User talk:Theamigosinc

June 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=611014230 your edit] to Jai Prakash Menon may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ],Hindustan and Mint), radio (Fever 104.0), entertainment (DesiMartini), education SmartPlus and Bridge school of Management and digitalShine. {{cite web|url=http://

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jai Prakash Menon, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Don't start this again! Thomas.W {{sup| talk }} 06:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Thomas.W

1) I have not removed any sourced content from the page. I would request you to kindly do a page compare and tell me which "content" I have removed. I have made edits to the article and tried to provide valid references as well. Please share the reason why you have reverted the edits. Awaiting your response failing which I will reapply the changes. Also, request for your kind help to guide on how to experiment with test edits. Thanks User:theamigosinc 08:32, 2 June, 2014 (IST)
 * Yes, you did remove sourced content, because the properly sourced mention of Mr Menon's departure from Airtel was gone efter you finished editing; as usual. We are not half as stupid as you seem to think, we can also easily see every word you add or remove when you edit. Thomas.W {{sup| talk }} 08:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Thomas.W
 * I am surprised to see the response from you. I am quoting the text verbatim from my edit as below, which clearly documents Dr. Menon's departure from Airtel along with all the reference - Which clearly substantiates that I have not removed sourced content.

'''However multiple public news paper articles alleged that Menon has left amidst accusations of violations of the company's code of conduct. by steering company contracts to businesses in which he had stakes'''
 * I would encourage you to read the article again, rather than just reverting the edits to prove your point. Kindly do not delete sourced content which I have added after providing credible references as you did in paragraph 1.


 * I am also astonished and hurt to see the harsh language and remarks by you on my previous note seeking help to improvise on the edits. I would request for professional conduct rather than emotional reaction. Appreciate your support.

User:theamigosinc 10:26, 2 June, 2014 (IST)

Dear Thomas.W
 * 1) Kindly share the reason for deleting sourced content from article page in paragraph 1. Awaiting your response
 * 2) Please see my response in comment above where Dr. Menon's departure from Airtel along with all the reference is captured in the article. Please provide reason why you have reverted the changes.

User:theamigosinc 21:28, 3 June, 2014 (IST)

Your repeated addition of BLPPROD-tag on Jai Prakash Menon
Please stop adding the tag as it does NOT apply. WP:BLPPROD clearly states that a) "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography", and b) "Only add a BLPPROD if there are no sources in any form that name the subject". Which, since there are plenty of reliable sources in the article that name the subject means that BLPPROD can NOT be used. Thomas.W talk 11:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear user Thomas.W

You have not responded to the request asking for clarification earlier as why you have deleted sourced content from Article. I am re-sending the same (dated: 2 June, 2014). Kindly respond else I may have to request again for page deletion. It seems like you are single handily trying to control the defamatory statements with out: 1) Any statement on record by a named personnel or official statement by company (Bharti Airtel Limited) 2) No legal court-case has been filed All references by you (News paper) articles refer to single unanimous source (Since they all point to 1 story source, they can't be considered as multiple) 3) You have tried to delete any attempt to add sourced information to the article and unintentionly trying to control it

Dear Thomas.W

1) I have not removed any sourced content from the page. I would request you to kindly do a page compare and tell me which "content" I have removed. I have made edits to the article and tried to provide valid references as well. Please share the reason why you have reverted the edits. Awaiting your response failing which I will reapply the changes. Also, request for your kind help to guide on how to experiment with test edits. Thanks User:theamigosinc 08:32, 2 June, 2014 (IST)

Yes, you did remove sourced content, because the properly sourced mention of Mr Menon's departure from Airtel was gone efter you finished editing; as usual. We are not half as stupid as you seem to think, we can also easily see every word you add or remove when you edit. Thomas.W talk 08:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Thomas.W

I am surprised to see the response from you. I am quoting the text verbatim from my edit as below, which clearly documents Dr. Menon's departure from Airtel along with all the reference - Which clearly substantiates that I have not removed sourced content.

However multiple public news paper articles alleged that Menon has left amidst accusations of violations of the company's code of conduct. by steering company contracts to businesses in which he had stakes

I would encourage you to read the article again, rather than just reverting the edits to prove your point. Kindly do not delete sourced content which I have added after providing credible references as you did in paragraph 1.

I am also astonished and hurt to see the harsh language and remarks by you on my previous note seeking help to improvise on the edits. I would request for professional conduct rather than emotional reaction. Appreciate your support. User:theamigosinc 10:26, 2 June, 2014 (IST)

user:theamigosinc 4 July 2014 (IST)


 * The BLPPROD-tag you repeatedly add to the article can NOT be used since there are plenty of reliable sources in the article, so stop your disruptive editing. As for the rest I see no reason to continue the discussion. You have, in your various personae, dragged the article to both WP:BLPN and WP:ANI without getting ANY support for removing the content in question, so stop. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social networking site or a resumé site where you can control the content of the article. Thomas.W talk 13:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jai Prakash Menon. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. As is clearly stated at WP:BLPPROD the tag you repeatedly add to the article can NOT be used on articles that have plenty of reliable sources! Thomas.W talk 13:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Dear Thomas.W User:theamigosinc 7:16 pm, 4 July 2014 (IST)
 * It appears like you are trying to control the content of article at your own. I have tried to discuss the issue with you through a dispute resolution page (post dated: 2 June, 2014), however you have selectively chosen not to respond to the questions raised by you.
 * The information in article is factually incorrect and includes cyclic reference to WikiPedia itself.
 * there is no statement on record till date by named personnel or by company (Bharti Airtel Limited) nor their has been any reference to law suit filed against the subject.
 * It is highly unconstructive that you are neither allowing any sourced edits to page nor responding to questions raised on 2 June, 2014 for almost a month.

July 2014
Your recent editing history at Jai Prakash Menon shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Thomas.W talk 14:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI-notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Thomas.W talk 14:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you continue to inappropriately restore the BLPPROD tag at Jai Prakash Menon you may be blocked for disruption. It appears that you are trying to defend Mr. Menon but your efforts are so inept that they won't have any good effect. If you know of any reliable Indian publications who have published more details about his departure that would be helpful. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/info-tech/jai-menon-quits-vodafone-heads-back-to-airtel/article1628493.ece http://www.informationweek.in/informationweek/global-cio/181177/dr-jai-menon
 * thank you for the intervention. I have been raising following issues, however Thomas.W is not ready to discuss anything on rational basis
 * Article Jai Prakash Menon is factually incorrect. e.g. It states He developed "the model of outsourcing network" used by Bharti and other companies in the industry. However, multiple sources confirm that He developed model for S1 IT outsourcing. REferences below. The author don't even know whether he was in IT function or Network.
 * WallStreet Journal/Mint is not considered a credible source, but others are single handidly considered a credible source.
 * As junior editor in one of the most prestigious news organization globally, We have performed our primary research on the topic and failed to substantiate 2 facts:
 * 1. there is no named statement on record confirming the rumors or allegations
 * 2. No statement on record by Airtel (even after repeated requests by us, the mails were unanswered)
 * 3. No legal law-suit in the court of law.

I requested Thomas.W to provide either of the 3, however he has failed to produce in any forum. However, in turn he is deleting any attempt to factually improve the article, which puts a question mark on his motives. (Please refer my edits on June 2, 2014 to improve the article)

User:theamigosinc9:26, 5 July, 2014 (IST)
 * Look forward to a rational hearing from all assuming that Wikipedia is not a collection of unanimous news paper articles.