User talk:Paul20024

November 2023
Please do not falsely claim Bhardwaj was exonerated, or that the accusations were determined to be baseless. This is very different from having an investigation wrap up without charges. This is important, facts matter. You are free to say he was not charged, but you are not free to say he was exonerated without providing a specific citation from a reliable source that indicates this. Additionally, you need to read and thoroughly understand WP:CITE because you are not properly editing Naresh Bhardwaj. WP:BLP is the policy around this sort of thing. It is critically important to that you stop editing that article until you understand what was wrong with your edits, because continued violations will result in a block. --Yamla (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * I can have the heading changed to "No charges laid". is that okay? Also, I added in a additional information section & watched a video on how to cite, I followed exactly that with the website links provided? What is it that I am doing wrong?
 * Thank you, Paul20024 (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't use that as a heading, but you are certainly fine to clearly indicate in the article that no charges were laid. That appears, as best as I can tell, to be completely correct. You should not be adding an "additional information" section, it has no place on that article. You should also be careful believing what videos tell you about Wikipedia. They are basically always trying to mislead you and frequently encouraging really, really bad behaviour. WP:CITE and WP:RS are the key bits here, along with WP:NOR and WP:BLP. For example, you would be free to add a sentence to the end of the Controversy section of that article that said something along the lines of, "The police investigation ended with no charges laid" along with a citation to one of the news articles stating that. I'm not trying to claim this is the only acceptable sentence, mind you. You just need to be careful not to claim he was exonerated or the accusations were baseless, while also (of course) being careful not to claim he was guilty of offering the bribe. It's a tough line to walk. One final note. Right now, the article includes "Although cleared by an internal PC party investigation, Bhardwaj remained the subject of a criminal investigation." While true, that's probably leaning too far toward the "assume guilt" stage. While internal PC party investigations are, frankly, not worth spit, I think the second part of that sentence could be rewritten. Let me know what you think! --Yamla (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just need something on that Naresh was cleared of all charges, or the charges were dropped. If its better to add it after the controversy section, lets do that. There are plenty of articles stating he's been cleared. Are you able to do this instead for me? It's just to ensure I am not making another mistake again, please.
 * "The police investigation ended with no charges laid"
 * https://globalnews.ca/news/2313310/no-charges-laid-after-edmonton-police-investigation-says-ex-pc-mla-bhardwaj/
 * Thank you, Paul20024 (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, why do you "need" this? Do you have a conflict of interest (WP:COI)? Note that citation definitely does not claim Naresh was "cleared of all charges" but instead, that no charges were laid. That's actually stronger than having the charges dropped, mind you. I'm happy to make the changes if you wish, but will only edit to the extent provided by that citation. --Yamla (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This reason is because before initially making any changes in the article, there was nothing stating that he was cleared of any wrong doing or no charges were laid. Please use this heading instead
 * Police complete bribery investigation: No charges against former Alberta Tory (Naresh Bhardwaj)
 * https://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/police-complete-bribery-investigation-no-charges-against-former-alberta-tory Paul20024 (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that heading would be inappropriate. If you'd like me to go ahead with the edit as I previously discussed, I'm happy to do so. Otherwise, this is where I tap out. --Yamla (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy to use one or both of the citations you provided here, though. Thank you for that. --Yamla (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's fine.
 * Thank you, Paul20024 (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Please proceed with the changes you have mentioned.
 * Thanks again! Paul20024 (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. And you're welcome. I'm sure this was a frustrating experience for you, you showed great patience. --Yamla (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)