Talk:Atul Chitnis

Nominated for deletion

The article has been nominated for deletion and the discussion can be viewed here.

The deletion discussion (2nd nomination) has been moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atul Chitnis (second nomination) to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atul Chitnis (2nd nomination) as a house keeping act. The redirect from second nomination to 2nd nomination has been tagged for deletion. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 11:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• The result of this nomination was Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.143.10 (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Edi dispute

I have protected this article because of the edit dispute surrounding it. Please work out all differences on this talk page. And while I am not supporting any particular edit or version of the article, I would like to hear Zamkudi's reasons for repeatedly deleting the vast majority of this article. While WP:BLP does permit the immediate removal of unsourced negative info, unsourced neutral or positive material is generally not removed in bulk from an article (and not all of the removed info was unsourced). I should add, though, that Zamkudi does not appear to have gutted the article prior to the AfD (as another user claimed on AN) and likewise, all sides in this edit dispute appear to be operating in good faith. So let's keep everything civil.--Alabamaboy 12:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

CSD

Removed this CSD, because the article doesn't qualify for CSD. It has already survived a deletion discussion. utcursch | talk 12:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverting bad faith edits

Shres nh7 (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I looked over your changed and have reverted them. In particular, you added unsourced material to the article. Text must be backed up by reliable sources, especially when the article is a biography of a living person.

I don't think anybody has edited this article in bad faith. It is possible to add back some or all of your changes, but I suggest getting more sources and discussing the changes here. —C.Fred (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I find that this article has become a battle ground, and certain elements appear to play here and destroying the content of this page. An example is charging me with "bad faith" by Shres nh7 in his edit summary [1] while I had just changed a heading from "Music and Entertainment" to "Music and entertainment". This indicates that these elements do not care to see anything but appear to have an agenda to destroy this article. As such, I am seeing the recent edits to this article, selecting a suitable version, and protect the article till all issues are resolved. --Bhadani (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I may also add that Shres nh7 created an account here within 13 minutes of my edit to Atul Chitnis and "ponced" on this page immediately !!! --Bhadani (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Shres nh7 edited with malice/in bad faith, although (s)he may have a conflict of interest with the subject. This administrator has added this page to his watchlist. —C.Fred (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you C.Fred. I (an administrator too) has added this page to my watchlist. --Bhadani (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Improving citations

Hi all, I was involved in cleaning up this article in 2006 through my role in the cleanup taskforce. Atul asked me by email to come back and look at it in light of the recent excisions. Ideally sources can be found for much of the content that Vivekvc has removed and much of the content that JFHJr has tagged citation-needed. Anyone who doesn't want to edit the article themselves (this particularly includes Atul) is welcome to use this space to propose citations for particular facts, and I will add them to the article. Canderson7 ^(talk) 06:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've replaced some content that was removed previously, some likely for WP:BLPSPS reasons, other stuff I'm not sure why. I didn't find the BLPSPS to involve issues of third parties or self-serving (notability) claims, so I didn't see a reason to exclude or even tag them. Another cite that was removed did indeed provide reliable coverage to the subject, and spoke to his professional activities, and wasn't self-serving at all. (See also WP:NNC) I'm glad Canderson started this section, and I hope others can find more reliable references to improve the content here. JFHJr (㊟) 08:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed some sections that did not seem to have relevant citations from non primary sources, removed a photo that was not of much relevance to this article. Most of the citations seem to have been linked to Atul's personal website and blog and also the domain comversations.com owned by Atul himself which have been removed siting lack of non primary sources, and the article has also been shortened and made to reflect a netural point of view.

Vivekvc (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Vivekvc. A link to an external resource is considered "dead" or "broken" if the page that it once linked to is no longer available. The following edits, made by you, removed links as "dead" or "broken" when they were not:

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5], [6]

The fact that you were making this mistake was pointed out to you here. Yet you reverted JFHJr's correction without explanation. I agree with you that much of the material in the article has been poorly cited, but removing valid citations while leaving misleading edit summaries does not improve the quality of the article. Can you please explain why you have done this? If this is a mistake, please revert to the version that preceded your excisions. Canderson7 ^(talk) 07:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Canderson7, Thanks for your feedbacks, Can you point me to the links that I have removed as dead which according to you is still working ?. I'll re-add them while not compromising on the quality the article.

1) Which valid citations have I removed ?

2) What misleading edit summaries have I provided ?

Reverting completely back to the old version can be done if proper validation of the claims on removed sections made in the article are verified from non primary sources other than Atul's writings about himself on his website, his blog or on the URL comversations.com, a domain he owns and content he himself creates there.

Vivekvc (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello again Canderson7, following your feedbacks I found the following links to be working when I re-checked them

http://web.archive.org/web/20090202093242/http://www.ciol.com/content/news/2005/105112915.asp [This link speaks about the foss.in event and can be used as a valid citation for the same in the article at an appropriate place]

The following links seem to be leading no where (hence was removed as dead).

http://web.archive.org/web/20071106042301/ http://news.monstersandcritics.com/india/article_1218648.php

The following link http://web.archive.org/web/20070804052944/http://www.nrcfoss.org.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=81&Itemid=2 is working which points to the fact that he was a member of NRC FOSS Faculty member some time in 2006. This change can be reverted back.

This link http://web.archive.org/web/20070314125217/http://www.lexpress.mu/display_search_result.php?news_id=2279 is working but in German and the exact nature of content and what it says and where it can be relevantly cited in the article needs to be cross checked.

The link http://www.bpb.de/themen/81TOFT,3,0,The_Fox_of_Innovations.html can be used as valid source for his involvement in Foss Advocacy.

http://www.rediff.com/search/2002/aug/21net1.htm is a link which again talks of his role as Bulletin Board Administrator and the fact has been acknowledged in the article.

Thanks for pointing out that the above links were working, I'll be reverting back only the edits where the links are working.

Vivekvc (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Canderson7, your valuable inputs have been taken into consideration and the links which were not dead have been re-added. Kindly let me know your valuable feedbacks so that we can improve the quality of this article further while thoroughly verifying the content that needs to be added from now on this article.

Vivekvc (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Vivekvc. Thank you for re-checking those links and for your attention to this article. Adding those citations to the intro paragraph (as you did here) is not an acceptable way to repair the damage that you did with you erroneous edits. The intro paragraph of a Wikipedia article is not the best place for citations. The intro paragraph should summarize content from the body of the article that is cited in the body of the article. At the time that you removed the citations from the article, they were being used to support sentences and paragraphs in the body of the article. You removed those sentences and paragraphs. You should return to the article history and restore the body-content that you removed in your erroneous edits. Canderson7 ^(talk) 17:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll be bold and revert all the edits in question. It's a wide net, but removal of neutral content regarding living persons should be undertaken with care. Given the sheer multiplicity of edits in a short time frame, any editor will be disinclined to trawl through to parse invalid removal from fair removal. I'm aware of WP:ROWN, and that there are WP:NODEADLINEs, but I agree with Canderson, believe that position rests in policy and consensus, and bear in mind that this subject is a living person. I don't doubt certain edits were reasonable; I hope Vivekvc will consider redoing only those. JFHJr (㊟) 08:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Canderson7 and JFHJr,

Thanks once again for your feedbacks on this article. What do you suggest that we should do for the lack of non primary citation for a large number of claims made on this article ?

How long should we wait for a non primary citation to be provided by who ever added those claims in the first place ?.

If non primary sources are not added (within a considerable time frame) inspite of us requesting it, what should be done with those claims made in the article not backed by non primary citations ?

Vivekvc (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)