Talk:Gurbaksh Chahal/Archives/2019

Characters Involved in Chahal's 2014 Misdemeanor Convictions
Why Can't we mention that the other party involved in Gurbaksh Chahal's recent criminal case Her name has been mentioned in multiple media outlets as the girlfriend who called 911 and brought the police to his home.

She is the one that suddenly went silent, dropped all her allegations against Chahal and out of nowhere hired very pricey SF Criminal attorney for representation. She doesn't even get mentioned? Chahal's reputation is marred and she gets to scurry off into the sunset without any attention when she's talked about many times in the press? This is an encyclopedia, not a marketing brochure or a resume for subject. Encyclopedias go into details!

50.200.126.122 (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "Scurry into the sunset"? You make it sound like she was guilty of something. She was the victim. Leave her alone. Chisme (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, all disgusting dehumanization and victim-blaming aside, the reason your edit was removed was stated in the edit summary; see WP:AVOIDVICTIM & WP:BLPNAME. If you have an issue with those policies please take it up at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons and see about having them changed. If you are looking for someone to share your opinion that the victim here should be publicly shamed for ruining the reputation of the man that attacked her, that is not the point of WP. Try Encyclopedia Dramatica. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  05:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * IP 50.200.126.122: Wikipedia's BLP policy applies just as much to talk pages as it does to article space, therefore I've removed the name again as you appear to be using it as some sort of name and shame weapon. This is not appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia, including this page. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Without naming her, there are some commentaries that whereas Chahal became notorious and public through all this, she was silenced and has hidden. "Scurrying off into the sunset" could also be phrased as "Silenced and ignored as the female victim of a notorious abuser". Editorializing aside the way this played out in public could become relevant to the incident, and thus to the main article. I don't think she has to be named in order to have that discussion here, or in the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * has it precisely right.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

