User talk:Ravishyam Bangalore

August 2013

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Yintan  10:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Ravishyam Bangalore, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Ravishyam Bangalore! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ravishyam Bangalore. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BlackberrySorbet 13:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Your recent editing history at Unique Identification Authority of India shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—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. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. BlackberrySorbet 16:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Ravishyam Bangalore. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by RedDog (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Unique Identification Authority of India, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. BlackberrySorbet 14:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bhutes, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. BlackberrySorbet 14:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I own only single account Ravishyam Bangalore. Bhutes id is not mine and it been there before I registered. IP addresses should be able to prove that. UIDAI article was skewed, maligning. politicized by the group of vested interests. Aadhaar is supposed to be anti-corruption administrative tool which is hated by the vested interests. Statements like "Land scam for UIDAI Head Quarters" defies all logic & common-sense because the use of land transferred by the Government from one of its non-functional departments to another govt department(UIDAI) cannot be scam, there is no money-transaction, nor any private party is involved. My para "Who is afraid of Aadhaar & Why" is very painful to the beneficiaries of corruption which has been derailing public wefare programs in India. The progress on "Aadhaar Enrollment & Generation" periodically updated by Bhutes was also deleted. Some people do not want any positive & true information to spread against the principle of Wikipedia. My edits with sufficient Citations were repeatedly Undone without giving reasons or coming for discussion on the Talk page.

Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 08:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I want investigation be done about the people who had undone my edits on 19, 20, 21-Oct-2013 like Unfitlouie, Notabede etc. I suspect the gang of vested interests are trying to block the truth from spreading.
Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 10:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

false allegations of gangs and vested political interests.

Please do not write such things. You are not allowed to make personal attacks on other editor.Notabede (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Aadhaar Enabled Service Delivery

I've redirected Aadhaar Enabled Service Delivery to Unique Identification Authority of India, because Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Aadhaar Enabled Service Delivery was declined, and because it's very similar to Aadhar which was redirected to the UIDAI article. Please sort out what's wrong with your draft article at Articles for creation, and then it can be published as an article. Thanks, Ruby Murray 10:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Aadhaar

Hi Ruby Murray,

I developed the article "Aadhaar" from scratch. It was a blank redirect page to UIDAI. The development was done in bits & pieces from 27-Oct-2013 to 18-Nov-2013 (about 3 weeks). I have spent considerable time and effort.

You Ruby Murray (Soham Banerjee) also helped me a lot in making the sentences neutral, editing, formatting etc. which I acknowledged by thanking you.

Today I noticed by work of 3 weeks vandalized - made blank page redirect to UIDAI page which has almost no constructive content (against the spirit of encyclopedia to permeate knowledge).

My contribution from UIDAI pages were deleted in October-2013 on the ground that my contents belonged to 'Aadhaar' program, whereas 'UIDAI' page should contain Organization related content only. I agreed to this logic, hence developed the 'Aadhaar' page from scratch. The traces of development is present on the wiki-server for records.

Please help.

Regards, Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Warning for Disruptive Editing

Dear User

You are editing in a disruptive manner to push your views on UIDAI, UID, Aadhar etc. It is clear you are a WP:SPA for this topic. The final straw is your recent edits WP:OUTING User:Ruby_Murray. You are strongly advised to refrain from edit waring and undoing the work of other editors. Wikipedia is not a soapboax or a catalog to promote your opinions. Kindly also refrain from ascribing motives or other appellations to editors who disagree with you.You don't WP:OWN any article or its content here; it belongs to the community who will often edit it ruthlessly. If you cannot accept this fundamental proposition then don't contribute here. Notabede (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ravishyam Bangalore. You have new messages at Talk:Aadhaar.
Message added 10:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ruby Murray 10:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read and understand WP:UP for your user page

Dear User

Please be advised that your User Page contains substantial text that is in contravention of many sub-clauses of WP:UP. Such text needs the consent of the community and it is advisable to adhere to the spirit of the guideline. Take care. Notabede (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI report

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notabede (talk • contribs) 18:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Jayadevp13 is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Also have a very Happy New Year! - Jayadevp13 06:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

You've got a mail!

