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 Media_copyright_questions - 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 , 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 .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See 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.'' ⁓ Hello  71  01:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; 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: 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. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.

SPI report 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.

It is not exactly "presenting the facts" when you intentionally delete all controversial content despite them not breaching any wikipedia rules. Your edits  do not really back up your claim of keeping the wikipedia neutral to "facts". Also you have also been involved in instances of edit warring on the same page removing and reverting content forcefully without discussion. I understand that you are emotionally involved with this article since 2009, But try and think of it in a neutral person's point of view.


 * The statements in the controversies section is backed up by the reliable references to national and international media like bbc,times of india and deccan herald. I was not the one who wrote these statements, I simply reverted your deletions with original content. But if you have valid reasons for deleting the section, Please discuss on talk page.
 * You simply cannot dismiss 3 or 4 years worth of valid journalism from sites like bbc and TOI as tabloid rubbish.
 * I stand to gain nothing by editing this page, I just want to keep it to a neutral point of view without any biased opinions.
 * I understand the Indian law of "Innocent till proven guilty" but wikipedia is here to compile the facts of history and what has already been reported in the media. No where in the controversy section does it actually say "Nithyananda is a convict" It is more of a compilation of all the media controversy that has been going around for the last few years.
 * I have just compiled news reports that have already been presented in various national and international media. Most wikipedia pages have a controversy section about godmen, check Sathya Sai Baba and Asaram Bapu
 * The story of biography section is full of made up content without linking to notable, verifiable references.
 * Your attempt to win brownie points with admins has been duly noted.

Lookinhotbra 03:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Acnaren. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokayata91 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Acnaren, Please do not monopolize a civil discourse. If you work/manage/participate/volunteer in this subject's organization - you clearly have a conflict of interest. Please have the gumption to acknowledge the content of the referenced material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bidadi Jyothi Lakshmi (talk • contribs) 04:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Acnaren. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Swami Nithyananda, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
 * instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Do not edit Nithyananda or related pages as you have WP:COI
There's a claim that you're a volunteer at and represent Nithyananda Mission. Until you address it, please do not touch any of the related pages. Any non-trivial edits that you wish to make have to be through edit requests. Go through the CoI notice above for details. Hemantha (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I still do not see any declarations, so I've reverted you on Nithyananda. Hemantha (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Abecedare (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC) This block is in part due to continued WP:COI editing despite previous warnings. Any admin reviewing a block appeal is welcome to contact me via email for details. Abecedare (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)