User talk:Xrie

Click New Section tab above to start a new discussion. To join a discussion, click edit corresponding to the discussion heading. If you post a message on my talk page, I will reply here itself.-- SreejithInfo (talk)

Talk page archives

Current Talk page: Apr 2012 onwards
Archive 1: Apr 2007 to Mar 2008
Archive 2: Apr 2008 to Mar 2009
Archive 3: Apr 2009 to Mar 2010
Archive 4: Apr 2010 to Mar 2011
Archive 5: Apr 2011 to Mar 2012

Amritanandamayi Page

Sreejith, I have been trying to do some work on Amritanandamayi's page. I see you have as well. It looks like some overzealous person has deleted the entire section. While I dont think that is the solution, I have a few concerns regarding the controversy section with regards to Wiki's guidelines for Biography of Living Person. I request you to please look at Amma's Talk page Talk:Mata Amritanandamayi and see my inputs there. For the time being, I would like to make a few suggestions that I hope will be acceptable to us both:

Even though I feel it is inappropriate to have this foreign fund thing there due to BLP guidlines, it definitely does not belong on the page of Amritanandamayi but on the page of [Mata Amritanandmayi Math]. So I request you to please move it there. I feel this is also the case with the AIMS strike.

But regarding the Satnam Singh issue--it really must be deleted, as it is not a controversy regarding MAM but a controversy regarding the mental hospital where he was beaten to death. I see on Amma's Talk page some other people have already expressed such concerns. Furthermore, according to multiple news reports, wardens there have been arrested already. It is truly inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanceMurdock999 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the post here. The controversy is about the death of the person, I agree, but the incidents happened in the ashram and when he first attempted to disrupt the prayer and darshan of Amritanandamayi. So I feel it is worthy of mention there. It can be stated pretty clearly in the section about what happened thereafter. I think I have already put contents there justifying the views. The point is simple - the incidents that resulted in the death of the person started from them ashram when he attempted to attack Amritanandamayi. Hope you are clear about this now.

Regarding the foreign funds accusal, it is a widespread allegation against the ashram. It would be nice if the sentence about the worth of 400 crore can be removed from there. But the points by eminent people such as Sukumar Azhikode must stay as they have only demanded to audit her funds.

If everything is to be attributed to the Math alone, then the very existence of the sub sections such as Charity, Bhajans, Books and Publications etc should also be removed from the page, as it's all done by the Math and not Amritanandamayi. One more, Amritanandamayi is noted for other things, and not her bhajan. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 08:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. When you recently edited Anoop Menon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vijayaraghavan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I gave the correct link to the intended article now. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Mata amritanandamayi.

Dear sreejith,

Although you support your versions with media references. Media never said that it is done by Ashram. Please remove your unnecessary comments defaming her name. As per Wiki rules, you don't have any rights to write about a living person's biography in bad motive. The died person was under judicial custody and matter is in court.

Dear anonymous, thanks for the point mentioned here. Please note that I have correctly changed the heading of the section from "Criticism" to "Controversy". The death in question happened to a person who was taken under custody from the Math. It indeed is a controversy and worthy of mention in the page. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 07:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sreejith, If a thief is taken into custody from your house and thief suppose died in Police station, are you responsible for thief's death. It looks you are with ulterior motive to defame AMMA. It is against wiki's rights and Indian judiciary. AIMS issue also under judiciary. You are violating Indian Judicial law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.243.61.82 (talk) 08:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki articles are not governed by Indian law. The content on the page comes under the heading "Controversies". It indeed is a controversy and should stay. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 08:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be. Let it stay. But don't delete our versions. Please once more. If individual is purposely creating a defamation to living Public figures, He can be brought under Jurisdiction.

Please refer wiki rights before writing any thing.

This is not about keeping "our versions" as you believe. This is not a place to exchange different types of arguments, for it is not a discussion forum. Anything and everything written here must be sourced. Let me politely inform you that "legal threatening" (as you are doing now) is a violation of Wiki norms. I have been a Wikipedian for the past 5 years and I know the norms fairly well. You are always welcome to give contributions to Wiki as long as they don't attempt vandalism or promotion or disruption. Thank you. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Defaming Individuals. (about AMMA)

What ever you are discussing under jurisdiction. Please remove the content. As per Wiki's right you cannot defame a living person's name by adding some thing which are dealt thru jurisdiction.

Please remove.

Defaming an Individual should not be done with out Evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.243.61.82 (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki articles are not governed by Indian law. The content on the page comes under the heading "Controversies". It indeed is a controversy and should stay. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 08:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The content is sourced. Why remove it? FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 08:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do you remove views put by us. Let it be part of controversies. Please refer rule page - Wiki or Individual can be taken into jurisdiction, if the individual is adamant and defaming others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.243.61.82 (talk) 08:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no issue to add content if it is verifiable from an authentic source. What you included on the page are matters of personal research and promotional content. The tone of the content was not suitable for an encyclopedia too. All articles on Wikipedia must be written in a neutral tone. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:RS (youtube generally fails) and WP:DR (edit-warring is guaranteed to get blocked). DMacks (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reported 121.243.61.82 to ARV

Being an uninvolved person to that page, I've reported 121.243.61.82 to ARV here [1]. Just take a breather and relax. ViriiK (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) -- SreejithInfo (talk) 09:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm another uninvolved editor (just browsing recent-changes), and I blocked him for repeated insertion of BLP material without good sourcing (secondarily for disruptive editing, which includes edit-warring, etc.). DMacks (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Let's keep Wikipedia's integrity by keeping contents clean. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fahad Fazil

Government site gives official name, he might've tweaked his name on screen. We can have a Move request and based on consensus we can decide it. Searches for both 'Fahadh Faasil' and 'Fahad Fazil' return enough results.
Anish Viswa 11:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]