User talk:Islandpr

February 2024

Hello, I'm Harvici. An edit that you recently made to Sonu Shivdasani seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Harvici (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harvici.

im not sure what I am doing wrong.

Thanks for your help.

Island Islandpr (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your username is "Islandpr". Do you work in public relations on an island, and does that have to do with your editing? 331dot (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of.

can you help? Islandpr (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can help if you are open about this. What is your relationship with the topic of your edits(posting information about lawsuits the article subject is seemingly involved in). 331dot (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We want to make aware of current legal proceeding against this person. Islandpr (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we"? The sources you gave are poor, and discussion of that man's legal trouble needs to be given due weight in proportion to the rest of the article. 331dot (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 331dot

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. I have no other motive behind the edits I submitted than to ensure each Wikipedia page - whether for an individual, company, object or other - provides a balanced, factual and informative information. I provide factual information, which in the public’s interest, to be available to persons researching an individual or topic on Wikipedia. In this instance, it is very obvious that the legally binding and alleged matters relating to this individual - some of which are current - should be available to people using Wikipedia to carry out due diligence on him. I have included several references to support each the three legal matters noted, all of which are from credible sources and actually correct. We can restore the edits, and bolster the evidence on each of the three claims. It’s worth noting that in 2020 there was an alert on this page stating that the profile read too much like an advertisement. The balanced approach of including relevant information pertaining to allegations and lawsuits is therefore very important. Thank you once again for your assistance. Islandpr (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't asked what your motive is, I asked who "we" is as you seem to represent a group of some kind. I have no interest in your specific identity or that of any group you may represent, but if you have an association with the subject of your edits, that needs to be disclosed as a conflict of interest. If you are employed or otherwise compensated by a person or group to represent them and/or edit for them here, which frankly your username suggests, the Wikipedia Terms of Use require disclosure. These things do not mean that you cannot contribute about your chosen topic, but that you need to do so indirectly on the talk page(Talk:Sonu Shivdasani). You can propose specific changes in the form of an edit request(click for instructions).

If you just want to tell the world about legal proceedings against any individual, you can stand on a street corner and do so, or rent a billboard, or purchase TV time, or use social media. That's what all those avenues are for. Wikipedia is not an avenue of merely providing information- Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about a topic. When editing about living people, sourcing must be very strong per the Biographies of Living Persons policy- your sourcing was very thin. Please use the article talk page to propose edits as edit requests or otherwise discuss your concerns. As your edits are in dispute, they should be discussed with the community to arrive at a consensus. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 331Dot

There is no alternative motive, other than to ensure accurate, relevant, timely and need-to-know information is displayed on Wikipedia pages.

The sources I quoted are far from being ‘very thin’. In fact, one of the sources for one of the lawsuits is the link to the court’s actual legal case file. It is worth noting that Wikipedia has already flagged this page as being too much like an advertisement, with far weaker links ‘backing’ what is already on the page. Anyhow, as I said before and like you, I just want to apply Wikipedia’s mission of summarizing ‘what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about a topic,’ and which is precisely what the edits (which are now in dispute) I made to this page sought to do. Thanks. Islandpr (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Court documents are considered primary sources, and can only be used in certain situations- not to establish that independent sources are covering a topic. If news reports write about the content of court documents, that would be much better. Of course, people can disagree as to whether sourcing is thin or not(I think it is), but that is a matter for discussion on the article talk page. Sourcing for articles about living persons must be strong, per policy.

I have said three times that you need to disclose your relationship with this matter. If I had to hazard a guess- are you involved with the legal proceedings against this individual? 331dot (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your reply. I did include some links to the news reports - I can include more if this would help?

My relationship with this matter is that I am a friend of one of the victims of the fire that broke out at the resort. Nothing more than that, and certainly nothing sinister. Islandpr (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; I have never said there was anything sinister here; you will, however, need to formally declare a conflict of interest(click for instructions). You will need to pursue changes as edit requests.

Please understand that our goal here is to accurately summarize what independent reliable sources say about a person. An article is not for the mere purpose of listing an individual's alleged misdeeds. Original research or otherwise drawing conclusions is not permitted here. There is a high bar to including mere allegations in an article(WP:BLPCRIME); generally only convictions/final disposition of a matter is posted. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I don’t understand why you are pushing back on this so much…the links I included in the submission were accurate and from highly reliable sources. Please can you tell me what your motive is? And as I have already stated, and as I have referenced, the legal case has been finalized in the US - and Sonu lost it. Please help me to understand why you are stopping relevant truth from being shared. Islandpr (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no motivation other than working to ensure that policies are adhered to and that proper sources are accurately summarized.(and it's not just me though you seem to think so).Please read WP:TRUTH. Please offer independent reliable sources like news reports that this man was convicted of an offense or lost a lawsuit holding him responsible for something. Again, you must declare a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Hello, I'm Waxworker. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, BandFuse: Rock Legends, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Waxworker (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]