![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Not sure why
121.203.236.203 and
61.238.106.82, who are likely
WP:PAID, are so attacky in their (?) approach. That is certainly a peculiar tactic. Anyway, I'm semiprotecting the talk page for a couple of weeks, because this level of
WP:SPAM is too much, and should at least not be accompanied with so much aggression. That, too, is taxing.
El_C
11:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
| ||
---|---|---|
User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz tampered with the personal relationship section of both Gurbaksh Chahal and Rubina Bajwa by simply removing it outright. This user was later blocked on February 22nd (Per consensus at ANI (discussion); violation of civility-related editing restriction) after he made his changes. For Gurbaksh Chahal, on January 18 his reason was →Personal life: no current source For Rubina Bajwa, on January 18 his reasons were →Personal life: noncurrent gossip, no significance indicated I did not know just because he saw a citation of article that was not recent enough, he had the ability to remove relationship status in its entirety? Their relationship status has been reportedly quite heavily in Indian media. Was there ever an article mentioning a break up? This was clearly done not in good faith. I was able to revert the changes for Rubina Bajwa but since I do not have EP status, I could not make the changes to Gurbaksh Chahal page. Please revert his changes accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.238.106.82 ( talk) 03:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
|
The Entertainment Times is not considered reliable – and it is easy to see from that specific source that it has nothing to do with factual reporting. Since it is difficult to find any information about this detail, it can't be said to be important information or relevant for a BLP. -- bonadea contributions talk 12:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Here are the explanation I provided for my edits:
Most of the contents removed came from interviews from the subject; he is not a reliable source.
The advocacy from an IP (who seems to be connected to the topic) should not be given much weight either: Special:Contributions/61.238.106.82.
-- K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Editor Faizal batliwala wrote about the subject of this article's domestic violence conviction, "In 2021, a San Francisco judge dismissed all charges related to this incident and entered a not guilty plea." However, the statement is clearly bogus for two reasons:
This latest attempt white-wash Chahal's domestic violence conviction is the most artless of all in my very humble opinion. Chisme ( talk) 17:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
The claim that this is a petition and wasn't granted may not be accurate; however, even if it was granted, that wouldn't mean that the charges were dismissed, but rather that a conviction was expunged from his record according to California Penal Code 1203.4. This is hardly a vindication, as this procedure is only meant to allow convicted criminals to avoid having their convictions turn up in background searches when applying for jobs; it doesn't suggest at all that he was cleared of the crime. His motives for spreading this document around without context are obvious. JerryAlphonse1928 ( talk) 17:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Faizal batliwala, who made numerous edits to this article beginning last July, has been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia for advertising or promotion and violating the foundation's terms of use. The block was issued a week ago and batliwala has not contested it. I have to assume he/she was blocked for attempting to white-wash or obscure Chahal's domestic violence conviction.
Since batliwala did not contest the block, can we assume he/she is guilty of violating the Wiki rules? For all I know, some of batliwala's edits are valid, but all the edits he made to this article are nonetheless suspect. I propose to examine all his/her edits and reverse them all since they were made it bad faith. Any objections? Chisme ( talk) 19:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Whether to include Chahal's domestic battery conviction in this article's leded has been debated many times. The overwhelming consensus was it belongs there. Let's not rehash this for the hundredth time. Chisme ( talk) 17:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I edited this page some years ago and was reminded of the article's subject by this recent article [2]. It seems like there's been quite a wrestling match with paid editors since then. One result seems to be that the article no longer lists the battery incidents in the first paragraph. This seems out of alignment with the reading and weight given by WP:RS. Looking at the top Google news hits from WP:RS, these incidents are in the headline describing his notability [3] [4], provided as immediate context about him [5], or they are the subject of the article [6], [7] [8] [9] [10] [11], although there are also articles that cover his relationship without mentioning this part of his past [12], [13]. So, basically, wikipedia is fairly rare in simply portraying him as an entrepreneur, with the battery incients in the fourth graph. It doesn't seem like this was a decision made by the unpaid editors, but rather some trailing aftermath of the tangle with the paid ones, but I might be wrong about that. It seems appropriate to align the article with the sources again, including the high-profile relationship. I'll make the change in a moment, using the language that I think was consensus for a while. Of course, open to discussion... Chris vLS ( talk) 02:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Not sure why
121.203.236.203 and
61.238.106.82, who are likely
WP:PAID, are so attacky in their (?) approach. That is certainly a peculiar tactic. Anyway, I'm semiprotecting the talk page for a couple of weeks, because this level of
WP:SPAM is too much, and should at least not be accompanied with so much aggression. That, too, is taxing.
