User talk:Kumaripriya

Welcome!

Hello, Kumaripriya, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --CarTick (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

A. Nesamony
Please add references to your edits. --CarTick (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Martyr Devasahayam Pillai
Glad to see your edits. Would like to correspond with you. Could you please send me an email through my wikipedia user page. Karnan (talk) 07:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to discuss the article and your editing, and nothing else. Karnan (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

About the Martyr, let me think a bit before I write more about him. And thank you for your response. Karnan (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your note on my talk page. I have been contributing to the article Devasahayam Pillai since 2007. Have a look at this edit including the proposed grounds for deletion, and you will see that the article has come a long way since then; it was completely unreferenced before I started adding to it.


 * I am glad that you have access to additional reference materials. However, please take care to assess whether they meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. If they are significant sources but take a partisan approach, or use words that would be highly likely to anger some readers, then it is not appropriate to use their words as direct statements in the encyclopedia article. However, it would be fair to quote them explicitly, e.g. "The church historian C. M. Agur concluded that xxxxx...".


 * It is not appropriate to include a statement like "The claims of a section of orthodox Hindus as narrated above is neither published in any book nor documented till date in any academic research work" as this is WP:OR and not verifiable.


 * The last sentence, including the words "noble.. cruel... vile" is clearly not WP:NPOV.


 * However, I only deleted the middle sentence of the deleted paragraph, that started with the words "Apostasy", because it was not clear. I suggest you consider re-writing this sentence and presenting it as Agur's conclusion on the matter.


 * As for the source for the reactions of various Hindus, this was stated to be The Pioneer (Indian newspaper), which I understand is a sufficiently reputable journal.


 * Please also remember to assume good faith at all times.


 * Kind regards, - Fayenatic (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

IP address masquerading as Kumaripriya
Your response is welcome, but I would like to know whether you have anything to do with this user: 59.92.41.168. A signed message with your name appearing on it, but edited from this address, was left on my page a month or so ago. Karnan (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I suspected this was another user masquerading as you and engaging in a clumsy Man-in-the-middle attack, so now I think I am certain that is the case. It stretches credulity that someone should claim to be a named user and sign a message from an IP address, and _then_ manipulate the IP signature to the named user (instead of logging in and resuming). I think I know who that user is, so let us close this matter. Karnan (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

As a study of human nature, this is he: User_talk:Moonriddengirl Karnan (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia and neutrality
Wikipedia is not a church magazine. We have our own rules and maintaining a neutral point of view is one among them. You can only add facts supported by reliable sources like published books and newspapers. Not commentary like "martyrs", "infidels", "incomparable service" etc. Familiarise yourself with our rules and follow them if you want to edit here.--Sodabottle (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

An Invite to join the WikiProject Indian Roads
--naveenpf (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, you can always look into WikiProject_Indian_roads or talk page of WP:INR --naveenpf (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Tirunelveli
Hi, I've had to revert your recent edits to the above article because you have not provided a proper citation. Giving the name of someone without any indication of who the person was, what book it was in etc is insufficient. It could be anyone, anywhere, any time. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Good work
I just wanted to say good job for your recent work on St. Xavier's Church, Kottar. Improving that article has been on my to do list for a while.Glorioussandwich (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

