon and I will learn more about wikipedia functions Rayan wind (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022[edit]

Hello. I wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to Family Guy have been removed because you cited the information you added to IMDb. As discussed at WP:RS/IMDb, IMDb is considered a questionable source, and generally should not be used as a sole reference. You are welcome to re-add the information using a different reliable source, or with an additional source confirming the information from IMDb. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Odd Squad, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Le Marteau (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

given what you sent me, I see that I made a mistake, excuse me. I simply wanted to write that although the series is in a youth box, it is for the general public. You can even check, many adults like the series as much as children, plus the Odd Squad series makes adults laugh a lot. But after reading Manual of Style, I will try to cite that the series is for everyone in a respective order. Thanks Rayan wind (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Stop changing episode counts as you wish to- we go based off of the episode tables themselves, not what you think should/should not count. Magitroopa (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hello Magitroopa, So excuse me if I made some changes that were not consistent enough. But I just wanted to put the current episode count of these articles, at SpongeBob SquarePants there were only the double episodes and I just quoted the single episodes, you noticed they weren't broadcast at the same time it often happens that the segments are each broadcast on a different day. In the Loud house according to the tables they mixed the double episodes and the segments, if you count as SpongeBob SquarePants then the Loud house has 156 episodes and if you count in segments it has 278. And so it can't have 220. And it's Pony you put the time in segments (11 minutes) when you count in double episodes, but if you count in double episodes then you should put the time in double episodes and not in segments. Rayan wind (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi![edit]

Your edit to the “Absolute monarchy” page does appear to be inaccurate. Remember that what you’re defining is a constitutional monarchy, which is not the same thing as an absolute monarchy (and it’s also important to note that most monarchies are now considered constitutional, but some remain absolute and their monarch’s existence as holding absolute power should not be disputed). The definition for an absolute monarchy has not changed; the definition for republicanism has not changed either, even though most republics are democratically elected republics, for example. If an absolute monarchy has a constitution, it likely does nothing other than exist to nominally limit power.

Thank you for your time. ZNewPlayer2 (talk) 03:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ZNewPlayer2, certe an absolute monarchy as it is underlined the king or the raine has a power which cannot be disputed and all the monarchies were thus before the contemporary time. But as you can see today the absolute monarchies (although they are not numerous) all have a constitution for example Saudi Arabia whose constitution is the Koran. Hence the king is free in his power but is limited by the constitution and nothing can be done in the country if it is against the constitution. I know that normally they must be constitutional monarchies but as the king is the only one who can decide they cannot be considered as such since in constitutional monarchies the king cannot decide alone. But hey, your new version in the article seems very appropriate to me, it is credible. Rayan wind (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think it is reasonable to end the dispute there then. Thanks for responding to my message. ZNewPlayer2 (talk) 04:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]