Talk:Jessia Islam

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Jessia Islam at Jamuna Television.jpg

main header tag
"A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject". Who's accused of this? This header doesn't make sense to me, and I'm frustrated that I'm still confined to talk space here at en Sucker for All (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @Sucker for All, that tag was added in this edit. The editor who added it is blocked for copyvio, but you can ask them on their talk about the reasons for the tag. —valereee (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So the user who added the edit claiming bias in this article didn't clarify who was guilty of COI and is also blocked from even this space for copyvio.. Shouldn't we revert that edit? Sucker for All (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Sucker for All, probably not, unless we can find no evidence of COI editing or are satisfied that the COI editing has stopped. The fact someone doesn't understand copyvio policy doesn't mean everything they've ever done should be reverted. Normally I'd ping the editor here if I couldn't myself find any evidence of COI editing, but since they're blocked they can't respond here. You can ask them about it on their talk, though. Or are you saying you've combed through the edit history and not found any evidence of COI editing? It can be difficult to spot, even for experienced editors, and it can definitely be difficult to completely rule out, so I personally wouldn't want to remove this tag without discussing with the editor who placed it. —valereee (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. I really do think that just the fact that the edit history has no real evidence of COI editing is enough of an indication. Doesn't really seem like anyone specifically's accused Sucker for All (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Sucker for All, that's the problem. It's hard to prove a negative. I haven't gone through this edit history with a fine-toothed comb, and I really have no interest in doing so. What makes you feel there's no real evidence of COI editing? I see several socks (including the blocked editor, it turns out). That's at least reasonable evidence of COI editing. I've semi'd the article per WP:GS/PAGEANT as socking at beauty pageant articles is reasonable cause for indef protection. —valereee (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request
Some information of this article nee to be edited as date of birth and other biographical Enteditor0 (talk) 07:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)