User talk:PunjabCinema07

Welcome!

Hello, PunjabCinema07! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! DBig Xrayᗙ 09:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Your note

Hi there, I am not interested in intervening in that article. However if you or someone else believes that some content has been removed wrongly then you can get it restored by following proper procedure. see WP:DR to understand the steps. --DBig Xrayᗙ 09:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I, also, received an email from you regarding the article Gurbaksh_Chahal.

Please do not attempt "admin shopping" by private email. Administrators do not involve themselves in content disputes. Furthermore, disputes are resolved in public on talk pages, not in email.

If you have a dispute, that is what the article talk page is for. As DBigXray suggested above, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution outline next steps you can follow. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would absolutely concur with what Anachronist states. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is PunjabCinema07 and Gurbaksh Chahal. Lepricavark (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Rubina Bajwa has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Rubina Bajwa. Thanks! -- Deep fried okra 15:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Hello PunjabCinema07. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, 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:PunjabCinema07. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=PunjabCinema07|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. -- Deep fried okra 17:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, I am not getting paid to edit. The subject is a well known Punjabi actress in Punjabi cinema. Most of the entire Punjabi entertainment industry knows of her movies and you may see her IMDB profile here: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8743259/. Let me know what else you would need to put this article back into main space. PunjabCinema07 (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please await review by the WP:AfC-- Deep fried okra 17:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Deep fried okra 18:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Draft:Rubina Bajwa. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You wrote, in an edit summary: "reverting change and requesting this page not be vandalized". Read Yelling Vandalism. Implying that an acceptance dispute is vandalism is a personal attack. User:Winged Blades of Godric is not a vandal but a respected editor. If Rubina Bajwa is moved to article space again, it will be nominated for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert_McClenon Have you seen the amount of personal attacks I received from Winged Blades of Godric here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gurbaksh_Chahal. Wikipedia is not controlled by ONE editor, it's a community. So I would expect the SAME amount of respect be given to me. Do you even know why he removed Draft:Rubina Bajwa from mainspace? He accused ME of being a paid editor. Where is the outrage there? PunjabCinema07 (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert_McClenon As I mentioned above to Deepfriedokra, Rubina Bajwa is a well known Punjabi actress in Punjabi cinema. Most of the entire Punjabi entertainment industry knows of her movies and you may see her IMDB profile here: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8743259/. Why are you so hostile regarding her wikipedia page not belonging to article space again?

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rubina Bajwa (January 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rubina Bajwa. This draft does not indicate that, since 2017, when the subject was found not to be notable, there has been sufficient coverage to satisfy any of the acting notability criteria. If this draft is resubmitted without providing evidence that it satisfying one of the acting notability criteria or any other special notability criteria, it should be nominated for deletion.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rubina Bajwa and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Rubina Bajwa, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PunjabCinema07! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020 - blocked

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you engage in disruptive editing, as you did at Gurbaksh Chahal. Lepricavark (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestions were not disruptive. They were to make the page neutral and to discuss on the talk page. It's clear you and User:Winged Blades of Godric will continue to disrupt this page.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- Deep fried okra 12:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: - Pull the gamed ECP as well, please. ∯WBG^converse 12:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for a review of my block at WP:AN.-- Deep fried okra 12:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your continued personal attacks, your inability to follow WP:dispute resolution and your apparent attempt to gaid extended confirmed status to bypass my protection on that draft are very disruptive. Another admin has removed your extended confirmed status. Please, in the future, discuss content, sourcing, and notability based on policies and guidelines. And once again, please don't accuse other editors of vandalism or malfeasance when the real problem is, you're in the middle of a content dispute. Thanks,-- Deep fried okra 18:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra I only made accusations after I was being attacked with false accusations. All I ask is the same respect be given to me is being given to Lepricavark.

Request to Administrators

Dear Deepfriedokra, Bishonen, Anachronist. I tried to post a response on WP:DR but my account is blocked for 72 hours. I had spent some time researching Gurbaksh Chahal and history of changes from subject's talk pages. As, I tried to suggest changes that were neutral per BLP standards. I was being attacked as a paid editor. And, then other allegations kept coming. It was frustrating. I made it clear more than once I am NOT getting paid and retaliated back as I felt they were vandalizing. I apologize if I caused any disruption. I was simply trying to gain the same respect other editors receive. I see there is an ANI thread suggesting a permanent block and I think that is highly unfair. I request that I be given a second chance and also hope every wikipedia editor treats each other with the same respect.

Please read and followed WP:COI. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:BRD. If you change established content in an article and you are reverted, the correct course is to gain consensus for your change by discussing it on the article's talk page. You haven't done that. Instead of trying to resolve your dispute on the article talk page, you used the talk page to attack other editors rather than support your own edits. Your block will expire in a few days, and if you don't want to be blocked indefinitely, start using the talk page in a collaborative manner. Discuss content, not contributors. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gurbaksh Chahal#Personal life

FWIW, I did look that that myself. Our threshold for negative WP:BLP content is basically, if there was a conviction, we can include it. I did try to remove some of the more sensational content. As far as I personally am concerned, I'd be happy to remove that whole section, but that is not something I can do on my own. I have also asked a neutral editor who is good at these things to look at it. Please tell the subject, that their best recourse is probably to contact the Foundation-- info-en-qwikimedia.org handles issues regarding an article that is written about you or a group you are affiliated with. Thanks, -- Deep fried okra 10:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Deepfriedokra for considering to remove the entire lurid section. I hope you can ask other editors to also help look at this neutrally. And not like a lurid tabloid. I believe the only other editors on this page that is trying to add constructive value are Crystallizedcarbon and Atsme. I hope you can encourage them to continue to voice their opinions so they do not feel bullied or harassed by the same editors. PunjabCinema07 (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This block is enacted per the consensus of this discussion. For more information please see WP:CBAN. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And in response to your email to me, if you are unblocked, you need to earn your ECP status. You abused your short time being unblocked to threaten other editors rather than build consensus on the article talk page. Until you can prove that you can do that, commenting on content and not contributors, you have not earned the ECP right. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This account should stay blocked indefinitely. I have further concerning evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: anything suitable for the still open ANI?-- Deep fried okra 08:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appears we have consensus. If any admin is interested would be willing to share. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: Sharing is caring-- Deep fried okra 09:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Email me if you wish :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: if the additional evidence you have is private in nature, please email the Arbitration Committee. If they share your concerns they can upgrade this to an {{arbcomblock}}. Otherwise, with the utmost respect, please do not cast aspersions without evidence. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed their talk page access due to concerning posts make off wiki and the use of socks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gurbaksh Chahal revisited

If you see anyone who knows Mr Chahal, please have them pass on the following. As the usual editorial processes have not resulted in the outcome he desired, he may wish to contact the WMF directly at * info-en-qwikimedia.org – it "handles issues regarding an article that is written about you or a group you are affiliated with". Cheers, Thanks for your time.-- Deep fried okra 10:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: As an OTRS volunteer who handles emails to that and other queues, the standard response is to encourage the user to work out a dispute on the talk page. Or to get unblocked first. We generally take a dim view of folks who write expecting an article to be "fixed" according to their POV. Instead we advise them on how they should proceed. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What Up?

A year ago you threatened me. You said the the walls were closing in on me and an investigation with dire consequences for me was pending. How's the investigation going? How's your Chahal whitewash coming along? Chisme (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]