Talk:Barkha Sharma

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Women in Business Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lead

The article lead should really only summarize information which comes later in the article per MOS:LEAD. The lead may include citations, but this is not always necessary per WP:LEADCITE. The stuff about PETA, Prince William, etc. should be incorporated into the main body of the article and only mentioned in the lead if truly significant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Barkha Sharma- The Brunette Diaries.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undisclosed payment issue?

The article was tagged with a concern for undisclosed payments back in March by @JJMC89:. There doesn't seem to be much detail available about this, and wonder if there is still a WP:UPE concern? Dl2000 (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Puppypaw7 for the UPE accounts involved. Not much has changed with the article since I tagged it, so there are likely still problems with it. Five references after along with the music video "Meeting by the Nile" is overkill and typical of paid editors. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. But as a newbie on the platform, I assumed that adding as many citation links are good for articles to establish authenticity. How do you suggest a resolution to this? Can someone make edits and remove extra cited links and then would it be safe to say that the article is as per the Wikipedia content policy? Please guide. Castdates (talk) 06:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JJMC89: As suggested by you I checked the links and a couple of them were either 404 pages or irrelevant to the context, hence removed them. Castdates (talk) 05:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David notMD helped clean up this article further. What do you think now? @JJMC89: Castdates (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Edit

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The required disclosures have not been made.

Tried to cleanup the article with help from other editors and WP:Cleanup page. If someone can verify if the WP:UPE tag issue can be closed now--Castdates (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that WP:UPE applies to content which has possibly been added to an article without the contributor disclosing that they were paid to add the content. Currently, I see no such disclosures posted on this talk page using the {{Connected contributor (paid)}} template (including any from the editor making this request). Unless those editors were to come forward and state so now, that would appear to occlude our ability to say definatively that the issues surrounding the placement of the UPE template have been resolved. The phrasing used by one of the earlier editors, Dxcu12 in a post of theirs, suggests that it may have been a group of editors making these edits, as shown in their phrasing used here, here, and here, which lends to the possibility of paid editors.^[a] Unfortunately, figuring that out with any certainty is difficult, as the very nature of the UPE template (in that it deals with unknowns) makes its application a work of guesstimation. Spintendo 09:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ Paid editors working for companies often use the phrase "we" when referring to their editing on Wikipedia, such as "We thought about changing this word in the article", instead of "I thought about changing this word". Dxcu12, a major and frequent contributor to this article years ago, used the term "we". Again, this is only a guesstimation.

Reply 30-MAY-2019

Edit request declined

The editor making this request has not disclosed their pay status.
If the desired edit is made on their behalf when they have not made a disclosure, then this would seem to confirm the status that the UPE template is meant to warn about — i.e., that an undisclosed editor has made changes to the article — requiring the UPE notice to be re-appended to the article.
Because of this, the template ought to remain until a disclosure is made.

Regards, Spintendo 19:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Paid editors working for companies often use the phrase "we" when referring to their editing on Wikipedia, such as "We thought about changing this word in the article", instead of "I thought about changing this word". Dxcu12, a major and frequent contributor to this article years ago, used the term "we". Again, this is only a guesstimation.

[a]