User talk:TruthInNews

Regarding your comment on my attempts to edit the Sunil Abeyesundere article, as posted on my talk page: As a victim of this man's crimes, I admit I am biased against the completely cheerful and positive nature of the article. I do not have a vendetta against him, in that I do not expect him to repay me. However, I think that there may be people who would like to know more about him than is written. It is for these people that I am persisting in posting this information. He seems to be seeking investors in his company. If this is the case, don't you think we have a duty to inform potential investors of his history? Or, is Wikipedia only a way to promote oneself? Is not the truth important? Spottykitty (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response to my comment. You are right that there is no claim in the article that Sunil Abeyesundere is seeking investors. My comment was an attempt to explain my motives for correcting this article with the fact of his criminal conviction. I am expressing my opinion in this talk page that he may be seeking investors, and that is one reason I believe the edit should go in the article. The other reason is that his conviction is a verifiable fact. While opinion has no place in an article, we may and should express our opinions, motives and biases on the talk pages. With respect to his company, this ZoomInfo page documents that he is (or claims to be) the CEO of Amni International, Inc. The biography on that page states that he is in "full charge" of the company. It is a logical conclusion that he might be seeking investment, as any CEO might do. The real question here is not whether the criminal conviction information should be a part of the article, but exactly how to put it in. Respectfully, Spottykitty (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Really, the question at hand regarding the article Sunil Abeyesundere is not what are my motives in trying to edit the page, but whether the information regarding his criminal conviction is true, and whether or not it can be substantiated. You state "if articles are to contain such information resulting from an ex parte reference to an uncorroborated news paper article as well as assumptions, it would indeed set a very dangerous trend and open Wiki to numerous litigation." I believe that mainstream newspaper articles are one of the sources of information that Wikipedia encourages us to use (see WP:verifiability). A search of the records of Los Angeles Superior court, of which Torrance is a district, confirms that Sunil was convicted of grand theft on July 25, 2001. This is not an uncorroborated news paper article, nor an assumption, but a verifiable fact. Respectfully, Spottykitty (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the care with which you have laid out your arguments against my edit of the Sunil Abeyesundere article in your latest message. I think I can fairly summarize the arguments as being these. Points 1, 2, and 3: Because there is no proof that he is seeking investment, there is no reason to inform potential investors of his past crime by including this information in the article. I would counter that even if he was not seeking investment at present, as the CEO of a company, he is engaged in financial activity. I believe it would also benefit his customers, suppliers, and contractors to make this information easily available. Since his crime was a major financial event in his life, it belongs in his biography, just as would a bankruptcy. That he stole the money from a church does not, in my opinion, make it less likely that he would steal money from another kind of institution, or from individuals. Point 4: The edit is potentially libelous. I agree that at first blush it appears libelous, but libel is a false claim that gives an individual a negative image. The proposed edit contains a verifiable fact that gives an individual a negative image. Therefore, it is not libelous. The objection that it costs a small fee to verify the fact by the primary source of the court record is irrelevant to the question of its factuality. Whether verification is free or not, if it can be verified, there is no cause for concern. It might also cost you a few dollars in gas to drive to the library, or to buy a book, or to access a special collection, or to buy a newspaper. Point 5: a. There is no attempt here to refute my claim that the Zoominfo article was changed. As I said before, I have screenshots of the changes if you want me to post them. b. You repeat the charge that the proposed edit is libelous, which I have responded to above. c. The Sunil Abeyesundere of the Wikipedia article may not be the Sunil Abeyesundere of the Daily Breeze newspaper stories. First, you recall that I was a victim of his crime, and so I recognize his picture! Of course, that cannot be used as a source. You state there are probably many people named Sunil Abeyesundere, and of course I agree. However, the name is rare in the USA. Besides sharing the same name, the two Sunils share these characteristics: same age, same employer (although the newspaper Sunil worked at Lockheed-Martin using the assumed name "Bill Benson"), same occupation, same hobby (amateur radio). Perhaps more striking is that the Wiki Sunil has a wife named Supipi, and children named Nilipi and Asanka. According to the full text of the newspaper article of April 14, 2001 (downloadable for a small fee) Sunil has a wife Supiti, and children Nilipi and Asanka. If that is not enough, if you check the FCC-registered user of the Wiki Sunil's radio call signs AA6SF & AE4SD (USA), you find that they were registered to Bill Benson, the same alias that the newspaper Sunil used while working at Lockheed-Martin. There can be no reasonable doubt that the Sunil Abeyesundere described in the newspaper accounts is the same Sunil Abeyesundere described in the Wikipedia biography. Respectfully, Spottykitty (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Sunil Abeyesundere

A tag has been placed on Sunil Abeyesundere requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. NJGW (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)