User talk:Priyeshndixit

Threats
Please review our policy on legal threats which may lead to your account being blocked from editig. See No_legal_threats. It is much better to discuss calmly than to threaten when you are trying to build consensus. Rmhermen (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Threats
I have reported your threats at the Administrators' noticeboard. As required by Wikipedia's rules, I am mentioning this to you here. Maproom (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
Hello, I'm Vigyani. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Ashutosh (spiritual leader) seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 15:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction for India-related articles
Bishonen &#124; talk 17:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC).

Moved from User talk:Bishonen
Dear Bishonen, Its great that you have arrived as a refree for the article Ashutosh (spiritual leader). I have talked to people who have created and contributed in developing the article and I find few things wrongly described in that article in order to defame a person known as Ashutosh Maharaj. The viewpoint shown by some contributors clearly show that they are convinced by few articles over internet rather than finding what other articles have said. Few points I would like to share : 1- I have provided a good and very reliable source for finding truth - www.lobis.nic.in/phhc. This is official website where judgements of Punjab and Haryana High courts are given. But after this too, the previous contributors Vigyani and Maproom have not listened me. 2- There is a major conflict as High court says that something is false, few newspapers say it true and few newspapers says that it might be true. Due to this, I first asked other editors to write the judgement of honorable High Court, but due to their resistance I wanted them to modify it by using words like "might be true" or "Claiming to be true". But for this request too, they are just not convinced and blaming me for not being neutral. 3- A major fact is being modified with wrong intentions. The name of the person by which he is known as is "Ashutosh Maharaj" where "Maharaj" is his surname (might be given by followers or might be taken by himself), and this full name has been used everywhere from courts to people to various articles. 4- For being normal, you must put all views and see from all angles. Therefore just making someone controversial without looking at his viewpoint is not neutral. This is what few contributors to this article have done. They have heavily used languages with intention of maligning the person "Ashutosh Maharaj" and never used the viewpoint of "Ashutosh Maharaj" or his organisation "Divya Jyoti Jagriti Sansthan". I have always given references to prove my point but it seems that other contributors like Vigyani and Maproom do not pay respect to my editings and references. Please look at all the discussions on this topic. I am always ready to correct myself if proper reasoning is given. Please forgive me if something wrong is said from my side and I expect you to make this article as neutral as possible. Thank You --Priyeshndixit (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, Priyeshndixit, I've moved your post on my page here, to keep all together — please respond here if you have more to say. Sorry for the delay. Please read this post carefully, because I'm not as ready to repeat myself as the experienced editors on the article talkpage seem to be.


 * "Maharaj" is what you might call a "courtesy addition" or compliment, in other words a honorific — it's not a surname, even though spiritual leaders and/or their acolytes sometimes add it to their names. Wikipedia shouldn't pay compliments, even if some sources do; it's not neutral. I saw you state somewhere on article talk that "the proof is that High Court has used "Maharaj" as a part of the name". No, it isn't; that's merely proof that the court is polite, and that it has its own conventions, just as Wikipedia has its conventions. Many courts around the world refer to all males as "Mr" or similar; I assume you don't think that proves it's part of their names. You are right that "Swami" used as a title throughout an article, or even in the article name, is equally inappropriate. I can only tell you that there are many errors in Wikipedia articles, and there are unfortunately too few knowledgeable editors watching India-related articles. (The article you refer to, Swami Vivekananda, doesn't repeat the "swami" in front of the name in the article, though.) However, we don't knowingly add problems to one article just because the problems exist elsewhere, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Feel free to edit articles where you see problems.


 * I've read the article talkpage carefully. I understand that you want to celebrate and honour your spiritual leader, but that is not what Wikipedia is for. Articles are supposed to be neutral, without regard for anybody's religious feelings. I'm afraid your quotations of Wikipedia policies sometimes seem to cherrypick sentences without regard for their meaning, or for the spirit of the policy. One example: You use a sentence from WP's WP:HONORIFIC policy, "In general, styles and honorifics should not be included in front of the name, but may be discussed in the article" as proof that it's all right to add the honorific Maharaj after Ashutosh's name throughout the article. No — that's not what be discussed means. (Also, I'm afraid your own English is sometimes unclear. When you say "Few people who says that he has a family believe that he was married etc", a phrase that you have inserted many times, and "few newspapers say it's true" (as you say above), do you mean "A few"? The meaning is quite different.)


