User talk:Chisme

Thanks Chisme for your comments on my talk page for the Talk:Bushmaster Firearms International debate. Now your words are needed on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard to win this debate. Best wishes, --Zeamays (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your new note on my personal talk page. Do you have any suggestions of other articles that need balance? --Zeamays (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In your massive deletion edit of 18:14 today, you removed a large amount of content added by User:Readerfix. Perhaps you did this wholesale with a revert not noted in your edit summary. What perhaps you hadn't noticed is that between two sets of consecutive edits by that User, you also deleted the External link I'd added. This was to an OpEd piece by Nick Turse, published in the New York Times online edition of Oct. 9 and in the print edition of the International Herald Tribune on Oct. 11. This is no cherry-picking on my part, even if these two long-established and respected secondary sources have essentially one in the same editorial policy. None of the other External links on that page provide a piece of writing by Nick Turse as this one does. I believe it belongs in Wikipedia and am restoring it, also noting this on the article's Talk page. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: I did see the subsequent activity by User:Readerfix reverting your edit (which restores, for now, the Ext. link about which I wrote above), and also the Talk page issue. I'll add my support - hope it helps. And do you know of a WP Style guide for biographies of investigative journalists, that would give proper section headings? I've been meaning to learn the ropes of that, among other things. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chisme,

I'd like to add more info to what you posted to round out the entry. Maybe we can collaborate?

DL2014 (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chisme, I agree with basically all of your points on V. S. Naipaul‎ talk - the images and stilted language should go. There is an excess of needless detail for a wikipage, and now dozens of citations to a single work. I haven't worked on the Naipaul page since 2008 or so, and then only briefly, as Naipaul‎ is not one of my primary interests, but I am up for opening a larger discussion on Fowler's behavior, adding canvassing of sympathetic editors to his already questionable comments and insistence that he needs a month to have sole editing control of a BLP. I mentioned an Rfc in the talk, but conflict resolution noticeboard might be a better place to take this. Thoughts?Dialectric (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a brief statement at User:Dialectric/dispute. If you have any suggestions, I'd like to hear them. The best place for this is probably Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, as Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is for content disputes, and I would characterize the issue at V. S. Naipaul‎ as primarily a user conduct dispute/ incident. RFC/RFCU's appear to be for large, ongoing problems, and hopefully this can be resolved with some administrator input. Dialectric (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude, whats your beef I am cleaning up the Ross Mirkarimi intro section. The DV is fully covered in the content section #5. friends of ross — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.12.245.181 (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chisme,

In regards to the recent events in Iraq, please see WP:RECENT. Dan Senor's BLP is not the place to highlight an event currently unfolding in the Middle East. It is a page dedicated to the biography of Dan Senor. Even if the conflict persist, it's a stretch to say that Senor is somehow responsible for the war in Iraq, and another stretch to say that "the war in Iraq was the biggest foreign policy bungle in US history." If you are interested in brining attention to the article by Dowd, perhaps you should add the quotation to the Iraq War page, where it would be more appropriate.

Additionally, please see WP:COATRACk. From the subsection titled "The Attack Article" (also found in WP:Attack page) I've included a portion that is relevant to the content you've added back to the page and the article you are citing by Dowd:

John Doe works as a journalist. He has given over 30 years of long and faithful service to his newspaper. However, one day, he made the terrible mistake of nearly reporting an unchecked fact that came within a whisker of ruining an innocent person's life. Because he did this, he is an evil person. Here is some more information about this incident… (and so on, and so forth).

