Talk:Atul Chitnis/Archive 1

message: This page has been tagged with speedy delete with the reason "Contents are copy paste from Business website of person in question as mentioned by person himself"
We get a lot of that, but this would be the first one that contains material like this: "In the past, Atul Chitnis has been know to abuse/threaten people who disagree with him, mostly in private communication ("LIG Archives") or in public (through blogs and mailing lists).". If that's a copy/paste from his business website, I certainly have to tip my hat to him for honesty... Um, I contest this speedy until more evidence is presented. Herostratus 15:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uh, about that speedy... 

message: Have DePOV-ed it to the extent possible after reading through links. -- Thenothing 19:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DePOV 

message: First, many thanks to Thenothing for the cleanup. While I personally would have preferred deletion, this is almost as good.
As requested by Canderson7, here are some comments:
*In Controversies, an edit has been made to give too much importance to Linux India. I admit to being controversial (often intentionally), but I have been controversial LONG before any of the campaigners had ever heard of Linux. In fact, I don't see how the "falling out" with a set of mailing lists can be treated as a "controversy".
*The whole registration/unregistration thing with reference to the BLUG is essentially one gigantic POV by the small handful of people who are pushing this campaign. There is no verification available anywhere that this is anything more than a "jilted lover" style rant. A recent edit of the BLUG page showed that the group isn't sure of its facts about the registration, and the only/primary reason why the comment has been added here appears to be to legitimise their POV. No verification is available other than the rant linked to, which was written by one of the campaigners. The sentence "There has been no official statement on why the BLUG was de-registered and then the reincarnated as an unregistered organisation" is weaselish, because it implies truth of an unverified statement.
*If you want controversies, try the BBS Tax instead, which pre-dates the formation of Linux India by some 5 years. (Personally, I'd treat this "controversy" as an "achievement", but let's not go there :)
*The photograph issue was a non-issue all along - see here, and look at the notice at the bottom of the page. Even if this hadn't been around, the fact that Wikipedia considers the use of published publicity photographs as "fair use" would have covered that.
Achitnis 18:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Thank you Rebelguys2, for recognising the NPOV status of this article. Here are a few comments (I cannot actually edit this article, as I am the subject):
*NPOV tag does not apply to the entire article. The NPOV should only apply to the "Controversies" section, not the entire article (which has been deemed "de-POV'd" by other editors).
*Article focus is not on subject, but on "controversies". Many items were edited out of the original text (which was copied from my online biography) to create this "sleeper article", to give the impression that my only "notability" is my long-forgotten association with a set of obscure mailing lists, and that I am supposed to have killed/hurt the BLUG (which, btw, is alive, kicking, and very much active).
*This article is not a reasonable biography. Most of the items in the article seem to exist only as an introduction to the "Controversies" section, which is the single biggest item in this article. 
*Wikipedia rules are being violated. The "Controversies" section violates most guidelines on Wikipedia, especially Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons, but also Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view (editors involved as the only ones who have this POV), Wikipedia:Verifiability (links provided are authored by the editors, and no other "verification" exists) and Wikipedia:No_original_research. The section does not reflect the POV of people who completely disagree with the promoters of this campaign.
*There is no reputable source. The basis for all accusations is a single "jilted lover" style rant by one of the editors, which does not represent a reputable source by any interpretation of Wikipedia rules. There is no justification for it being linked to under "External Links", as that rant is not related to the subject, but a controvery related to organisations that the subject is associated with (violates the "guilty by association" guideline). It also mentions the subject only one time, in passing. If the author were to edit the article now, it would only underline the reason why such sources are not deemed reputable (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_sources).
*Campaign: The involved editors are linking to both the Wikipedia article (as well as its related talk, cleanup, deletion and other pages) on IRC, mailing lists, blogs and other forums since this campaign was started on the 17th of March. See  and  as examples. By contrast, you will find no attempt by me *anywhere* (other than on these talk pages) to raise support for my defence, because in doing so, I would be violating Wikipedia rules.
*Motivation. The people involved in this campaign - "TracerBullet2", "Tazo", "Zaatar", "Jackerhack", "SidCarter", "Sintihca" (note the last handle, which is my handle in reverse, making it quite clear what is being targetted)- created accounts when this campaign started, and their only contribution has been the editing of this article, a few closely related ones. They are not creating a "neutral article" (as claimed), but a "neutered" article to serve as a platform for public embarrassment, harrassment and ridicule of the subject (me). It should be noted that the very same people who nominated the article for Speedy Deletion were the ones who voted against the deletion. In effect (not physically), the entire list of people mentioned above represent a single person, and hence a single POV. The article now clearly matches the Wikipedia:Attack_page guideline.
*Notability: Neither my leaving some obscure mailing lists nor the imagined death of a user group (that continues to flourish, and that I am an active member of) are sufficient reasons for my "notability" on Wikipedia. If there *is* any notability, this article does not present it in any way, and I continue to maintain that this article should have been deleted, or rendered to a stub to allow real people to write a real article, if one is found to be necessary at all.
Achitnis 06:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Comments 

message: I know it is against Wikipedia policy, but since the "Cleanup Taskforce" evidently is taking its time, I have made the following changes to the article:
* Returned the original photo, whose copyright status is now clarified
* Moved the NPOV tag from the top of the article to NPOV-section tag in Controversies. I continue to dispute the relevance of the items in this section as being relevant to the subject (me), and there are serious factual errors as well.
* Tagged the article with RRevised to encourage others to have a look at the article and improve it. 
* I have removed the Cleanup tag in the talk section as it no longer applies - the original campaigners have made their changes and have deemed the article as NPOV.
I have not added or edited any other parts of this article, since that would be against the rules.
I request the original campaigners to quit the edit wars, and leave the editing to less biased editors.
Achitnis 06:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixups made

message: This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it.  Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed.  I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy.  In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube links