User talk:The Evolutioner

September 2014
Hello, I'm Vigyani. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 15:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Vigyani, I am a new user in Wikipedia and do not have much experience of doing editing in Wikipedia. Hence, I would like to deeply apologize if I ended up doing anything which you felt was a non-sense. I am extremely sorry about it, and have no intentions to create anything which does not makes sense.

Its just that I have lot of interest human mind dynamics, metaphysics, and Buddhist/Indian philosophy of possible existence of Higher States of Consciousness. Hence, this curious case of this Indian Godman caught my attention and I have been keenly following the case. I am myself exploring the reality of what is happening, and would like to understand the perspective in an unbiased manner. I really respect the fact that you shared me the link of Wikipedia's policies, but irrespective of that, I would never like to present anything in a biased manner or something which does not makes sense. Perspectively, I was just trying to edit things which are controversial but which appeared to me as painted black and white. If you would have given me sometime, I was going to support my changes with references of the recent court case hearings and associated urls in web news. I dont know how keenly you are following the case, but for me, it is something of great interest apart from the fact that it is a unique case in itself and has international ramifications. Hence, it is all the more important that we do not allow our biased perspectives to come into something which could affect the international community. Hence, I repeat, my endeavor is to just present the controversies in this case, which I believe has been overlooked by you or other people who have worked hard to create this page. In fact I appreciate your hard work and initiative in making this page, for when I tried to find about this man (Ashutosh) a couple of months back, I could not get anything on Wikipedia. But your hard work and endeavors has brought up this page, which would probably help millions across the globe to get consolidated information at a reliable source. With no intentions to be offensive and be non-sensical, I just felt that we would not do justice to the page, if we do not present the controversial aspects of the case. However, if you think my edits are non-sensical, I would abide by what you say; for you are a senior writer/editor and much more experienced than me, and more than that I need to respect you for your hard work, and I feel the kind of hard work you have put, I need to acknowledge you as one of the key owners of the page.

Do guide me in case you think I am not doing anything in right perspective. I would only like to move once you give me a green signal to go ahead. Awaiting your reply.The Evolutioner (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. You have written a long post, so I will try to answer whatever I could understand. 1. First Why I reverted your edits without discussing : We have a policy called WP:BRD, where any edits if challenged, should be first removed and then discussed. 2. Why removed: Because first it lacked sources. Second writing in the brackets is not the way to go. Related policy for that is Manual of Style. By writing Death or Samadhi in the section heading, you are going against relabel sources. All the newspapers refer to this as that "he is dead but followers think that he is alive" and that is what I have written in the article. 3. Writing alleged son or alleged name (Mahesh) is also not correct way, at the maximum you can mention that the dera has denied this. 4. You have tried to remove the line related the reason of his problems with Sikhs. which also you should not have done as it is well sourced. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 22:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)