By no means am I trying to start an edit war with you. While I understand where you are coming from, I respectful disagree with you. Dowd's article should not be mentioned on a page dedicated specifically to the biography of Dan Senor because of the numerous reasons I have cited since removing the material in the first place. I've cited various WP violations now and I hope that, at the very least, you can see where I am coming from with my decision to remove the sentence from the page. Best Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 04:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm EncMstr. I noticed that you recently removed some content from SurveyMonkey without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the 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. —EncMstr (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Chisme. It should be obvious why I deleted the material. It was trivial. Chisme (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Gurbaksh Chahal. Lepricavark (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You already probably know about it, but I am required to notify you of the thread because you are mentioned in it. Lepricavark (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like the IPs and new accounts, I get the sense that you are also are a relatively inexperienced user. I get that tangentially by your heading Sexual Harassment Complaint—which not being in lower case (Sexual harassment complaint), instantly got my attention. The question is not only whether there was a sexual harassment suit filed(?), but whether there was a ruling in a court of law. You need to review our living people crime policy very carefully. Then get back to me. As for the incivility, I'll warn the accounts to keep it cool. As for stalking you, I tend to doubt that. It looks like a concerted effort on the part of Gurbaksh Chahal—which means a conflict of interests and use of the talk pages only for relevant articles, but also having the benefit of our strict policy about living people whose crime section I place in bold for a reason. The point is: we don't usually write about an ongoing legal suit. As an encyclopedia, the policy is to wait for the ruling. If it's in the arrest or grand jury or indictment or suit stages, we don't write about it. Only when it has passed judicial burden of proof, does a section such as this is allowed. That said, the policy is reserved for people who are relatively unknown. I'm unble to judge how well-known Gurbaksh Chahal is, to know how to proceed. Though I get the (cursory) sense that he is well-known enough for that part of the policy not to apply and for that section to be fine as it is. As for the heading, it needs to be precise, according to what type of suit was filed. And it doesn't sound like there was sexual harassment, so I'm not sure why you keep insisting on it. El_C 19:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I got the heading from the Forbes magazine article, also cited in the text: "Chahal And Gravity4 Hit With Gender Discrimination, Illegal Surveillance Lawsuit." In separate legal controversies, Chahal in 2014 pled guilty to charges of domestic violence battery and was sentenced to three years' probation. While still on probation in 2016, a San Francisco court revoked Chahal's probation after evidence of an additional domestic violence incident emerged. He was sentenced him to one year in jail. That sentence is currently under appeal. Do we have to wait for an appeal judgement to put it in the article? As for the first domestic violence incident, he plead guilty. So it can go in the article, right? Chisme (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be wary of conflating the two articles. In Gravity4, the suit is against the company (which Wikipedia does not consider a person), although Chahal's reputation can obviously be seen to be involved. And it appears to be a discrimination suit. So where did you get the sexual part from? In Gurbaksh Chahal: What do you mean under appeal? By whom? How so? Yes, it can go in because there was a conviction, and possibly also because he probably cannot be seen as relatively unknown (I'm still not clear how well-known he truly is—whether his article oversells his notability, or maybe undersells it.) El_C 19:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like your heading "Discrimination Suit." Let's leave it at that. I hope 73.15.10.151 and Jui89 let it stand. By "under appeal," I mean that Chahal and his lawyers appealed the judge's one-year jail sentence. He was sentenced on 12 August 2016. The article says, "he remained free on $250,000 bail, pending an appeal that his attorney has 30 days to file." Don't know what happened after the thirty days. As for how little known or well known he is, that is a subjective judgement. He is known well enough to have his career and legal troubles documented in New York Magazine, Forbes, and numerous newspapers and magazines. That makes him well known in my book, but what do I know? My ignorance of the arcane of Wikipedia appalls me. Chisme (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So nothing sexual, in the suit, then? Again, I get the strong sense that he is well known enough for BLPCRIME not to apply—that means any of his legal troubles become part of his biography and are assumed to be well-known outside of and not primarily due to Wikipedia, which by contrast, would be the case with relatively unknown persons. The appeal is not really at issue, and should just be part of the overall biographical account. What I am concerned with, on the other hand, is the privacy of Erika Alonso, whose name should be redacted. El_C 20:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I conflated "sexual" and "gender." My mistake. I had never heard the term "gender harassment" before." Like I said, I like your "discrimination." Then we agree that his "legal troubles" or "crimes" or whatever term applies may be part of his Wikipedia article, since he is a relatively known person. I don't know what to make of the appeal. All news about it ceased after August of 2016. I assume it's still being wrangled by lawyers. We agree completely: victim Erika Alonso is not to be mentioned in the Gravity4 or Gurbaksh Chahal article. Chisme (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I think it'd be just called harassment and discrimination suits, but I am an historian, not a lawyer (and am unfamiliar with Florida statutes). August 2016 is not exactly speedy, indeed. Anyway, unless he is acquitted, I think we can safely say crimes. Back to Gravity4, I've gone ahead and redacted any mention of the plaintiff from the article. El_C 22:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks El_C for all your help and consideration. And also for removing Erika Alonso's name. My next step is to go to the Talk page at Gurbaksh Chahal and explain why a brief paragraph about his domestic violence history belongs in the lede. As well, I believe his domestic violence history shouldn't be shunted to the bottom of the article as was done by 96.8.1.144. Then maybe when the April 10 cool-off period ends we can fix the article without very much haggling. Thanks again. Chisme (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you El_C. Just for my knowledge, does every complaint filed against the company is to be listed on wikipedia? The reason I ask is companies like Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, etc have have various 'complaints' filed against them by their employees. Not unless a judgement is made, these complaints aren't listed. Therefore, I recommend removing this entire section of "discrimination section" till a judgment is made on this complaint. Jui89 (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chisme, some of your recent edits, which have removed maintenance tags, and added unsourced content, have been brought to my attention. I would probably be justified in blocking you, but I'm choosing to believe that you wish to contribute constructively. Therefore, please take this as a final warning. You must not add content to an article without citing a source. A source already in the article at a random location does not count; a source supporting the content you add must be presented with this content. You must not remove maintenance templates without addressing the issue they are flagging, so long as they are not being added disruptively, which in this case they are not. You were warned multiple times for this, but you chose to ignore those warnings. If you make the same type of edit again, expect a block without further warning. Vanamonde (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article section lacked any WP:RS, which is against our policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability ("In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research."). This section was appropriately tagged with Template:Unreferenced Section which serves as a callout for editors to improve specific deficits within articles. Rather than simply leave this alone or fix the issue, you (again) decided to remove the maintenance tag without addressing the issue. You were specifically warned (above) not do this, as these actions actively hinder improvement of articles. Please desist. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message on User talk:64.89.144.100, it's a NAT IP address for a university / college. There's close to a 0% chance of the person from 2015 reading your message. Stranger things can happen, it's just highly improbable. Murph9000 (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I knew that. But hey, give me credit for tracking it down. The edit was made last November. Chisme (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Scene7 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leefeni de Karik (talk • contribs) 04:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chisme, following me from article to article to create problems is WP: Hounding. Please withdraw your comment from the AfD for Fifth Wall Ventures. BC1278 (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

