| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Trivial information
editIP, not all factually accurate information is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Minor details, like someone temporarily filling a position while the actual holder is away, are routine and insignificant. Such information doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've been monitoring this BLP for a while, as it's on my watchlist. The content that the IP is attempting to add seems encyclopedic and should be included. Additionally, there appears to be edit warring happening, which could be avoided. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Wording
editIP, Wikipedia is not their courtroom where we need to address them as "Justice," "Chief Justice," or "His Lordship" every time we mention their name. Your wording includes one instance of "Justice" and three instances of "Chief Justice"—that's excessive. My wording is more concise and to the point. Brevity is the soul of wit; we should aim for clarity and conciseness in our writing. For example, in the article on John Roberts, there's no repeated mention of "Chief Justice"; he's simply referred to as Roberts. The same applies to other high public office holders. I shouldn't have to try to reason with someone like you who is already evading a block. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)