Hello, Ravishyam Bangalore. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- 117.220.90.205 (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Aadhaar

If you carry on reverting other editors without discussion or obtaining consensus after your indefinite block, you are very likely to be blocked permanently from editing at Wikipedia. Unfitlouie (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

@Unfitlouie: Exactly same points apply on you. Please mention the para by para so that issues can be resolved, if any really.

Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Unique Identification Authority of India may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 2009, and owns and operates the Unique Identification Number database.<ref name="thehindu2009kst">{{Citation | title= Rs. 100 crore for Unique Identification Project | newspaper=The Hindu | date=17

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Unique Identification Authority of India may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the aegis of the Planning Commission. Mr Nilekani has the rank and status of a Cabinet minister.''}} [[Nandan Nilekani]] was appointed the first Chairman of the authority in June 2009.<ref>{{cite web|

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

SPI

FYI, a sock investigation has been opened: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Notabede. You may contribute evidence if you wish. Toddst1 (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Toddst1, I welcome the Sock puppetry Investigation (SPI) against me. Pure gold does not fear the flame!

Earlier too such baseless blame were put on me by the same set of people since Nov-2013 (I was new to wiki writing). Truth will come out as to how and why such vandals who have no significant contribution of their own, put many baseless blames in order to trouble the genuine contributors, to consume Administrators’ time, to carry on with defamatory propaganda, redirect good articles to defamatory propaganda, who have no intention of solving real problems and to block truthful information which is against their corrupt interest.

Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The SPI was not against you and you were not named in the report, rather it was about someone that opposed you in several edit wars. I thought you may have some additional insight. Toddst1 (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Toddst1,

Thanks for prompt response. Yes, I would like to provide some evidence latest by tomorrow.

Please see the data ‘Page view statistics’(Nov-2013 and Jan-14) on Aadhaar whenever my creation was on display Versus whenever it was redirected to defamatory page Unique Identification Authority of India. November-2013 had about 900 views per day. Aadhaar is a new subject in India and general public want information desperately in layman vocabulary. It is a big evidence to proves the popularity of information.

BTW, I am software professional with ample global experience in e-governance. Hence I spent solid 3 months of hard work last year on study, research, compilation and to understand various subjects / documents (technical, Indian socio-economic problems, economics, budgets, identification systems of other nations etc.) I got convinced to write my first wiki-article and chose this topic for public education. I paid full attention to content and less to wiki-rules etc. thus was temporarily defeated by the clever vandals with vested interests.

Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The SPI is now a moot point. Toddst1 (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 13 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Aadhaar page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Aadhaar Enabled Service Delivery, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@Toddst1 Sure, I will strive to put all reliable sources. Sorry I had forgotten. Now I have put one secondary and one primary citation.

Regards, Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Barnstar for you on Aadhaar. Keep editing! Wikiuser13 (talk | contribs) 16:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@Wikiuser13: Thanks a lot for encouragement. Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Aadhar - please do not edit war to oppose policies and guidelines

I note that you have reverted my edit despite my having addressed your concerns about the crores. I would refer you to the response I left you on my talk page. Everything in that final edit, including additions to the citations, capitalisation fixes, date alignments, italicisations, use of boldface, changes to remove your improper use of dashes are all backed by policies and guidelines, themselves all deemed to have consensus and as such do not require additional article-level consensus to apply or execute. I am upset that although I have taken the time to respond and answer your questions, address your concerns, you simply revert my edit implying that it does not add value. It's a bit of a slap in the face. One does not deliberately leave the house unswept, clothes unfolded, hair unbrushed (for those who have hair ;-) ), messages unanswered, or sentences without full stops. As almost all of the changes involve the Manual of Style, I think you need to raise the issue at that talk page if you disagree with any or all of them. Please do not revert me again until you have obtained the abovementioned consensus at WT:MOS, otherwise I will consider it a hostile act or even vandalism. Please be aware that edit warring is frowned upon, and is subject to limitations. Kind regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Aadhar, as far as I can see, you've reintroduced a lot of errors and suboptimal stylistic features into that article. Could you explain your rationale for each one, please? I'm watchlisting this page in anticipation of your response. Tony (talk) 06:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello User:Ohconfucius and User:Tony1, Greetings!