A. Nesamony
You have been asked previously to supply citations for your edits. This is now becoming a little silly at A. Nesamony. You appear to know about the article's subject & so I do not think it is too much to ask that you provide support for your assertions. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your additions again. Please take this as a second warning. You must provide citations for this information because it is difficult for many readers to verify, See WP:V and WP:CITE. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems that you are hell-bent to vandalise A.Nesamony page for reasons not known to me. You never bothered to positively contribute towards improving it, but always indulged  in spoiling the A. Nesamony page with a rage in the past. Have patience & good faith on mankind for God's sake. A good contributor takes pains for material collection as well as for proper presentation which is really time-consuming. Please note that every contributor is not born with a golden-spoon in his/her mouth to perform instant magics, just like Vittalacharya's films, only because you are impatient and over anxious. Also kindly learn to appreciate others' hard work instead of becoming rude and arrogant to fellow contributors by pointing-out silly mistakes under some pretext or other.Please let me know if you want to finish off this article as it was seen early this year! Wait otherwise & watch with good faith; every page I contribute will automatically improve in due course of time. Be a good boy (or girl) & don't indulge in creating flames and a flame war! In the mean time kindly revert back my original edits so as to make matters easy for me to improve it. O.K.!--Kumaripriya (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am tempted to report you for a breach of the three revert rule. This will result in an immediate block. - Sitush (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Kumaripriya, you have been warned several times for adding unrefernced content to articles. your inclination to attack anyone who tries to teach you some wiki-policies with good intention is not helping the project. your continued practice of things you have been warned for multiple times might end up having your editing privileges suspended either temporarily or permanently. --CarTick (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with CarTick, especially since this recent addition to the A. Nesamony article contained no sources whatsoever. —C.Fred (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. Please could you either revert your last edit (referred to by C.Fred above) or provide a citation for it. - Sitush (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Citations are provided to almost each and every sentences of mine in this particular article, including the one mentioned by C.Fred, which is not only peculiar but also strange. I am afraid the lists may need more space in the page than the actual text for reasons unknown to me. Kindly note that ruthless deletion of a positive edit-contribution, due shear ignorance of the topic, should not also be encouraged as the same will definitely discourage a genuine contributor. I suspect that some people think to succeed in this world you have to be ruthless. Kindly help to present history candidly without omission of facts in Wikipedia.--Kumaripriya (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see the talk page for the article. The source you are adding is very dubious and may be removed unless you can resolve the issues surrounding it. I would remind you that Wikipedia is a collaborative environment: accusing other users (especially experienced users) of bad faith is not a reasonable attitude to adopt. I do realise that English is probably not your first language but you clearly have sufficient grasp to appreciate that people are in fact trying to help here. It would be great if you could join in with that attitude instead of assuming that, for what ever reason, people are out to "get you". - Sitush (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * please note that "dubious" is the key word in Sitush's previous post. it is not uncommon for new wikipedia editors to think that just having a reference is enough to add any information. however, according to common sense and hence wp policy, that is just the MINIMUM requirement. there is a whole lot of other criteria the reference and the information need to satisfy. please ask us if you would like to know about the other criteria. --CarTick (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Please go ahead with other criteria.--Kumaripriya (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * first, about the reference: it should be reliable, you will hear that word often if you will choose to spend more time here in wp. how can one tell if a reference is reliable? it really is a difficult judgement made based on several information. the author: whether he/she is a respected person in the field, whether he/she has an agenda, whether he/she has done appropriate research or just listed his/her personal opinion; publisher: for example, books published by Cambridge University Press would be more reliable than the one from a local publisher in Nagercoil. In this case, your references dont seem reliable as it seems to have been written by some who admire him very much and so it sounds more like a hagiography. Please read WP:Reliable Sources for more information. --CarTick (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Now regarding your today's deletion of Nesamony handpicking Janab Abdul Razak as Rajya Sabha M.P. of T.T.N.C. from Guru & disciples, the reason quoted by you is simply not true because of the fact that Nesamony himself was the final decision making authority in those days in T.T.N.C.! Kindly revert back to present the truth as supported in the reference proof!--Kumaripriya (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the reason this was deleted was because the source was not reliable. In any event, the statement definitely did not say that Nesamony was the fianl decision making authority, which (I would have thought) was the voters. Perhaps you meant to say something different & phrased it poorly. - Sitush (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You see that we cannot always depend upon the big publishing houses alone as they have a limitation like that of elitism which is again against the policy of Wikipedia. Also they mostly concentrate International and Continental or National topics only. The regional and local publishers only cover explicitly similar issues and subjects. The author whose material was sourced as reference here is a professor in a reputed college in Nagercoil. I hope you understood the point. Hence I 'd like to request your goodself to properly phrase it and reposition it in the page. Thanks.--Kumaripriya (talk) 09:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You have just confirmed that it is not likely to be a reliable source. I shall probably delete it in due course. - Sitush (talk) 09:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No! Totally wrongly understood or knowingly playing mischief? What should I call then? Bad understanding capacity or something else?--Kumaripriya (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

