Talk:Sini Shetty

Please note as above, this is not a forum or page for discussing the article subject. Sciencefish (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Noncontentious Material

I think it's in the rules that an article can be improved with unsourced content that seems noncontentious to the article's editors. 50.107.186.102 (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to make that latest edit contentious but I don't think I'm allowed to edit the article anyway. Like good faith found in the rules, that editor seems to be having fun within some flow of facts that I'm aware of also, but without a source it will be an example of the editors' perception of the overall situation with some just not on it yet maybe, also? Either way, I'll enjoy seeing how this edit progresses as to me again, that editor seems to be working in the flow of the facts happening, at my side of things. 50.32.106.85 (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Main Talk Page Use For Conflict Resolution/Allowing Of Improvements

While maybe having the deletion petition ignored, it seems this new editor without any stated reasons and maybe being based on their misperceived editorial disputes over Wikipedia's inline citation requirements (that seem to be clearly organized) that's been going on here, just declared the whole subject as a contentious blp, seemingly to violate any normal editorial process being highlighted and that is said by them as being required now - that I'm now stating was what was/is being followed by a disputed editor (apparently to this editor solely myself not them in this arbitration remedies design) for what are the contemplated established rules for Wikipedia, before this move from this editor that's being questioned under what also seems a normal editorial process of trying at discussion on the article's main talk page. I'd like further explanation for this questioning of their process from this editor as to what rule they are using to declare this blp a contentious topic other than if this is being asserted as caused by an editorial dispute over the potential assertion that in fact easily verifiable noncontentious material for a blp can be agreed upon by an article's editors and used to improve the article without it having an inline citation if never challenged by any editor. In this case, having been discussed and attempted, being what this all is discovered to have been about and what occurred here as a dispute over those facts and some editors not wanting to follow these rules and finding easily verifiable noncontentious material that improves the article contentious among other problems asserted quickly without much back and forth. 50.107.140.133 (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

If you disagree with this decision, please take it to appeal as stated at Wikipedia:Contentious topics, this talk page is not the place to do it. Sciencefish (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

"The appeal process has three stages." "Ask the administrator who fist made the contentious topic restrictions..." "If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email." It seems that on the main talk page like this is fine. It's not really an appeal but further discussion about improving the article and what are Wikipedia's rules on inline citation requirements. It seems this editor did single out my last work at trying to improve the article, which have been minor in amount and persistence up to here, but your article deletion work hasn't been addressed yet? 50.107.140.133 (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

If you really "think it's in the rules that an article can be improved with unsourced content that seems noncontentious to the article's editors", then cite the policy in question and link to it. Because I'm certainly not aware of any. Daniel Case (talk) 02:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

For now I'd rather have easily verifiable noncontentious material that improves the article that is not challenged by any editors as what's contemplated as being allowable following Wikipedia rules to be edited into an article without having an inline citation. "Responsibility for providing citations" All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material... Using inline citations, provides reliable, published sources for all: material whose verifiability has been challenged contentious matter about living and recently deceased persons. Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people. Only from wp:proveit. Since you've found any and all material contentious about the living subject of this article as the action needed against this contemplated kind of possible ruling that left unchallenged material can remain in the article with no inline citation (where other types of editor reactions such as citation needed can be used also etc.) it would seem along with your unawareness of their possible use (no inline citation needed ruling) you're now also unaware that noncontentious material can exist also? It would seem with some editors around it can be the case to assume something you'd use to improve the article without an inline citation will certainly be challenged making it contentious. 50.32.113.188 (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Around here, some could start wondering if this is actually that gaslighting people can talk about some hereabouts in an women's empowerment center, too? 74.37.2.255 (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Udupi

It seems Udupi is the notable city in Sini Shetty's confluence of places. I'd remove Mangalore again from the article with the same rule as before except that now I'd state that Udupi can be found around elsewhere as the place to be cited in the article like that instead of Mangalore, also, but I'm unsure I can do that now for unsourced and contentious material additions to a blp that should at least be being discussed before being removed quickly? If Mangalore is incorrect where it should be Udupi, it would be a disappointment I'm sure as Udupi got some press from its recognition going on at an early point in things. I'll see if I can remove stuff from the article if this sits like this for a while. 50.32.129.15 (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

