Talk:Saqib Bhatti

Not an obvious copy/paste from Bhatti's website
The 19 September version of his website shows it's only a few short paragraphs. An extensive addition (with many different references) was made to this article on 19 October. The next archived version of his website is 22 October, when it appears they have copied our article. FDW777 (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually found those archived pages too, however I am skeptical this is sufficient after taking a deeper dive myself. A deeper look into the about section of his website shows the images seem to have been uploaded on the 26th September, which would imply the site went live 4 days prior to the original edit. This situation is very weird to me, given the odd language used especially nearer the end. A large amount of the content here is very obviously bias, promotional, and written in a manor not appropriate for wikipedia. This particular information has been removed before for being too promotional, but the same user has come back to re-add the information again without any reasoning as to why. I understand your concerns but still believe this page should be reverted to it's previous state so it can be edited to remove the promotional content. Apologies if I have not done this reply properly, it is my first time. EvanM2015 (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not clear whether his site copied our article, or the other way round. However, in my experience of dealing with copyright violations it is very rare that edits like this are made, with many independent references. If there is problematic text that's promotional in tone then it can be rewritten, but I see no obvious reason to stub the article. The original removal was because it was "Promotional, uncited or poorly cited", but the October edit did include independent references as stated. FDW777 (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed a few problematic sentences. FDW777 (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the page back to a non-infringing state for the following reasons -
 * a) It's definitely not clear to me that the Wikepedia page came first; I do not believe it to be the case that the wikipedia page was first. Without clear and certain evidence, we cannot risk that Wikipedia holds infringing copyright material and therefore the only safe option is to remove it.
 * b) If it was the case that the Wikipedia article came first (which again, I do not believe to be the case), we cannot then use a copy of the page as a source for this page. That would make no sense.
 * c) It would be a clear indictment of the quality and bias of the page if the MP was to have copied the text for his own page. Again, I believe the MP's page came first but even if that's not the case it's simply not worth keeping the material
 * d) If the MP did copy the Wikipedia page, he has not cited Wikipedia as a source and his page would be infringing. If that is the case it needs to be reported to Wikipedia and then Parliamentary authorities for removal.
 * -- Joolz (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the direction of copying is relatively unimportant - clearly if the text was written here first, it was written by someone with a conflict of interest and is poorly sourced and promotional as well as being the same as on his website. SmartSE (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Horizon post office scandal
Why has full compensation not yet been paid to these people who have lost everything working for the post office 86.1.215.70 (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)