AN/I notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is On the conduct of User:Kumaripriya. Thank you.  elektrik SHOOS  18:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop making religious attacks on other editors, as you did at User_talk:Fayenatic_london. "Brain-washed hindu fundamentalist friends", "Brutes", "Judas", etc is not acceptable and a repeat of that kind of language will see you blocked. Further, your insistence that only Christians may edit Devasahayam Pillai or that only Christian viewpoints are acceptable on that page is incorrect. Trying to force people who do not share your religion or that of the article subject to not edit a page is unacceptable behaviour. We must reflect the views of reliable sources, giving the facts and opinions due weight according to their prevalence in those sources. If Pillai received criticism from notable people or organisations then we must report on that, even if to you it seems like an insult or disrespectful. But what we must not do is endorse praise or criticism of an article subject. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Noted & agreed. But, I am just interested to know where they (notable people) made those negative awful comments about Pillai, as claimed by Balram Misra, for which I am yet to receive any satisfactory reply!--Kumaripriya (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Do not worry about them; worry about yourself. If it was cited to a reliable source then it should stand, and if it was not then it should not stand. Personal opinions are best avoided in Wikipedia articles (including in the edit summaries to them). - Sitush (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This is where I disagree with you. I simply worry about the truth! Don't advise me not to worry about the truth! Kindly refrain from any vilification campaign against me here! You just can't have two different yard-sticks for neutrality,verifiability,etc. to oppose or support the topic.! I neither have fear nor favor as far as any page is concerned. Discuss the topic and the points, that's all!--Kumaripriya (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not necessarily about the truth. If something is verifiable using a reliable source then it can be included, even if it is untrue. I actually do not accept that there is such a thing as truth anyway, and nor do an awful lot of other people (including pretty much every philosopher who has ever existed), but it is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia to present two different "truths" in the same article. And it happens. I would suggest that you get used to it but if you cannot accept this then perhaps contributing here is not for you. - Sitush (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

At last you told it right! Thanks for the same! However, I feel that the esteemed-readers of Wikipedia deserve not only the truth, but the absolute truth since it's the only easily available encyclopedia at present. And I wish and hope that it becomes a reality one day ! --Kumaripriya (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand me. There is no such thing as "truth" on Wikipedia. Nor, for that matter, do I personally accept the concept of "absolute truth". It strikes me that you may be on a mission here, in which case you are going to become frustrated. - Sitush (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't suffer from agoraphobia in Wikipedia albeit certain aberrations at some spots. So I will remain an optimist only.--Kumaripriya (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:A. Nesamony, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. '' I am fed up of having to tolerate your continued attacks. I have tried to deal with you fairly. You, on the other hand, have a history of attacking people and seem not to be learning. Please stop doing this.'' Sitush (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sitush here. It's hard to characterize this comment as anything but a personal attack. If you continue making comments like that in discussions, your conduct will lead to your account being blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Noted & agreed. I am sorry if I have hurt anyone. But I have no animus against anybody in this virtual world of Wikipedia. However, one should not be expected to pay through the nose here for remaining sensitive and straight forward to the happenings around. While I assure you of respecting others feelings and sentiments, I expect the same from others not in words alone but in action (i.e. in their edits) too ! :---Kumaripriya (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

September 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Devasahayam Pillai appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. '' You have been advised before about your use of non-neutral language when contributing to articles but seem not to be learning. If it is the case that you simply do not understand then please could you let me know & I will see if I can find a better way to explain it to you. Thanks.'' Sitush (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Devasahayam Pillai. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Devasahayam Pillai. 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. Sitush (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2011 (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.

Come on let us protect the article Velankanni
I noticed that there seems to be a group of people with different agenda busy in section blanking the article Velankanni which we have developed as a team. Come on, its time for us to wake up and protect that valuable article and chase them away from here. BrownyCat (talk) 09:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Given the quality of your writing BrownyCat, you are not doing en.wiki any good by "contributing" here. Isn't there a wiki in your native language? If so, why are you still here? Doc  Tropics  17:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012
 In this issue...

- Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia &bull; It is published by WikiProject Christianity For submissions contact the Newsroom &bull; To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
 * From the Editor
 * What are You doing For Lent?
 * Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
 * Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)