User talk:Acnaren

Your vandalism edits on May 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Swami Nithyananda, you may be blocked from editing. Vandalism warning for deleting authentic articles with correct references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookinhotbra (talk • contribs) 07:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry Lookinhotbra, but you are the one who is vandalizing the page which has been created after lot of effort by many people. If you have issues with any specific parts discuss it in the talk page. Bulk reverting an article is grounds for being blocked from editing.

How is it violating when i have complied with wikipedia's rules of WP:SPS WP:SOURCES and WP:NOR?? You have removed all references from national daily newspapers in may 2013 and also deleted all my edits to keep the article NEUTRAL. I have reported the article to admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookinhotbra (talk • contribs) 05:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Keeping it neutral is not the same as making the article content free - which is what you have done. Check WP:ABOUTSELF about using self published sources if there are no other third party sources of a biography. Lets work together to remove any part you feel is out of place. But removing the whole page is quite counter productive.

Arunachala Nithya acnaren 2010.jpg

Hi, what do you mean by composed using my pictures - do you own the copyright to the part of the picture the is the person? Did you take that picture yourself? If not then where did you get it from? I am quessing you do not own the copyright to that part of the image otherwise you could just release that picture with a commons license. If that part of the picture is non free licence without permission for derivatives then I am pretty sure it would be a copyright violation to photoshop and use it in the way you have and to then release the work under a commons license when that part of the picture does not belong to you.Off2riorob (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well.. I did run the modified image through the official folks at the ashram when I made the modification a while back. I don't have unrestricted rights to the original .. but the usage of the original for this particular modification is approved and I am the owner of this modification. I have also asked them for releasing an official photo for the article and they say they are working for it. When that comes through it should replace this image. Acnaren (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think if you could get an official release that would be fantastic and good luck with that. I will ask at the media files page about keeping this one in the article but I am pretty sure without permission for that part of the composite picture that its a violation of copyright. Off2riorob (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I have asked here Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#composite_picture - thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

As per my thoughts and the reply at the media help desk I have added a seven day request for permission to the picture and it will be deleted if no permission is received. If the owner grants permission for release and they send an email we will be able to keep it and use it, so it may be worthwhile asking them. The template below is automatic and you are free to remove it at your pleasure, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Arunachala Nithya acnaren 2010.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Arunachala Nithya acnaren 2010.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

September 2012

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to Swami Nithyananda. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Accusations of sock puppetry. Please take it to WP:SPI. ⁓ Hello71 01:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Swami Nithyananda. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

SPI report Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lookinhotbra

Really? You did that without even looking at my edits or anything? Amazing. Dougweller (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I should have said ours. And I've got over 100,000 edits, Sean has over 25,000, and you've accused us of being a sock of a new editor. Dougweller (talk) 08:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

sorry. It was a big mistake. This user has been edit warring with SPs for a long time and I assumed this was such a case again. Will be more careful next time.

Acnaren i have been wikipedia member since may 2013, I edit mostly on "list of indian entrepeneurs", graphology and other small edit change stuff. I was shocked to see nithyananda's wiki page earlier this month especially considering the reputation he has in India and the media. You and a couple of other users have been camping on Nithyananda page bulldozing other users for quite sometime, ignoring all wikipedia rules ( i checked the talk page and nithyananda articles edit history..thats how i came to know of all the content you had deleted.. you guys create ruckus and make accusations against anyone who has a different opinion. Wikipedia does not exclusively belong to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookinhotbra (talk • contribs) 10:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Lookinhotbra, there has not been any ruckus or pressurizing. There is a bunch of people interested in defaming Swami and I am interested in presenting the facts and keeping it encyclopedic and not like a tabloid or newspaper. They keep deleting any self published source - which is not the right thing to do. Also this scandal news - as you have reverted the controversy section to - is 3 years old and nothing has moved on it since then. You need to give more importance to the recent developments - I will send you these links and you should take a look at them. Also the way it looks now is like a charge sheet - not an encyclopedia. This is what I was trying to correct. Just because there are references doesn't mean it is factual. Showing all the cases put on someone - not convictions.. just charges - is a easy way of making someone look bad. As per Indian law a person is innocent till convicted (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence#Common_law). We have to be extra careful when dealing with biographies of living people since much of the information is dynamic. Quoting from WP:BLP

"Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment".

Lets work together and make the article accurate. But please keep in mind that the media hype is not what needs to be shown but proven facts. I am happy that Sean.hoyland is getting involved in this. Hope we can work together so we can present the right inforamtion.