Talk:S. P. Vaid

Conflict of Interest?

Please guide.

COI?

The user who created this page (User:JK-RULZ) was called by some other name until 13:04, 30 November 2009, when his name was User:JK-RULZ

It appears that the creator of the article changed his user name from "" to JK-RULZ and then created a page about a person with the same name - looks like a conflict of interest to me. I suggest JK-RULZ makes a pretty strong case to keep it, or it could be deleted. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_avoid_COI_edits on how to avoid COI. Shem (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:JK-RULZ removed the COI tag without any cogent reason. I've re-instated it. Any removal should be discussed here. Shem (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I actually did give a reason, first look and then talk Mr.Shem. I am retiring anyway so be happy.*Truth* (talk)

If you mean "When edited by the major contributor, it would be considered as top most priority", then I still don't understand what you mean. And it's just Shem. Shem (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the template as it should only be placed on an article if there is a problem that needs fixing which there isn't. With regards to notability, I'd say that they are probably just notable although we really need more sources to show it. Smartse (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hang on! This article is about the user who created it, to all appearances, and you don't think there's a COI? Did you mean to remove the Notabilty template instead? Shem (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The COI template would be appropriate if the article said things like "the best policeman in India" etc. As it doesn't it shouldn't be templated regardless of who created the article. Whilst WP:COI and WP:AUTO discourage editors from creating articles about themselves there is nothing to say that they can't. If they can write a NPOV article (as I consider this to be at the moment) then there is no problem. Smartse (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Give some time for God's sake and please mark it as COI if and only if, the information entered does not verify from the respective reference. Don't be so stubborn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.131.59 (talk) 11:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This is getting beyond a joke. First User:User:JK-RULZ changes his user name to User:JK-RULZ and creates an article about himself. Then he announces intention to retire and then posts messages using an Indian Government IP here and on this talkpage, while not stating his interest (as required by WP:COI). He then removes the COI tag without giving a cogent reason on the talk page (just "give more time" and only mark COI if "information entered does not verify from the respective reference").

The COI tag does not defame the article - please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for what it really means. I'm trying to protect the encyclopaedia - that's what the tag is there for, to warn those reading it that the article may not be what it seems.

I've reported this at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Shesh_Paul_Vaid (see may latest comments) and I'm reinstating the COI tag. Shem (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• I appreciate what you did for the article Shesh Paul Vaid but I just want to correct you on one simple thing that, User:JK-RULZ is not Shesh Paul Vaid. If don't believe me just search the later name on web. You'll get to know. Thank You 117.198.131.11 (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And yes, I almost forgot, that is not a Gov. of India (GOI) IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.131.11 (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Searching Vaid on the net is hardly likely to tell us anything about who User:JK-RULZ is, I suggest. Even if they are not the same person, it needs to be established that they are not related. Given that nearly all User:JK-RULZ edits are about the Indian Police, there is a strong suspicion that User:JK-RULZ is a member of the force, and therefore all his (or her) edits may be COI. Please stop trying to muddy the waters. At the top of this page I wrote "I suggest JK-RULZ makes a pretty strong case to keep it", and so far I see no case at all. Shem (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly nobody has to admit whether they have a COI or not, it is of course better if they do but WP:COI doesn't say anything about people having to disclose information, we are all free to edit anonymously. In fact it states "When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to reveal the identity of other editors" - see WP:OUTING. Editors should be judged by the edits that they make rather than assumptions as to who they are. As I mentioned before the COI template shouldn't automatically be added to an article even if it is clear it has been edited by the subject, it only needs to be in place if the article needs a clean up or to be more neutrally toned. I must admit I am a little suspicious of User:JK-RULZ and now IPs coming along to argue the same points, IPs, please be aware of our policy on using multiple accounts, I would urge you to create an account and always use it to make it clearer who is leaving a message. The most important thing to work on at the moment is adding more sources, compared to other articles I've worked on the evidence of COI and the alleged problems are pretty minor. Smartse (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree all your points. However, WP:COI does say "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested." My issues with this article would all have gone away if the creator had been honest in the first place. Subsequent to this we've had issue heaped upon issue. Essentially I don't believe this article is notable, and the major contributor, who disagrees, has a likely COI. The only reason I haven't yet gone to AfD is because I think the article needs a little longer to be given a chance for good faith edits to show it is notable. I'll be watching. Shem (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability

I've removed the line that said "Incidents: 2005 Ayodha Attack - Administered arresting of two suspected militants who were alleged helping the attackers of a disputed religious site in Ayodhya." citing the BBC website. The reference actually said "It appears that the conspiracy to attack the temple was hatched by militants in Indian administered Kashmir - Police official SP Vaid". For an article that is already controversial, it is hardly acceptable to misrepresent the references. Please remember that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Shem (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Inspector General of Police (IGP) Jammu & Kashmir?

The reference says "Inspector General of Police (IGP) Traffic Jammu & Kashmir". Shouldn't that be reflected in the article. Surely there's a difference. Shem (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete

I would suggest deletion of this article as soon as possible.117.198.130.54 (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarfy

Hello once again, I know I am supposed to be 'RETIRED' but I just want to clarify some important doubts here regarding this article. Firstly, my real name is. My former account name was and I changed it to JK-RULZ due to privacy reasons, which you can clearly see in wikipedia Changing Username section. It has nothing to do with Shesh Paul Vaid a.k.a SP Vaid who is an IPS oficer. Secondly, no one here has access to Govt. of India, therefore there is nothing as Indian Govt. IP. Thirdly (is there anything like that?), nevermind lastly, I wouldlike to say that yes it is damn true that I edited many articles concerning Law Enforcement in India and abroad but I would like to ensure everybody here that it was done just because of my interest in this field and nothing else and I am not S P Vaid, I can write it and sign it if you want. So, it is not my article. It was created by me just out of mere interest and tust me if you or anyone else here believes that not enough refrences are provided or can not be provided in the near future then please go ahead and delete it. I wouldn't say a word.

Regards, *Truth* (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you prepared to make a statement that you have no connection with S P Vaid? Shem (talk) 10:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

I've proposed this blanked article for deletion. To contest, remove the PROD template. Shem (talk) 09:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE

It does not make sense, why is someone here so eager to delete this article? It has already verified many initially developed doubts by providing authentic references. I suggest, this article should be called off from Afd and improved by slowly and steadly. I believe the editors have managed to find more than enough references to avoid it deletion. I would request everybody to find more references and material to further improve this article. Tv-med (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Missing pieces of the puzzle

This section is intended to help editors build a better article. It should include facts that may serve as important clues. It is not a place for argument.

• The March 30, 1999 ExpressIndia article, in its first paragraph, refers to Vaid as Deputy Inspector General of Police, Baramullah range in the Kashmir Valley. NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• I suggest adding Deputy Inspector General of Police, Baramullah range in the Kashmir Valley. as his one of the strategic posts help by S P Vaid in this article. Tv-med (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oct.2004 --"Dr Shesh Pal Vaid, IGP Modernisation Police Headquarters will be new IGP Jammu." Source:Daily_Excelsior. http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/web1/04oct26/news.htm NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Linking from BPR&D

Is it possible to link this article from BPR&D's wikipedia article? Tv-med (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think so. *Truth* (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Linked from article BPR&D. *Truth* (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Issues Resolved

I have removed the {orphan} and {refimproveBLP} tags because I thinks both the issues have been resolved. If anyone disagrees, please discuss. Regards *Truth* (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

RummyCircle information

Rummy circle online games admi ko ullu banarahahe sir 110.224.30.171 (talk) 15:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)