What makes an award notable?
Hi. Several of the awards and recognitions here are from organizations that do not have an article in the English wikipedia. If the org isn't notable, is getting the award from them notable? Chris vLS (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think awards that seem prominent and remarkable regardless of the organisation having an article on Wikipedia should be listed. – Aditya (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that we want to include prominent awards . . . but what should be the standard, if not the general notability standard for wikipedia? Some of the sources don't look like they would pass that test . . . Chris vLS (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, rather than talk about general stuff... Are you (or anyone else) familiar with Anokhi? I can't tell if it's a big deal or totally obscure? Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Anokhi seems like an obscure tabloid. It describes itself as the "premier 'go to' media for all aspects of pop culturallifestyle (sic) & entertainment-based content". Doesn't seem noteworthy to me. – Aditya (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, removed Anokhi. Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that if neither the giver of the award nor the award in and of itself is notable enough for us to have an article here in Wikipedia, that's prima facie evidence that the award is too minor to use in articles about recipients (see "the coveted Silver Sow Award"). -- Orange Mike  &#124;  Talk  15:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, man, adding a little WKRP into one's day definitely improves it. Thank you, sir. In this case the subject is notable, but not all of the awards are . . . butthe Anokhi one might have been the only dead wood, will check again. Cheers! Chris vLS (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Full protection...
...for 5 days; warnings for all concernend: no personal attacks, no threatening. Please use the this rather neglected talk-page, while refraining from ad-hominem attacks, and concentrate on finding concensus while maintaining a collaborative atmosphere. Give it a go. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Per discussion at WP:ANI, article is fully protected until April 10, 2017. SportsLair (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. It was a request at WP:RFP; the ANI plays only a small role in my decision to fully protect. Lectonar (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Mediation
I propose starting the mediation and draft the content which will comply with the Wikipedia guidelines, especially WP:BLP, and will be neutral. I invite all involved editors to participate in the discussion and present the points instead of continuing the edit war when the page will be unprotected again. --Lingveno (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * According to MOS:INTRO, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, so I would suggest not adding information abort controversies to the preamble as it is the information which itself does not make the article's subject notable. Also, the controversy part of an article is enormous, it is bigger than all other parts combined, so I would go with summarizing as it overweights other parts of the article. The article's subject is notable for being a known entrepreneur, an invitee to the Oprah Winfrey Show and philanthropy as well as a winner of the numerous awards. I would, though, also neutralize the upper parts of the article making them less advertizing. Moreover, a good style would be listing awards in the career part and having some of the most important ones in the preamble. Publications will go at the very bottom, after the patents part. Best, Lingveno (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The subject, however, is notable for his domestic violence. If you Google him from the website or from Google News, the majority of information you get is about his domestic violence. For that reason, I think a sentence or paragraph about that belongs in the lede. Is being an invitee to the Oprah Winfrey Show so important it belongs in the lede? I don't think so. Note as well that a sockpuppet investigation has been launched against 96.8.1.144, and so far it appears he is guilty of sockpuppetry. If that is the case, I suggest we roll back this article to 29 February 2016 before 96.8.1.144 and his/her sockpuppets began white-washing this article. I agree about streamlining the "Controversy" section. Chisme (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Chisme. If you look at his edit history, he seems to have unusual liking to making this page a gossip hub. Much of the edit warring can be attributed to him - despite multiple requests of refrainment; check the edit history. It is my good faith I didn't report his IP - lesson learned. In the interest of moving forward, I am agreement with the proposed meditation steps. The proposal is neutral and adheres to the guidelines of NPOV. It further provides this subject the same exposure on Wikipedia as other famed or unfamed politicians, celebrities and business leaders. Chisme can google other such entities and provide examples of similar notations of NPOV on their wiki pages. To single out one person for crucification (for whatever the intention) is not what wikipedia is all about. This is not a news site. People have links they can reference for additional reading. Of course, Thank you for your suggestion, Lingveno. Your proposal of handling this conflict, has been the most productive conversation on this page yet. Jui89 (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Jui89, please always assume a good faith. Chisme, the subject is indeed known for the domestic violence, though being known for something does not mean being notable for it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a domestic violence is not a reason to write an article. Please correct me if I maybe misunderstand the MOS:INTRO, but apart of being just a summary of what is written in the article, it's main task remains giving us the reason why the article about its subject is written, i.e. why the subject is notable. --Lingveno (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Whilst it may not be a reason to write an article, is there any reason why it should be removed wholesale? And Jui89, this is the first time I have seen you attempt any sort of productive conversation on the subject. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Skamecrazy123, I am not trying to remove it wholsale, I am trying to say that it is not something which is usually written in a preamble. --Lingveno (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I never said you were. Others did, hence the reason why this page was protected. And I am I getting "preamble" and the lead paragraph mixed up? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Anyone here?
