Talk:BOL Network

Humarinews.com

This is simply a blog and fails WP:RS. Using it to discuss a living person may be a WP:BLP violation. Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

edit request on 1 June 2015

62.17.37.187 (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

BOL Network is sold out

Defunct BOL Network and BOL News has been taken over in August 2015 by ARY Digital Network CEO Salman Iqbal.--Jogi 007 (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

edit request: BOL Network deal with ARY falls through

Note that BOL Network sale to the ARY Group has been abandoned. Stabani (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent Editing

User:Njdeda Rlase your recent edits have relegated the scandal to a small space. Feel free to edit as much as you want, but be warned that I will be changing the article when you are done in order to give prime position to the scandal. TouristerMan (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Touristerman, My edits are not related to the axact scandal. They are about other topics of BOL. Please do not make disruptive edits to the article. If you want to add something to controversy you can edit the controversy section or Axact article ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njdeda Rlase (talk • contribs) 11:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

This is how other news networks have controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN If you want to highlight prime position of Axact scandal, it can be done in axact page or in controversy section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njdeda Rlase (talk • contribs) 11:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Njdeda Rlase you are adding WP:UNDUE information which is not needed here. For example the lines that PEMRA granted it a license is not needed here as it brings no encyclopedic mention to the article. Same is the case with other edits made by you, most of them are sourced to BOL's own website, so we have a sourcing problem as well. Furthermore BOL was owned by Axact, it came under the same FIA raid as AXACT and it had the same guy in its drivers seat as Axact, therefore the connection to AXACT scandal is worthy of mention here. You should also note the fact that BOL is not a "real" channel as it did not broadcast anything, the only thing that makes BOL pass WP:GNG is the scandal attached to it, therefore we should mention the scandal prominently. We can take this editing to a dispute resolution venue if you so require. TouristerMan (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not adding undue information. Have you seen other similar articles? All international articles of TV Channels have this information and wikipedia policies describe clearly that it is OK to use company websites to reference information about facts. Official location, licenses are facts. Who said licensing authority should not be mentioned in encyclopedia? It *should* be mentioned. Why do you think BOL is not a real channel. I read that it was licensed and test transmission was made. You are utterly wrong. I may not be from the origin country, but I do know what TV channels are.

You are wrong that I removed scandal. I highlighted the controversy section infact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njdeda Rlase (talk • contribs) 14:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

You have confused Axact with BOL and you have removed my days of edits and others edits just like that. If a parent company is in a scandal it will not make all sister company profiles change as well. You should note this. If you think this channel does not pass general guideline that you hyperlinked, you should nominate it for deletion. Let us see what wikipedia staff has to say on that on wikipedia !

Instead of destroying my edits you should make your own edits related to scandal or discuss as you say. Stop your destructive editing on wikipedia. I dont care if you want to mention the scandal more prominently or add more information about controversy. I care about my edits you are destroying.

User:Njdeda Rlase What information do you want to add? I will add any information that is sourced to anything "OTHER" than BOL's own website. This is as per wikipedias WP:RS policy. TouristerMan (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Njdeda Rlase I have now added most of the relevant information that was in your edits. Any other information that you want to add you can discuss here first as per WP:BRD. You are ADDING the information so it is upto YOU to prove that it should be added. You can try to stonewall if you like, but irrelevant information is not going to be added to this article. Also, refrain from reverting me blindly, if you are reverting for a reason state it clearly, just saying "disruptive" is disruptive in itself. TouristerMan (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I have added what I wanted to add. You are destroying my edits and then asking what I want to add? Are you doing this on purpose? You are just a beginner level editor like me. Why would you have more authority over content. You should discuss just like you are asking me to discuss because guess what, I was here first and my edits are weeks old, explained and accepted. You are changing information and so you have to explain why you are doing this to my edits. Instead of teaching me, you should discuss why you are removing each part of information so that I can answer ok? I have read BRD which was shown to me by Wikipedia staff in my messages. This means you are changing information boldly and you have to discuss after I rejected your revert. Tell me what YOU want to add? You should have added information YOU wanted to add without removing information I had added — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njdeda Rlase (talk • contribs) 19:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Are you ready to talk now or will you revert and destroy my version again without discussion? I was here first so read BRD before destroying edits of 2 weeks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njdeda Rlase (talk • contribs) 19:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Njdeda Rlase no you have it wrong. When you ADDED the information it was a BOLD edit, I reverted your edit, then instead of discussing the edit you reverted me. This is not BRD. with BRD you DISCUSS my revert instead of engaging in warfare. Anyway I have reported you to 3PR as you have not even discussed you edits. "I was here first" is a very "odd" way of editing. No one edits that way, you need to create content that others agree with and that is as per policy. I was here first does not carry weight. TouristerMan (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to say but your edit was bold too. No other editor made objection for days. Then after 2 day gap you object to standing article version. It should be discussed. I agree we should not fight over this. I have told one admin that I will not revert but you are also on brightline. Are you ready to discuss now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njdeda Rlase (talk • contribs) 20:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not saying I am here first in that sense. I am saying I was here first and my edits were accepted so you are breaking BRD, say what, no one reverted me. Now you were reverted. Follow rules yourself as well my friend.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njdeda Rlase (talk • contribs) 20:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC) 

User:Njdeda Rlase sure I am ready to discuss. Please answer these question. What "information" do you need added to the article that I had not already added? Why are you removing the scandal when the scandal is the only thing that makes this pass WP:GNG ?TouristerMan (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I am not removing scandal. You changed how article looked from top to bottom. I watch TV alot and I know about this scandal but I know about channels too. See my version of information, I have added all information I want. Now why are you removing it? Answer that? Why are you worried about facts like news channel, platforms, history. Dont you want to make this article better? See your version of this information. Initial start, scandal, scandal, denial in seperate heading?, then infrastructure and then more controversies? How do you call that encyclopedic ? my version is more informative. You should add subheadings in controversy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njdeda Rlase (talk • contribs) 20:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Njdeda Rlase Please do not answer my question with another question. And please speak coherently or I may consider you to be having competency issues. Please do not try to steer the conversation away from "your edits". I am simply asking "WHY ARE YOU REMOVING THE SCANDAL"? Is there a valid reason for your removal of SCANDAL? Also please read WP:RS. The sources that you are using for most of your information are not reliable TouristerMan (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not have any competency issues. Stop trying to avoid answering my questions and expect me answering your questions. I have told you that i have NOT removed the scandal from the article. It is in controversy section !! Why are you removing other facts that I asked ?What is justification of this editing of yours? I have read RS. You are wrong in interpreting it about facts. So have you read the controversy? Read scandal there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njdeda Rlase (talk • contribs) 20:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)