Nonsense. As an unpaid editor, I'm free to do as I please, when I please, on this website. Chisme (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just stumbled across this while looking for something else. I haven't met either of you two, and frankly am butting in without an invitation--which is actually perfectly fine. Chisme, you are incorrect that you can do as you please; you have to support the pillars and adhere to policy. The policy about hounding applies to you and all of us unpaid editors. YoPienso (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, Miss Thing. You have no idea of my history with BC1278 or how ridiculous his claim to withdraw my comment was. And you just "stumbled" here. Be careful about stumbling. A stumble may be a prelude to a fall. Chisme (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.

Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above refers to this exchange. Chisme (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chisme, I'm glad to see Wikipedia has editors like you. I'm glad you stand your grounds when you need to. COI "suggestors" or talk page paid editors/lawyers can be a serious threat to the integrity of Wikipedia. Thank you. 96.21.250.86 (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chisme, thanks for your swift attention to changes made to the Hubspot page. I don't completely disagree with your assessment that the added detail was unnecessary -- a listing of awards, and also a list of acquisitions. The reason I did add them is that the previous edition of the page included two mentions of acquisitions, and also two references to "best company to work for", in rather haphazard fashion. The revised list is cleaner, more complete, and up to date.

I am inclined to agree that these data points are somewhat too fine-grained to include for a Wikipedia post. What do you think about simply removing the old and somewhat outdated edits? FWIW, I used the Salesforce.com page as a guide. Salesforce.com and HubSpot are in the same industry/market, and both are publicly traded companies.

Also, I am an employee of Hubspot. I figured I would tackle the facts-only portion of the existing page before tackling the basic description of the company (e.g., the company has than marketing and sales products). I am glad you jumped in before I started working on that :-) Afmahon (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Afmahon[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Afmahon (talk • contribs) 17:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note the editor who initiated this exchange, PunjabCinema07, has been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia.