I'm not trying to force a discussion here, but it's two days until the protection is lifted and nothing has been decided. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm here. I propose these changes, one having to do with editing and the other edit reviews: Here is my draft of the article. I believe it satisfies all the criteria. I left the accolades and awards stuff out of the lede until such time as we can confirm which awards he really received. I marked all dead links in my draft. This will either find links or be deleted from the article. Chisme (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Editing: 1)Roll back this article to 31 March before the sockpuppet activity. After that, make the lede describe Chahal's businesses and business successes in the first paragraph, and briefly describe his domestic violence in the second paragraph. Then condense the "Domestic violence conviction" section to three paragraphs instead of six.
 * Edit reviews: Require editors to explain on this Talk page why they made their changes. Chisme (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with, would also like to move awards to the career section whilst listing the most important ones making him notable in the intro, making it the second paragraph and the conviction the third paragraph. Also, move publications down, after the patents part. Everyone agrees? Best, Lingveno (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree about the first three paragraphs. However, "Awards and recognition," "Patents," and "Publications" are lists. Isn't it customary to put lists at the bottom of articles? Is there a guideline about this? I just went to the Paul McCartney article (a random choice) and his "Awards and honours" are at the bottom of the article. So are Saul Bellow's and Steve Jobs's (more random choices). The problem with putting lists in the middle of an article is they disrupt the flow of reading. Chisme (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * True. --Lingveno (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am now preparing the new version of the article based on the consensus. --Lingveno (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am now preparing one too. About the $200 dollars that Chahal's sister Kamal Kaur paid you to edit this page, did you get paid in advance? Or do you get paid when you finish the job? Chisme (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is my draft. Edits there meet the consensus as well as WP:NOTNP, WP:NOTABLENEWS, and WP:BLPCRIME. I will get paid once the conflict is resolved. --Lingveno (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see several problems with your draft. 1)Lede (intro): Is it really necessary to say how much he made from sales of a company in the lede? The stuff about G4 holdings only cites G4 web pages, which is not a legitimate source. A source can't refer to itself. "He is also known to be the only Indian-American to be invited on the Oprah Winfrey Show to discuss his successful journey as an entrepreneur beginning at the age of 16" is simply not true. Nothing in the cited source backs it up. About "Chahal received numerous awards and recognitions," did you check the links for these awards? Many are dead or bogus. For example, the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award does not mention Chahal's name, either in the Wiki article or in the web page cited. 2)"Early life" The second paragraph describes his career. This should go in the next section. 3) "Career" You didn't mention his Planet Bollywood restaurant. About RadiumOne, readers will want to know why he was terminated as CEO; it should be stated briefly. He no longer works for Gravity4. Why is that not stated? 4) "Philanthropy" No citation is shown for the Secret Millionaire TV show. Shouldn't his Chahal Foundation be described here? 5) "Controversy" I know we agreed to par this down, but it is a weighty topic and it deserves more than this bare-bones summary. "..take a plea bargain at the request of his board of directors so the company’s pending IPO was not suspended" makes it sound like he pleaded guilty only to satisfy his board of directors, which isn't so. 6) "Awards and recognitions" You did not go through these awards to see whether the links still hold or whether they are valid? The first one for example, "2006: AlwaysOn Top Innovator of the Year," says BlueLithium is the innovator, not Chahal. Some of these links are dead. Some are bogus. 7) "Patents" Chahal created most of these patents with others. They should be credited too. Conclusion: Your draft is lacking in many areas. Let me take a crack at this. I'll try to earn your $200 for you. Chisme (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , I will get back top that after I get some sleep and we will reach the consensus. --Lingveno (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to add other people’s names should be on this page, as they are not notable. Restaurant has no reference in any other relevant newspaper and lacks credibility. One mention in some tabloid newspaper does not count news worthy. The career switch of CEO to Kamal Kaur was one-day news in the media – that didn’t survive and doesn’t belong in Wikipedia per rules. She was not the CEO and is not the CEO. --Lingveno (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Since Kamal Kaur hired you to edit this page, you are in no position to judge objectively whether her name belongs in the article. The TechCrunch citation reads, "Gurbaksh Chahal has handed over his CEO role at Gravity4 to his sister." As for the restaurant, it was one of his business ventures, and it is covered in Business Insider, which is hardly "a tabloid newspaper." Chisme (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not Kamal who hired me, but Kay. Kaur is a very common Indian name though, I have three Kaur in my university, if I am not mistaken. --Lingveno (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So who is the person who hired you? What was their motive? Anyhow, to start the ball rolling and because I addressed your objections, I'm putting my version of the article in. I took out his sister's name. Let's start from here. Your "combined" draft did not address any of the issues I outlined in great detail above. It is full of unsourced inaccuracies. Chisme (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit Reviews
I've started a separate heading to discuss this (so that I don't interfere with the discussion above). My concerns with this are how they would be enforced? If there are no policies relevent to this suggestion then I don't see how we can get people to explain their edits. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead
The details on the domestic abuse case are quite pertinent; I restored them to the lead: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Good move. The only individual who objects to this is the IP-hopper who most likely has connections of some kind to the subject. Lepricavark (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we have to semi-protect the page or make the pending changes protection. If not effective, make the extended confirmed protection. --Lingveno (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP has been blocked for a week, so it should be quiet here for now: Special:Contributions/96.8.1.144. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm all for that. I'm fairly sure the lead paragraph should include controversies anyway. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you google Chahal's name, you will find the majority of info on the net has to do with his domestic violence. Yes, it belongs in the leded. The IP hopper will be back in a week (or sooner under a different appellation), my crystal balls says. Chisme (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