1. My content contribution is almost 100% to this this article, raising is from a blank page last year after lot of R&D. 2. As per wiki policy, the initial author gets to choose the style. I chose to write in American English rather British English. Such a choice is neither wrong nor erroneous. 3. You should have come to suggest last year when this article was in infancy of development stage. 4. You are threatening of vandalism / edit war to the original contributor. Can it be upheld by wiki-society / Administrators? No. 5. In the past we have seen lot of vandalism on this article - large content changes in the garb of formatting or using AWB, misplacing the citations etc. Your changes are also large - that makes me suspicious of vandalism. 6. Both of you have written above wrong spelling of the title - Aadhaar. Please correct that. 7. Some of your changes have modified / reversed the meaning intended by me. 8. Please undo your large change and damages done to my edits (so no insult feeling to you). Then make the changes in small delta with consensus. We can invite some more people on it.

Regards, Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Initial author possibly gets to choose a few stylistic choices, like – or—but not the things that OhC edited. Your work is appreciated, but please don't revert good-faith adherence to en.WP's style rules. Any questions, ask me. Tony (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello User:Ohconfucius and User:Tony1, Greetings!

Please let me know categorical answer for each of the following points:

1. Where have I reintroduced errors as alleged by you? Please point at each error with reasons/ rationale. 2. Is it wrong to choose American English for Wikipedia? 3. Is it error to write 'color', 'labor' etc.? 4. Is it a great value addition to change 'color' to colour, 'labor' to labour etc. at this stage of mature/ stable version? 5. Is it right to threaten and accuse the original author of hostility, vandalism and edit-war who has contributed almost 100% of content, several months on R&D and large writing work filled with extensive data and about 200 citations? 6. Title of article is the most basic / fundamental part. You have kept silent on its wrong spelling - 'Aadhar' instead of 'Aadhaar'. Why? Vandals in the past did that frequently, were caught and punished by Administrators. 7. Some of the intended meaning have been reversed by your edit i.e. sentence meaning became opposite. E.g. use of BUT in the below edit: Revision as of 10:47, 24 March 2014 by Tony1: Once bankcards become common in rural areas, India will become a nation of cashless transactions, like the USA but with higher transparency and accountability. Cash is used for bribery and corruption. 8. I welcome the improvements in small changes with consensus. That is why I request you to undo your own changes and then let us make improvements together. I am awaiting this as I have to update certain data and make further expansion / improvements.

Regards, Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks much better to me, now that OhConfucius and Dicklyon have had a go. Please note the downcasing, the date formatting, and corrections to the use of hyphens. And en dashes, spaced, are required as interruptors, not hyphens. The multiple diff, in fact, is very instructive: it bears close examination. If you want to use US spelling, please go ahead, but ensure that it's consistent throughout the article. Tony (talk)

Hello User:Ohconfucius and User:Tony1,

The above reply looks to me as 'beating about the bush'.

Please reply to my above questions categorically.

Regards, Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Firstly I would like to commend your effort dedicated to this one article. I acknowledge you are the article's creator and principal contributor, but no editor has any inherent rights of ownership notwithstanding. There are policies and guidelines concerning articles that are usually followed. They are certainly not reverted once mandated style elements are in place. Some of your "errors" are as follows:

1. I have already given you an example (re dashes) of where your formatting is incorrect.
2. we use sentence case for headers, so we should write "Financial inclusion" instead of "Financial Inclusion"; "Various programmes of state govts" instead of "Various Programs of State Govts".
3. "Blood group", "iron-ore", "proof of identity", "proof of age", "proof of residence" are not proper nouns, and should not be capitalised except at the beginning of a sentence.
4. periodicals such as Economic Times and Business Standard are by convention italicised, and that's why the |work= field is preferred over |publisher= for these.
5. we do not use date formats such as "Jan 08 2014", "09-March-2014" and "01-Jan-2014". These are not permitted anywhere, let alone in running text. MOS:NUM strives for format consistency, thus we don't use a mix of different permitted format within whether the body of the text, or the reference sections.
6. I have problems seeing how the use of boldface in "Half the population of India..." or "save Rs. 1.1 Trillion" is warranted. These are not headings or titles that are covered by such provisions.
7. I have put it back due to your objection, but I fail to see why "Half the population of India (600 million i.e. 60 crore)" needs to have the trailing crore quantity, as it's thoroughly redundant.
8. MOS:CITE instructs us how to complete citations and not leave them as bare url links. I filled in all the citations as required.
9. "A cost-bene�fit analysis of Aadhaar" is obviously meant to be "A cost-benefit analysis of Aadhaar"