It got removed correctly. Why Mangalore is important to some here has to be done correctly, too? Back on Feb. 22nd this same editor added content that is found in the Udupi hometown visit coverage right after winning the Miss India pageant. You have to follow the events correctly (again) but it seems to me a grandmother of Sini's lives in Udupi and gets a visit along with the City and maybe parts of the district from her as Miss India with her parents along and as a area she's known as a child. The history of the development of this area of the article seems pretty close but with the articles cited here only Karnataka is yet to be stated. 50.107.161.131 (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, you can't just add stuff to people's biography's without a reference, otherwise they'd all be made up. Mangalore was unsourced in the three references it was associated with. Sciencefish (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

You can add stuff to people's biographies that are unsourced. 50.107.161.131 (talk) 12:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Something also I tried out here is rewording the abstracts found on the page, of the articles already being cited. 50.107.161.131 (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and anyone can challenge that per WP:PROVEIT. Sciencefish (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

It's kind of subjective first, I guess, but this article isn't about to get any banners for its quality now whereas with my work on improving it, in total now, I think it would have been under study for what it was and how it was able to stay like that for this group of editors involved so far at least. The last one, that provoked an everything is contentious here now atmosphere to try and work on the article, was two parts in that I wanted a social media use section included for a while. In still studying that, it seems Miss India sent out a notification that the total scene of the current group participating is part of the contest for them all, as something notable that's being done that was thought as even including a Wikipedia article's online presence for how this kind of blp can be for any editor's objective enthusiasm for things to include might go? It's possible it seems that a state winner could have a Wikipedia page even before this, but as their Miss India goes on to the next competition baked into it, again that Miss India yourself included still most likely, wouldn't even think Miss India should have a page like this at all? 50.107.165.57 (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

You seem reluctant to provide citations. I will reiterate what it says at the top of this page:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sini Shetty article.

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Please help improve this article (and encyclopaedia) by providing reliable citations.

Your addition of the heading and text in July:

== Social Media Use ==

Shetty currently is active on social media.

with the edit summary of:

Noncontentious Material Can Be Unsourced/Need Another Rule To Cite For Your Immediate Removal?

was removed as it was an unsourced addition to BLP, it did not improve the article. Please see how other BLPs are treated and get some experience working on other articles. Sciencefish (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Those two editors are being observed as out now already and as having stopped their cause pretty quickly for the article for the very next edit in the most conservative of approach to it that they had just put over it, also. This Udupi heading having subject here that you seemed to eventually find concern with and get around to following rules on this time after all? 50.107.149.242 (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I repeat: You seem reluctant to provide citations. Please see how other BLPs are treated and get some experience working on other articles. Sciencefish (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

In this case, with the Sini Shetty blp article, I still think doing your own analysis should be of interest to be sticking around for, also. It's clearly an engaged community, as I found out and gaslighting isn't a common term in use hereabouts at least but again given how engaged they tend to be the one using the term in here is Kamala Harris, so that should impress some if observed for themselves as something being found here also if they keep up with us working on the article too as something interesting for them to do online? Being engaging in case of that being what we're also maybe able to do seems of interest for this blp. For some reason(s), you're here as long as myself and have your temperament and perceptions to deal with that also seems like it can be related to gaslighting behavior, in that context of working to improve this article, Sini Shetty's online presence to be involved with by being actually included in it as in your case maybe not even considered of interest? 50.32.117.207 (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, in following them in how it's best done as assumed part of the program for success, it seems a large amount of fun is needed to be well asserted that maybe you're lacking somehow in an assumed way toward improving the article? 74.46.18.235 (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Mangalore

You can identify with a state, basically how the article gets by like this, and linking the cities and states (or various other things) seemed like a more immersive article (or how that is designed to function) and I'm pretty sure Udupi is what we'd be advised to use here, but Mangalore is the location of a visit for some reason as Sini's latest social media happening scene followed by a like been up to lately kind of example. 74.37.6.184 (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Innanje

I was thinking it started out differently than with Innanje, as that's one I didn't even have as happening even after my last review. It gets linked here, also. If that's it, we'd seem to have blanked out a bit, until now at least for discussion? The birth date/birthday work was something we can be proud of as that plays out as not being how it was started. 50.107.165.15 (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)