"Awards and recognitions"
The "Awards and recognitions" section is full of dead and bogus links. I propose to remove the deadwood from this section. Any objections? Chisme (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , I have rescued most of the dead links. --Lingveno (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But you didn't take note whether these were actual awards or simply magazine articles with titles like "Top 25 Tech Entrepreneurs." An article with a title like that doesn't constitute an award. It's just a newspaper or magazine article. I took out references to the magazine articles and left the awards. Chisme (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree that it should be nuked. Minor awards that are irrelevant to subject's notability. The "Philanthropy" section could likewise go, or be drastically reduced. Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. You may note that the “Awards and recognitions” section was introduced into the article by User: 98.210.152.225, whose contributions to Wikipedia were made solely to the Gurbaksh Chahal article. Chisme (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Here are the awards section; I don't believe any are worth preserving, but listing here for storage / discussion, if needed:

Section: Awards and recognitions

 * 2006: AlwaysOn Top Innovator of the Year
 * 2010: BusinessWeek, Best Young Tech Entrepreneurs
 * 2010: Pace University, Leaders in Management Award and honorary degree in Commercial Science
 * 2010: MensXP.com, X51 - India's Most Influential Business Man of the Year
 * 2011: Most Influential CEO - Under30CEO
 * 2012: Light of India Awards 2012: People's Award for Excellence in Business Leadership and Amrapali Award for Entrepreneur of the Year
 * 2013: Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award - Northern California

K.e.coffman (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Page protection for one year
I have taken up this issue at proper place: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=782247098&oldid=782243262 --Bhadani (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Why not keep the protection? It's not like he's a prominent public figure at the present time. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree; I don't see any issue in the long-term protection. When and if there are new developments, then the issue can be revisited. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Updates
For when the page goes live in May 2018, here's an interesting article from the Daily Beast which describes what the subject has been up to lately. Chisme (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Why am I not surprised? :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * More Chahal news for when this page goes live again: "Court upholds ruling against SF tech mogul Chahal in domestic violence case". Chisme (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image
There is a question about whether to use File:Gurbaksh Chahal 2012.jpg or File:Gurbaksh Chahal with U.S. President Donald Trump.jpg. I personally feel the original image is a better one because he's the main subject - in the latter image Trump is clearly the focus of the image and he's just there. Additionally, I notice that the latter image will be deleted unless permission is provided (which I doubt, since it was taken from Facebook and is thus a copyright violation). Primefac (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The latter image has been deleted, so the point is currently moot; having seen the image before it was deleted I agree with Primefac's assessment. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 16:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not have an image of him and Obama. A crop of that photo with only Mr. Chalal's face is good. An image of him and Mr. Trump would not be inappropriate. - Mardus /talk 06:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If the image is properly licensed. - Mardus /talk 06:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