El_C
11:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
| ||
---|---|---|
User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz tampered with the personal relationship section of both Gurbaksh Chahal and Rubina Bajwa by simply removing it outright. This user was later blocked on February 22nd (Per consensus at ANI (discussion); violation of civility-related editing restriction) after he made his changes. For Gurbaksh Chahal, on January 18 his reason was →Personal life: no current source For Rubina Bajwa, on January 18 his reasons were →Personal life: noncurrent gossip, no significance indicated I did not know just because he saw a citation of article that was not recent enough, he had the ability to remove relationship status in its entirety? Their relationship status has been reportedly quite heavily in Indian media. Was there ever an article mentioning a break up? This was clearly done not in good faith. I was able to revert the changes for Rubina Bajwa but since I do not have EP status, I could not make the changes to Gurbaksh Chahal page. Please revert his changes accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.238.106.82 ( talk) 03:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
|
The Entertainment Times is not considered reliable – and it is easy to see from that specific source that it has nothing to do with factual reporting. Since it is difficult to find any information about this detail, it can't be said to be important information or relevant for a BLP. -- bonadea contributions talk 12:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Here are the explanation I provided for my edits:
Most of the contents removed came from interviews from the subject; he is not a reliable source.
The advocacy from an IP (who seems to be connected to the topic) should not be given much weight either: Special:Contributions/61.238.106.82.
-- K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Editor Faizal batliwala wrote about the subject of this article's domestic violence conviction, "In 2021, a San Francisco judge dismissed all charges related to this incident and entered a not guilty plea." However, the statement is clearly bogus for two reasons:
This latest attempt white-wash Chahal's domestic violence conviction is the most artless of all in my very humble opinion. Chisme ( talk) 17:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
The claim that this is a petition and wasn't granted may not be accurate; however, even if it was granted, that wouldn't mean that the charges were dismissed, but rather that a conviction was expunged from his record according to California Penal Code 1203.4. This is hardly a vindication, as this procedure is only meant to allow convicted criminals to avoid having their convictions turn up in background searches when applying for jobs; it doesn't suggest at all that he was cleared of the crime. His motives for spreading this document around without context are obvious. JerryAlphonse1928 ( talk) 17:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Faizal batliwala, who made numerous edits to this article beginning last July, has been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia for advertising or promotion and violating the foundation's terms of use. The block was issued a week ago and batliwala has not contested it. I have to assume he/she was blocked for attempting to white-wash or obscure Chahal's domestic violence conviction.
Since batliwala did not contest the block, can we assume he/she is guilty of violating the Wiki rules? For all I know, some of batliwala's edits are valid, but all the edits he made to this article are nonetheless suspect. I propose to examine all his/her edits and reverse them all since they were made it bad faith. Any objections? Chisme ( talk) 19:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Whether to include Chahal's domestic battery conviction in this article's leded has been debated many times. The overwhelming consensus was it belongs there. Let's not rehash this for the hundredth time. Chisme ( talk) 17:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I edited this page some years ago and was reminded of the article's subject by this recent article [2]. It seems like there's been quite a wrestling match with paid editors since then. One result seems to be that the article no longer lists the battery incidents in the first paragraph. This seems out of alignment with the reading and weight given by WP:RS. Looking at the top Google news hits from WP:RS, these incidents are in the headline describing his notability [3] [4], provided as immediate context about him [5], or they are the subject of the article [6], [7] [8] [9] [10] [11], although there are also articles that cover his relationship without mentioning this part of his past [12], [13]. So, basically, wikipedia is fairly rare in simply portraying him as an entrepreneur, with the battery incients in the fourth graph. It doesn't seem like this was a decision made by the unpaid editors, but rather some trailing aftermath of the tangle with the paid ones, but I might be wrong about that. It seems appropriate to align the article with the sources again, including the high-profile relationship. I'll make the change in a moment, using the language that I think was consensus for a while. Of course, open to discussion... Chris vLS ( talk) 02:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)