How much money are you being paid to write negative content on Gurbaksh Chahal page? And, who in San Francisco hired you? Walls are closing in on your operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PunjabCinema07 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This constitutes a threat. Surely you know that threatening other editors is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Chisme (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Walls are closing in on your operation" a threat? Wow, you certainly know how to deflect the first two questions. But, it's okay. There is an ongoing investigation pending. Time is going to bring everything to light, Mr. San Francisco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PunjabCinema07 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PunjabCinema07: Oh. Really? By whom, prey tell?-- Deepfriedokra 23:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deflect? There is no point in deflecting nonsense. Find something constructive to do on Wikipedia. You're itching to be banned. Chisme (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, you should take your own advice and do something constructive as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PunjabCinema07 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As much s I hate even cited negative content on Wikipedia, it is reliably sourced and consensus seems to be against my opinion. While being paid to edit Wikipedia is a TOS violation, that's between the editor and the Foundation. That sword can cut two ways. As far as Mr Cahal is concerned, he and anyone working for him needs to remember that truth is an absolute defence against defamation. This looks like a threat of off-Wiki action. It looks intended to to intimidate anyone who dares include content unfavorable to Mr Cahal. Such is also a TOs violation and an example of WP:NOTHERE behavior.-- Deepfriedokra 23:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra I have already mentioned this before that I am not a paid editor. So, I would respect the same respect you give others and take this as a good faith. As far as threats are concerned, I haven't made any. I simply said if he is a paid editor hired to troll, the walls will be closing in on that operation. As far as off-wiki action, I don't even know what to make of that accusation. Like seriously where do you even come up with that??? I find it appalling, when these editors gang up on me, I get banned for 72 hours. When I tell them to follow wikipedia policy or ask if they are getting paid, I am accusing them of threats? As far as white-washing this article is concerned, why don't you look at the history of this page. For six years, it's been under full negative control by the same three individuals. Coincidence???

"Walls closing in..." "Ongoing investigation pending..." Yes, these are threats. Don't pollute my Talk page with these threats anymore. Bother other people with your nonsense. Chisme (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors have reached out to me regarding your history of edits and are coming to the same conclusion. That is why I said "investigation pending." Perhaps, you shouldn't troll so hard?

Other editors are not reaching out to you. Quite the opposite. I asked you not to pollute my Talk page. Kindly stay away.Chisme (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, we have reached out to him. AND he has over-reached. -- Deepfriedokra 03:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a throwaaway. Geolocates to Hong Kong. . Probably needs a SPI under the PC7 case, just to keep track. Think I'll SP the girlfriend article and radium one. Probably needs a SPI under the PC7 case, just to keep track.-- Deepfriedokra 17:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for investigating. Chisme (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're like field mice.-- Deepfriedokra 17:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FTR Chahal is usually in Hong Kong as per his twitter. Praxidicae (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shocked.. Not sure how cool it is linking anons to real people.-- Deepfriedokra 21:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI to P..c..7 seems like a good idea, but I was under the impression that it was no longer allowed to connect IP's to accounts under the current m:Privacy policy. Is there a way to get around that? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

good question. probably not then.00:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, just present the behavioral evidence? CU would be useless and the info redundant if it did find a connection, which could not be discussed anyway.-- Deepfriedokra 00:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin on the eswiki project. There we have a private mail list where we can address similar issues and consult on complicated cases. I don't know if it works the same way here, but if there is a similar channel, it might be a good idea to bring it up there, to get some extra eyes on this without those restrictions. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We could ask TheSandDoctor.-- Deepfriedokra 09:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chisme, my apologies for the delayed response to your query on my talk page.
"...other editors congratulate me on reaching a consensus" -> at the time you wrote this comment, there was only one congratulatory remark issued by Crystallizedcarbon. As for the consensus, three editors (yourself excluded) is fairly weak consensus for a change that others have clearly found to be contentious. Other editors, such as Deepfriedokra and Winged Blades of Godric have brought up concerns with your edits to this article already on the talk page.
Edits like this and this demonstrate editing without a neutral point of view as she was his girlfriend at the time of the assault and he was put in a county jail, not a prison. You also appear to have removed sourcing with an extremely concerning edit summary. Saying "Until you find another source, you can't say "The Dream" was a bestseller; the source listed here (https://mandiner.hu/cikk/20191229_az_erettsegizetlen_milliardos) is a Hungarian website. Do you read Hungarian? Show me in the article where it says "The Dream" is a bestseller." raises concerns that you do not fully understand what constitutes a reliable source. Reliable sources do not have to be in English. Having a source in Hungarian is totally fine. These edits were in contradiction to reliable sources, which is extremely concerning on a biography of a living person, as is the apparent lack of a neutral point of view and failure to adaquately understand reliable sources. Repeated violations of WP:BLP policy can result in arbitration enforcement discretionary sanctions as BLPs are an area which AEs cover. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, here we go again. Trying to turn it into a hatchet job. CHisme, you are wrong.-- Deepfriedokra 07:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hold your horses @TheSandDoctor: and @Deepfriedokra:! You (Sand Doctor) cite three instances when I made bad edits:

1) I changed "In 2016, San Francisco County Superior Court found Chahal guilty of violating his probation in September 2014 after further charges of domestic violence against a woman he was dating and sentenced him to a year in jail" to "In 2016, San Francisco County Superior Court found Chahal guilty of violating the terms of his September 2014 probation when he was charged with committed acts of domestic violence against a second woman. He was sentenced to a year in jail." What I did here was make the sentence read better by turning it into two sentences. I replaced "woman he was dating" with "a second woman" I was concerned that "woman he was dating" instead of "second woman" implied it's okay to beat a woman if you're dating her.

2) I changed "In 2016, San Francisco County Superior Court found Chahal guilty of violating the rules of his September 2014 probation when he committed acts of domestic violence against a second woman. He was to a year in jail" (note missing word in previous sentence) to "In 2016, the San Francisco County Superior Court found Chahal guilty of violating the rules of his September 2014 probation when he committed acts of domestic violence against a second woman. He was sentenced to one year in prison." All I did was turn "a year in jail " into "one year in prison" and insert the word "sentenced."

3) About the subject's "bestseller," you wrote, "Reliable sources do not have to be in English. Having a source in Hungarian is totally fine." But the word "bestseller" doesn't appear in English or Hungarian on the webpage being cited. The word in Hungarian (according to Google translate) is "legjobban eladott." The word is not there and that's beside the point, I think, as no one but a Hungarian speaker could verify whether this is a reliable source. Anyhow, it's not reliable as the word "bestseller" doesn't appear.

I maintain I have tried to keep this article neutral in the face of numerous attempts by sockpuppets to white-wash the subject's past as a domestic abuser. You can look at my long edit history over several years at Wikipedia and see I'm not one to engage in "hatchet jobs." Respectfully, Chisme (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chisme: You are clearly not objective on the subject of "the subject's past as a domestic abuser." -- Deepfriedokra 16:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Chisme, here are some major issues with that response:

1) If you think dating someone implies it's okay to beat them, you may need to stop editing this article or any BLP containing similar subject manner.

2) It was a county jail he was sentenced to, so your "change" to say it was a "prison" is literally both clear evidence of your bias here and a lie.

3) The Hungarian source doesn't even begin to mince words between Hungarian and English regarding the book being a bestseller; if you paid for the subscription to their website (which I just did) you would find this line "Talán ezért is lett The Dream (az álom) című könyve nemzetközi bestseller."... which translates roughly to "Which is perhaps why The Dream became an international bestseller." - This is why it is common practice to AGF when it comes to sources that are either offline or in a foreign language, because chances are the person who added it very well did know how to read Hungarian. You should never remove sourced content period, and especially with so flimsy an excuse as "well I couldn't read that language". Instead of assuming that your bias would prove true in the source, you should have allowed someone who can speak the language to check the source... then if they couldn't find the data, let them remove it. But, in this case, you didn't even get past the paywall (I can assume that safely because the terms "bestseller" and "The Dream" were incredibly easy to find by actually reading the full article) yet made an assumption of bad faith about the source.

All in all it is rather apparent to me that you can't seem to hold back your biases when dealing with this article. That is a recipe for disaster when dealing with BLPs, and I agree with Deepfriedokra that what you're doing here is continuously trying to paint this article as negative as possible... and I agree with TheSandDoctor that you're getting close to needing discretionary sanctions applied to prevent further disruption. If you can't see how your edits are disruptive, that just is more reason for you to step back from this article and move to another topic. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee: Concur fully.-- Deepfriedokra 17:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's all yours gentlemen (and you are men, all of you I can tell, because if you weren't you'd know why "woman" is preferable to "girlfriend" in this case). @Coffee:About the citation to the Hungarian website, who knew that Winged Blades of Godrick, who entered that citation, was fluent in Hungarian? His Wiki page says, "I am bilingual fluent in Bangla, English and Assamese and have a high degree of proficiency in Hindi, Oriya, Urdu and Marathi." No mention of Hungarian there, but we'll give him the benefit of the doubt. As for me, I will refrain from editing the article or looking at it in the future. I still maintain that my edits were made in good faith, however, and we'll leave it at that. Chisme (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Blades of Godric please see the above. Pinging as WBG discussed but not pinged. Please ping editors when discussing them if not on their own talk page. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take it all to ANI. I'm on a Wikibreak. At least I was. Not available till Tuesday at least.-- Deepfriedokra 21:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Enough already." Tell me about it. I wrote a complaint about Winged Blades at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Chisme (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lauren Boebert; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. CharlesShirley (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ABOVE TEXT FROM CONFIRMED SOCK PUPPET

