Talk:Sima Kotecha
Add topicAppearance
Latest comment: 1 year ago by LindsayH in topic Protection of the article at the behest of a bad faith edit warrior
| 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. |
| This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Date of birth
[edit]I can find no WP:RS for her date of birth. Even the year is hard to find. But there is an entry at FreeBMD here, which shows a registration in March 1980. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Protection of the article at the behest of a bad faith edit warrior
[edit]User:Daniel Case: why did you protect this article with a false claim that there were violations of the WP:BLP policy, at the behest of a user who made a false and malicious request for page protection? 2A00:23C8:D30D:7C00:DCC5:D36D:C98F:B429 (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- Since you were blocked for two weeks as the latest sock of a confirmed LTA, I don't think it's necessary to answer that. Res ipsa loquitur. Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- Fixing serious problems caused by now-blocked editors and leaving an article in a much better state than before are not hallmarks of "long-term abuse". What kind of insane thought process would anyone have to follow to convince themselves otherwise? 2A00:23C8:D30D:7C00:303A:B449:B47E:2DED (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- Looks like the two weeks are up? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- What is a sign of abuse, however, is the rude edit summaries you, IP user, have been using in your edit warring in this article. Do assuming good faith and no personal attacks mean nothing to you? I suggest that you dial back the insults if you want to retain editing privileges here, thanks ~ LindsayHello 08:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- Fixing serious problems caused by now-blocked editors and leaving an article in a much better state than before are not hallmarks of "long-term abuse". What kind of insane thought process would anyone have to follow to convince themselves otherwise? 2A00:23C8:D30D:7C00:303A:B449:B47E:2DED (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)