His conviction used to be in the first sentence, should this be restored?
I saw the recent news coverage of Chahal losing his appeal and being jailed. I was surprised to see that the first sentence was changed from ending with "who has been convicted of domestic violence." First of all, it is highly notable, given the second offense. Second of all, it seems safer from a WP:BLP perspective to state his conviction, rather than the more vague "history of". Reviewing the talk history, it seems like removing the blocked, paid editor from the mix, the consensus would have been to restore it. Thoughts? Chris vLS (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy
User:Chisme There are several factual inaccuracies on the page. One of them that can be corrected is Residence. It is listed as New Delhi, India which is completely incorrect it is New York, New York. It can be seen on several news references, linkedin profile and other sources. 103.89.255.190 (talk) 10:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Removing the negative aspects from introduction.
Hi everyone, at the introduction of the chahal article there is a line "Chahal has a history of committing domestic violence and battery crimes.[4][5][6][7]". I assumed this was just written in the trollistic manner, it directly affect the person behavior and his work. It is true that he had done the domestic violence but the line at the first paragraph introduce him negatively to the readers. As per the chahal suggestion and my opinion it is not good to keep it at the introduction, it directly reflects his negative aspect. Does it is possible to put it on the section of the domestic violence or either remove it from the introduction.Iammuktisubedi (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur; if a person isn't known for something specific it probably shouldn't be in the lead. I've removed it. Primefac (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm extremely dismayed to see this. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with the long-term efforts that have been made by numerous SPAs to whitewash the negative content from this article. The claim of trolling above is a claim that has been repeatedly made by the since-blocked SPAs who have tried to whitewash this article. These are not honest people and we should not work with them. Seriously, the sockpuppetry is pretty glaring. There's no way we can reward this behavior by removing content that absolutely belongs as part of a summary of the article. We cannot let the POV-pushing whitewashers win. That would go against everything Wikipedia stands for. Lepricavark (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been editing, protecting, and dealing with this page since early 2017, so I'm well-familiar with the attempts to remove this sort of content. My thinking was that it's not what he's "known for" and thus listing it in the lead seemed a little bit unnecessary. Granted, he has had this happen quite a lot, but it's not like someone says "Oh yeah, Gurbaksh Chahal, the guy who's always beating up women." Whether or not it's in the lead, it's still in the body of the text. Primefac (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, you are familiar with the page's history. My bad. Were it not for the long-term POV-pushing campaign, I might not object to the removal of the sentence. But I think it would send a terrible message to reward what seems to be obvious meat/sock editing (probably including undisclosed financial compensation) by editors who have a clear agenda. Furthermore, Chahal's domestic abuse is the only reason I know anything about him. I'm not sure he'd be all that famous if he wasn't a woman beater. Lepricavark (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And looking back through the logs, that's exactly the issues that led me to be watching this page in the first place. Looks like I got hoodwinked. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It happens to the best of us. No worries. Lepricavark (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Primefac, I'm actually not sure that this is so. His criminal background seems to get quite a bit of exposure — it may actually belong in the lead. El_C 18:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right; I started editing here because of the whitewashing issue, so it's clearly something that needs mentioning. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering the strength of BLP policy, it's amazing users attempt to white-wash it at all given how iron-clad the sourcing is. Rivselis (talk) 02:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well foremost thing, I am neither his paid editor nor his employee. If he needs to pay why he would pay me even I don't have a shit of wikipedia knowledge as like experienced ones. Rather than me, you looks to be paid by someone to make Chahal reputation worse than it is or either you have personal bad relations with him. Sorry! For the objection, but it is not fair to blame others as a paid and come here in wikipedia to creat vandalism. I accept chahal had did the domestic violence and the court had sentenced him to jail for his guilty behaviour. Who are we, to give him a punishment throughout his life? If his violence can be his introduction then I object, why other people in wikipedia didn't get their wrong activities as their introduction, there are thousands of personalities who had done such cases but unfortunately, there activities are not included in their main introduction although they were included in the page. Is wikipedia policy is not same for all? Some people have history of data breach, some has history of doing criminal case, not all are included in introduction. A line really affects his life, business and so on. If such cases were start to include in introduction then the introduction may looks like 5-6 pages essay, not might be in his case but might be on other people cases. If nothing can be done regarding removal of the line, you can shift the same line to the section of domestic violence, not needed to erase it. He had done many good things also, and had sufficuent reference within the page, so please add these to the introduction. Even he is phd graduate, so might needed to add Dr. in his name. Considering these points, please make this article neutral, I might not have magic in words but I understood what is right or wrong. Think twice before making descisions, if his crime is to be compulsory in introduction, then it also needs to be of other people too, cause wikipedia BLP policy is same for all. Might be in history, people related to him, were here to creat vandalism but I am not such type of person. I had did all these things to make his article neutral. Looking forward to hear a positive response.and sorry for blaming Lepricavark, I hadn't such intention but he might not have done same thing with me. Sorry for that!Iammuktisubedi (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The but other stuff exists argument is inherently faulty, regardless of its validity in this case (of which I highly doubt, anyway). All we care about is applying due weight to coverage by reliable sources and we have no other considerations but that. El_C 04:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * If anything, this page is quite positive. After 2007's purchase of BlueLithium, I only heard of his consistency at domestic abuse and related legal affairs. &#x222F; WBG converse 05:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * El_CI don't know what your argument here. I am just saying wikipedia is suppose to be a fair platform. You are all choosing to be selective on this page and only have all the negatives only come out. There are some serious trolls here. You make it sound like you simply made a wikipedia page because of a domestic violence case. if you don't think he's famous for what he accomplished in his life, then why even have a wikipedia page about him?Iammuktisubedi (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * &#x222F; WBG He has done many things since 2007. He founded another company and sold it. He also got a PhD, patents, and many other things. But, you are simply trolling to only have negative things show on this page. You are all hired guns or hired trolls. I would like this page properly handled per Wikipedia guidelines.Iammuktisubedi (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My argument has links — click on them. Avoid calling other editors "trolls," or your access to editing this page will be revoked. El_C 05:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)