We are not in an edit war, as I explained on your Talk page. Do me the courtesy of addressing my concerns at the article in question before accusing me of engaging in an edit war. Chisme (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are both editwarring. I don't think that the BLP exception counts, and if it doesn't, only the number of reverts counts. But you've only reverted twice. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller:Look closely. I did not reverse twice. My second "reverse" merely removed the How? tag. I attempted a compromise and explained why I removed the How? tag on the Talk page. If it's an edit war, it's very one-sided. Chisme (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed = revert. That's the way it works. You aren't in trouble. Doug Weller talk 20:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is intended to be an objective informative website and not intended to be a one-sided biased subjective viewpoint, nor was it intended for individuals who add unsubstantiated opinions.

If a celebrity decided to end an endorsement contract with a brand, then that’s all the factual information you need to state in the article. If you wish to provide a reason, then you provide the reason stated in their official statement. Period. You DO NOT insert your personal opinion (nor the opinion of your very subjectively biased media) as to why YOU think they ended any endorsement and what you are alleging that they are supporting. This is referencing 101 and if you are having difficulty understanding this concept then I suggest that you go back to basics. And stop pointing your little finger at what YOU think is right or wrong. Because my friend, when you are only reading media and articles from ONE point of view then you are getting a very biased view of this world. Stefanietoukaka (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the People's Republic of China, no distinction is made between "media" and "state propaganda." We could not even have this back and forth in China for fear of being censured or worse. It is best to live with eyes wide open. All of my fingers are quite large. Jackson Yee is very cute, I'll grant you that. Chisme (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chisme, appreciate your contributions, but some including the contributions on Cyan Banister seem to promote a political angle which is not (to my understanding) toward Wikipedia's goal of neutrality. In particular, political news on something a prominent figure has said or done as a one-off does not count toward enduring notability.

I also noticed your reversions on the Cyan page were inching towards this 3rr rule so I wanted to send you a note instead

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly..

I would encourage looking at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so I'm still learning, but I've found those helpful!

Best, Kristy. Kristyuhorton (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although phony and bologna are spelled dissimilarly, they rhyme. Chisme (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gurbaksh Chahal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spam.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chisme. How are you? Is there a secondary source you can use instead of the court sentence at Chahal's article? Primary sources should be avoided when possible. Cheers. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the court ruling be considered a primary source? This is a court document after all. Chisme (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a primary source. The direct use of primary sources like court rulings is discouraged because as editors we should not choose what information is notable. When a reliable secondary source covers that information it is providing notability to what it chooses to cover from its primary sources. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you know your way around Wikipedia better than I do, I defer to your point about a third party needing to comment about a trial judgement before the judgement can be considered a valid Wikipedia source. A couple things, however. Business Insider thought Yousef Khraibut's lawsuit against Chahal was newsworthy, which could indicate the judgement in the case is a priori newsworthy as well. I don't know whether Business Insider will follow up on its 2015 article about Khraibut v. Chahal. The judgement (a default judgement at that, meaning the defendant didn't contest) would make a good news story. The award was for $1,246,950 plus $538,492 in attorneys' fees -- a lot of scratch. Reading the case, I found this: "Khraibut claims that he suffered pain, mental suffering, and distress because Chahal discriminated and harassed him, pressured him to take illegal substances, directed him to lie to the police, retaliated against him for reporting unsafe work conditions, installed spyware in his personal computer, threatened his safety and life with physical violence, filed false police reports against him, and attempted to interfere with business reputation and opportunities." Why didn't Chahal contest this? Chisme (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chisme. One of the problems with primary sources like a court sentence is the large amount of information. Choosing what to include and what to leave out can lead to bias. I agree with you and it would not surprise me if they do write a follow up article. The main points that they choose to include, if and when they or another independent reliable source write it, should be included in the article. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Tristario (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding a BLP issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Garrett Camp. Thank you. --JFHJr (㊟) 00:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is SPA at Talk:Gurbaksh Chahal. Thank you. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]