 * Please take account of what experienced editors tell you about primary sources and original research on article talk. I can't get anything from the link you give above — it's not a real link — and the one you provide on the article talkpage, just takes me to a search page — I tried searching according to your instructions, and got nowhere. However, it really doesn't matter, as it's clear both from the search page and your own description that it's a primary source. You are using, and indeed cherrypicking, a primary source and drawing conclusions from it. That is what we call original research, and it's not allowed. I know you have been told that many times, but I will only tell you once. Please don't insert anything into Ashutosh_(spiritual_leader) against consensus again, or you will be banned from editing it. See the Article ban or page ban policy for what that means. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC).

Here's your last post on my page. Don't put it back there!

 * Hi, Priyeshndixit. Below is your post on my page, minus the raft of stuff from higher up on this page, that you moved back there from here — to the top of my page, yet, to be the first pretty sight visitors to my page see, above my décor, above my table of contents.

Hello Bishonen, it seems that when I tell others to be neutral then I am cherrypicking, and when others try to impose some unproven facts, then its totally neutral according to you. I would have been celebrating if I said that Ashutosh Maharaj was a great preacher and he is the holiest man on earth and he achieved a lot of things. But what I just demanded was to add words like CLAIM, MIGHT, etc. for all the imposed facts which are not proven anywhere. I have provided a number of links which says that someone CLAIMS to be a driver and someone CLAIMS to be son. So kindly apply some logic and add these words. for past few talks I have consistently received threats of being banned from wikipedia just because of I wanted words like CLAIM and MIGHT to be added for facts that are not true, and adding MAHARAJ because its a de facto surname. First of all you will let me add words like CLAIM and MIGHT and then we can discuss about word MAHARAJ after looking at wikipedia links like - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisargadatta_Maharaj, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tukdoji_Maharaj, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birju_Maharaj, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kishan_Maharaj, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shambhu_Maharaj and your favorite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satpal_Maharaj which is also cited in the article. Then we can discuss about the truthfullness of the link that I gave you and the search that you did on the website http://lobis.nic.in. Because its a legal website. Three issues that are there with a NEUTRAL point of view : 1- Add words like CLAIM or MIGHT for unproved facts 2- add MAHARAJ for Ashutosh Maharaj else you will advocate in removing maharaj from all the above links that I gave you, specially from Satpal Maharaj 3- You will add, and let me add, good things and deeds done by Ashutosh Maharaj Ji. As the article can write things like distorting Sikh religious books with few links then article can also describe good works with few good links. At last, if you guys are getting afraid of my logic against your highly biased article then you can ban me. Priyeshndixit (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)priyeshndixit


 * Did you see where I said, in my last post on your page above, this page, that "I've moved your post on my page here, to keep all together — please respond here if you have more to say". Do you have any special reason for ignoring a courteous request?


 * I'm not sure if you do or don't intend to be as atrociously rude as you sound, with your "First of all you will let me add"… "You will add, and let me add, good things and deeds", etc. I'll assume good faith that your order-barking is merely an accidental language issue. You'd be better employed re-reading my advice above, than raving about your "logic".


 * You may not be interested in consensus, a concept you don't even mention, but it guides what can and what can not be put into the article. I told you above exactly what will happen if you insert anything into the article against consensus again. The most important thing I've said on your page, above, is "I'm not.. ready to repeat myself." No, I'm not. And please don't post on my page again, since you don't understand how to do it properly or civilly. I don't want you there. Post here. (I can't guarantee that I'll reply further, though. Probably not.) Bishonen &#124; talk 22:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen, What you wrote on 25 dec, meant that I am not logical. For that you said you will ban me, I am cherrypicking words and not following wikipedia's guidelines, etc. So on 9 january I presented you logic and examples on why I am correct and why should we make changes in articleAshutosh (Spiritual Leader). After that on same date you replied that I am rude, I dont know proper english, I am uncivilized, I don't honor consensus. And it is very clear that you want to deviate from the original matter by saying all these things. And by saying this you imply that logic, examples and facts doesn't matter much in comparison to beautiful english, too much civilisation, and all those things that you said. Well I am civilized enough that instead of your allegations I am continuously presenting logic and examples. I am respecting consensus thats why I am not making any change in the original article but want you guys to understand logic and examples that I gave. But yes my english is weak just like many sofware devs who understands java and html more than english. And I am not rude, but I will fight unless you see the logic behind what I am saying. You must accept correct things and help me correcting the article. So I will again request you to help me make correct changes in article. And I was writing on your page because, I thought you won't reply me if I continue writing on my talk page. And if you wont reply me back then I may again put this on your talk page. 1.39.35.34 (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)priyeshndixit