User talk:Ilovewiki3
Welcome!
[edit]
|
-- Deepfriedokra 07:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
January 2020
[edit]
Hello Ilovewiki3. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Talk:Gurbaksh Chahal, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Ilovewiki3. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Ilovewiki3|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. -- Deepfriedokra 07:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I am not receiving nor do I intend on receiving any financial compensation for these edits. As you can tell with my lack of technical knowledge on how Wikipedia works, someone paying me would either be dunce or plain incompetent. Nonetheless, I am slowly getting the concept of how edits etc. work. Can I ask, how does one get edits into the eyes of those who can publish changes? As mentioned, and attempted in my first edit, all I was attempting to do was include information that was deleted from the 2014 edit. I am not, nor do I have any knowledge on the other events, nor am I requesting they be deleted. Simply, certain contents that are factual, based on the 2014 Wiki entry for 'Gurbaksh Chahal' have been removed.
- You will need to discuss any changes to Gurbaksh Chahal at Talk:Gurbaksh Chahal Those edits were removed for reasons. You will need to discuss. AFAIK, that would reintroduce promotional content and/or poorly sourced content that was added at the behest of the subject. Your timing is poor, as two hirlings of the subject or his PR company have just been blocked from editing. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#PunjabCinema07 and Gurbaksh Chahal for a better understanding of why you will not be likely to achieve WP:CONSENSUS for such a change, as well as Talk:Gurbaksh Chahal . Please be aware that you may be perceived as yet another of the subject's hirlings. If restoring content from a known hireling of the subject's is your only purpose in editing one of Wikipedia's 5,000,000 articles, then you may find your time here non productive. -- Deepfriedokra 19:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for the information. Definitely not my only purpose, too many articles exist on Wikipedia and I will now begin to have some fun combing through them. It is unfortunate that 'whitewashing' of articles occurs, and I definitely understand how my suggestions can be perceived as 'hirelings' of the subject. I will, however, continue to have discussions on this and other topics. This subject (individual) was someone that I had done research on many years ago, and was just surprised to see some valid information no longer represented on the page. Cheers for the info regardless
Definitely have not 'run off', it's a thing called silence, which is underutilized nowadays. I appreciate your feedback, and I am now scouring the wikiverse to put together with other edits etc. cheers!
- Well good. Was afraid you were overwhelmed by the overwhelmingly wikiness of the wiki. Look forward to your results. If you don't already know, you can compose in your sandbox or in a subpage. Just put a / followed by the page's name after your username in the browser. Though some people find it better to compose of line, Don't know if you're familiar with our Wiki markup. It's great once you get used to it. Regular html works too.-- Deepfriedokra 18:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks again for the tips, I do appreciate it. I was always a browser of Wiki, now being on the other side, it is as though a can of worms has opened. I will get used to the intricacies shortly (I hope!)
As my legal mind does, research is something I love doing. Since you are my first of what I hope are many interactions with admin of Wiki, I just wanted to know what spurred the change from Am I able to also change my name on Wiki at any time? Curiosity is a virtue :)
- Wow. How do you know about that? Please see [[WP:OUT]ING]. Plus you just told me you are an attorney. -- Deepfriedokra 21:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi :). Sorry, where did I tell you I was an attorney? "As my legal mind does", simply states that when I think of digging deep into something, I equate that with what attorneys do. It is fun to channel that character. The more you look at it, the work of Admin's seems more painstaking than that of an attorney :)! Cheers.
And my apologies for using this incorrectly, again! Thanks for clarifying that and editing my previous post!
Mistyped. It's WP:OUTING. -- Deepfriedokra 21:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I see you refrained from answering my question.-- Deepfriedokra 21:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The question being? "How did I know about that?" I love digging and exploring the world and what it has to offer us in terms of knowledge. I just like to ensure that whoever I am speaking to I have some insight on their perspectives etc., especially given that Admin hold the power/key to people's living bio's and other info. Just a good thing to know in this realm.
- Actually, Admins don't "hold the power/key to people's living bio's and other info." Article content such as the article on Mr Chahal is out of my control, or it would be-- better. It is determined via discussion and consensus. There's an ongoing discussion on the talk page that may result in some movement toward greater balance. FWIW, I'd remove that whole horrid section. Notoriety is not the same as notable, and I'm sure all concerned would want it to be less prominent in what purports to be an encyclopedia.. Admins are limited by the Community, and anyone who acts against consensus or in a manner that they cannot justify can lose that bit. Please see WP:ADMIN. (If you were looking for a spontaneous utterance, there it is.) You've also begged the question.-- Deepfriedokra 22:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Some digging goes too far. Be careful what you (re)post. Primefac (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- The Mr. Chahal, as with you, definitely out of my control, or even interest at this point given how much it would take to change stuff it seems. I agree that Balance is needed in general, with respect to any article/bio etc. One cannot expect a complete "whitewash" of information, especially factual info, as is true in this individuals case, however, I could not agree more with your perspective. Thankfully, I am taking what have spoken about and using it to make sure I am a user of Wiki in the right way, not the wrong.
Thanks for sending me the link to It's WP:OUTING. It is really helpful to guide me as I get used to using Wiki. Definitely want to ensure I abide by community held guidelines, and my apologies again for not knowing of this before. You have helped me immensely getting used to this platform. Cheers!
- Cheers, indeed. Don't forget to sign your posts. And I must say, if you are in cahoots with Mr Chahal (circumstantial evidence), you are much more pleasant then the one who got WP:CBANned. Wish I could have been a lawyer. Mind's too slow. Had measles at an early age-- likely brain damage and slight autism. Please take this as a complement and not as incivility-- I mean it with all the respect I have-- you, sir, are an excellent bullshitter. (You know this all feels like a Warren Zevon song.) Happy editing, or whatever it is you do.-- Deepfriedokra 22:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Just so we don't get off on the wrong foot,
[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Your email
[edit]Thanks for your interest in Wikipedia. I believe Wiki communications should be open to community scrutiny and above board, As I made plain in my email notice. The editor you referenced was blocked, as I noted on the article talk, for undeclared paid editing as an employee of the subject's PR firm, trying to make the page over for the subject. Any edit request should be made on the talk page..Any discussion should be made on the talk page. In answer to your question, said referenced user had tried to whitewash the page. I'm new to this page, but that is the gist I've picked up over the past 4 days. Just to bring you up to speed, Talk:Gurbaksh_Chahal/Archives/2016#Article about this Wikipedia article references his PR company's efforts. AND. speak of the devil . . . .Cheers, and happy editing-- Deepfriedokra 08:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
If I were Mr Chahal
[edit]Here's a thought. If I were he, I'd send a polite but firm takedown request to the Wikimedia Foundation at info-en-q
wikimedia.org. The Foundation is plenipotent, They can do or undo as they see fit, and they can make decisions/take actions that supercede those of the Community. -- Deepfriedokra 23:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't get
[edit]I've said it before and I'll say it again. That horrid section needs to go. (I was largely shouted down at the time, though there has been some improvement lately.)
All I've asked is what I ask in any article. reliable sources, and disputes resolved via discussion and adherence to the Five Pillars, including WP:CIVIL.
Please feel free pass that along to anyone who might be interested. Thanks-- Deepfriedokra 14:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Good morning, it has been a busy week and a bit. Randomly stumbled upon the page again. It is nice to see that WBG is getting some changes done to reflect accuracy on this and other pages. Would be nice for you to get in touch with him to support them to get the page back to a state of neutrality. Thanks--
- As he references my article talk page comment, I'd say I've done that already.-- Deepfriedokra 15:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)