User talk:Nayaki75

Nayaki75, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Nayaki75! 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 experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 22:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Chitravina N Ravikiran for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chitravina N Ravikiran is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chitravina N Ravikiran until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Waggie (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Waggie: 1. Most of the Awards are well known for years in the music field and any online search will reveal them. I am going to revert that deletion and add references where available.

2. Chitravina N Ravikiran is a markedly different page focussing on the Compositions of Ravikiran that was of immense use to students and Carnatic music lovers. The page has to be reinstated as "Compositions of Ravikiran" and not titled as "Chitravina N Ravikiran". Another option would be to transfer all its contents to the N Ravikiran page.

3. Sexual Harassment Allegations of several people that have been in news have not been included by you and others including poet Vairamuthu and many other musicians. In N Ravikiran's case, there have been no complaints and only media stories based on allegations as well but yet these are being repeatedly headlined. The inconsistency needs clarification, at the least. Thank you! ````

Restoring unsourced biographical content on Wikipedia is a huge no-no, and will eventually result in a block if you continue to do so. I'll give you a few minutes to find sourcing for the content you reverted, but you should take the initiative to remove anything that's not sourced. Also, do NOT remove properly sourced and contexted material from the article, regardless of how you feel about it. In addition, you've used improper formatting for the list, you have hyphens instead of bullets like the rest of the article does. I recommend you fix it. You're treading dangerously, I suggest you step back and start collaborating on the talk page, instead of blithely reverted the edits of experienced users. Waggie (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Waggie if I am inexperienced, I apologise. However, the principle of the issue still has not been addressed, I feel. Kindly clarify to my points 2 and 3 so that we are all on the same page as I presume that experienced users such as yourself are objective as well. For instance, it must have been obvious to an experienced user such as yourself that Chitravina N Ravikiran page was entirely about his compositions and educative for students of music and dance. Yet, it was marked for deletion.

As to sourcing of Awards, most have been in the public domain for decades as I am sure experienced users who have analysed Ravikiran's career well know. These were Awards received in huge public events and have been in the artist's website and other sources online as well. It may take me a while to find online references for each of them but if they are in the artist's website for decades or in Wiki with years listed as well, one has to take them in good faith. Regards Nayaki ````

For point 2, the Chitravina N Ravikiran page was effectively a duplicate page as I explained in my AfD nomination. I don't believe there is enough reliably sourced and independent content to justify a separate page for his compositions. Others at the deletion discussions seemed to agree, if tacitly. If there is content that is sourced to independent and reliable sources there that you'd like included on the N. Ravikiran page, then go ahead and include it, but make sure that is IS independent and reliable, and that it matches the formatting on the rest of the page. Here is a link to the page before it was redirected.

For point 3, this has been covered quite exhaustively on my talk page and on the article talk page. The content regarding the allegations is sourced to reliable and independent sources. It correctly and clearly states that these are only allegations, and that they are anonymous - the section title even specifically "allegations". It also includes content based his own denials. It's at the bottom of the page (not headlined), and only has an extremely small section at the end of an extremely promotional page on him. Frankly, the more I look at this page, the more I want to start chipping away at the vast amount of promotional and unsourced material in it.

Regarding the awards, we don't take promotional (or negative) content in good faith on Wikipedia, especially with biographies of living people. If it's unsourced or poorly sourced, it can be challenged and/or removed at any time, no matter how long it's been in the article. If these rewards were received "in huge public events", then there should be independent reporting from reputable news organizations available. The subject's own website is not a reliable source for this. If you can find quality sourcing for the awards that have been removed, then feel free add them with the source, but you need to follow the formatting that already exists in the page. Thank you. Waggie (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Waggie,

Thank you for explaining a lot of things. To continue the discussion: 1. Mr Ravikiran's career from age two has been in public domain for decades. His Awards or contributions are factual material and I fail to see why you would classify them as promotional material. Not every huge public event may have media reference online today but that cannot imply that an iconic artist's website is "not reliable". That said, I will see if sources can be found for some of the awards anyway.

2. I followed your instructions re material from Chitravina N Ravikiran page but you seem to have deleted it again. I have already explained it in your talk page as well. These are of immense educative value and do not warrant summary deletion like what has been done.

3. I still see many inconsistencies and entire irrelevance with respect to allegations against prominent people being in an educational space but we can address those at leisure on another occasion :-) Thank you again. ````

January 2019

Hello, I'm Waggie. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, N. Ravikiran, 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. Waggie (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in N. Ravikiran, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

It is almost never a good idea to have single-sentence sections in an article - and section headings must be neutral, "unique creations" is not an appropriate heading. bonadea contributions talk 06:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

Hello, I'm Aranya. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on N. Ravikiran, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Aranya 05:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Nayaki75. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 05:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Bonadea,

Thank you for your message. On the contrary I had cited clear and unimpeachable sources for my edits which have been reversed repeatedly. So wonder who has (have) conflicts of interests here 🙂

Secondly, select Wikipedia editors seem to treat unsupported allegations as gospel against select people and keep deleting proofs when their names are officially cleared by ICCs set up for that purpose. Again, reeks of personal agendas against specific persons.

Would look forward to your explanations, but after you go over the entire sequence of events from Oct 2018.

Thank you Nayaki75 (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

N.Ravikiran

Which is precisely why the section was deleted.Wikipedia is a space for factual and verifiable content-Even if well-sourced,Content that has no connection to fact should not find a place in a Wikipedia article.Allegations and Counters do not lead to a factual finding however well-sourced.These are matters concerning law-enforcementand and the courts. Lastly can you help me removethe line - In this Indian name, the name Narasimhan is a patronymic, and the person should be referred to by the given name, Ravikiran.( Appears on top of the page)-The template needs to go too and the page protected by Vandalism.

The header | In this Indian name, the name Narasimhan is a patronymic, and the person should be referred to by the given name, Ravikiran | It makes no sense whatsoever.So what if it is patronymic-It is factual.Rajeshbm (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)