There are many detailed rules of form and formatting, and the above examples are not a criticism of your considerable efforts re this article. It took me many months of editing various articles to learn to apply the contents of our style guide.

Articles on Indian subjects are expected to be written with British spelling (as a close approximation to Indian usage) and not American. The choice of format here is determined by guidelines, and the first major contributor provision is only a tie-breaker in the case of dispute on certain issues. It does not come into play here because it is trumped by WP:TIES.

General fixes that are made by AWB are deemed to have consensus. They would not be allowed if there was not strong or overwhelming consensus, and just because you don't like some of them does not entitle you to call it vandalism. If you have any objections, you would be advised to bring them up at WT:AWB.

I do not believe I have used "Aadhar" anywhere in the article, although I note a fair number of the urls in the article have that spelling.

As I already mentioned, policies and guidelines represent consensual positions arrived at often through lengthy discussion. To resist guideline-mandated changes by revert-warring is considered disruption, and I thank you for engaging me constructively and for not reverting my last changes. Thank you for your patience. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello User:Ohconfucius and User:Tony1,

1. Please see the wrong spelling 'Aadhar' in this paragraph title above. 2. I welcome many formatting done by you, particularly the overuse of bolds. 3. I strongly disagree that Articles on Indian subjects are expected to be written with British spelling. I cannot change my style of writing. I prefer to write 'Thru', not 'Through'. It is simple and saves time. I am used to it as I studied my engineering in American English and also work with it.

Therefore, please revert it to American English. Thus my further expansion and improvements will be consistent with that. I hope you understand this point well.

Note: 1. Bare references / citations are put by me as I do not know / have access to AWB tool. In the past, other contributors have done this work, and now you are improving it. My thanks for it. This being the reason I request you to make small changes that bare easy to agree, modify and revert. I did not revert you last changes because it would have reverted the good ones too. 2. Lakh and crore are phasing out from Indian systems giving way to million and billion. It is in transition phase. However, currently crore and millions both have been used for consistency as cited articles have used crores. That is my rationale

Regards, Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"Thru" is not AmEng: it's commercialese and a text-message abbreviation—not acceptable in normal English of any variety. Tony (talk) 11:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• That is a red herring. Wikipedia is not SMS or Twitter. I don't believe that economy of keystrokes is a consideration when the manual of style was developed, otherwise it would probably have adopted texting slang, or a uniform US spelling. The fact is that there is no such definition; instead we have WP:ENGVAR, the guiding principle of which is that, for articles whose subjects are from an English-speaking country, the style of English used should be US or UK, depending on which is closest to the national code for the article. In this case, we are stuck with UK spelling for Indian articles. As far as I am concerned, you can continue to add to content using American spelling. The reason why I made a rather large edit is that I believe in maximising productivity, and the changes made reflect the fact that it has never been visited by me or any other editor with a MOS script. I would say once again as an aside that I find your use of crore with US spelling is rather incongruous as a style. But never mind, regular sweeps by me and others will ensure that the spelling is aligned to the "proper" code of English on an incremental basis. If you still disagree that this article should be in UK spelling, I would invite you to argue your case at the MOS thread I opened. G'day2u, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello User:Ohconfucius and User:Tony1,

You people are doing red-herring, not me as alleged. You have not answered on your wrong use of basic spelling - 'Aadhaar' You have kept silent on the treats to me on hostility, vandalism and edit-war, disruption etc. which you are actually doing.

For these reasons of vandalism, this article was semi-protected by Administrator.

Now, if you do not revert it to AmEng by today, your edits will be reverted by me tomorrow. Unfortunately, the good parts of your edit will also be lost.

Regards, Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 12:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)