User talk:Sreenivasan KG1

Lets give two options in name.

Let it be Mullaperiyar(as per kerala and in malayalam) or Mullaiperiyar/Mullaiperiyaru(as per Tamil Nadu and in Tamil)

Sreenivasan KG1, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Sreenivasan KG1! 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 Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Tamil Nadu-Kerala dam row, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless used with permission. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is the teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are removing things that I've given which is available in a public Supreme Court judgement and observation. I reported the observation made by the Supreme Court of India while giving the final verdict in 2014 and it is available to all public freely, while you are deleting the most important aspects relating to the subject matter. Sreenivasan KG1 (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that you recently removed content from Mullaperiyar Dam without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Adakiko (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, i have not made mistake. I have corrected lots of unwanted information and gave correct information as per the Supreme Court judgement. Sreenivasan KG1 (talk) 07:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When i try to upload the cross section image of the dam before and after strengthening as per the report submitted to the Government and the Supreme Court in 2014 case by the Empowered Committee appointed by the constitutional bench. It's publically owned information, the Wikipedia says it doesn't have copyright right. This is government owned information available to all under RTI rules in India. Sreenivasan KG1 (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the source of the image states that the image is public domain or some other release accepted by Wikipedia, mention that source. It would be best to look for an answer to your question here: Commons:Helpdesk Adakiko (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the pronunciation IPA: [mulːɐpːeɾijɐːr] That is normally added for unusual words. If it is wrong, please correct it or remove it. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ok, no problem with pronounciation. I just thought it was unnecessary. it's Pronounced as Mullaiperiyar in Tamil language and Mullaperiyar in Malayalam language. The dam is situated in border region of both states and currently disputed. In my earlier edits which you undid, i removed the link because the link was broken and was not working. Sreenivasan KG1 (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prof Shivaji Rao who created the Cross Section image and diagram of the Mullaperiyar Dam before the strengthening activities carried out by Tamil Nadu Government with the recommendation from Central Water Commission(CWC) of India is no more and passed away. How is it possible to get permission from a person that is passed away?? I wanted to provide the cross sectional images and diagrams of the dam which is openly available in order to explain the technical details and strengthening works carried out a little better. These are publically available information that were submitted in front of the Supreme Court of India during the litigation between Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Sreenivasan KG1 (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was the cross section created for the government? If so, is it then reproducible? If it is copyrighted by Rao, then his estate probably would inherit the rights. One could wait until the copyright expires, not sure how long that would be in India. I am curious, would you leave a link for me to peruse?

Per MOS:BOLDLEAD, the first instance of the topic should be bolded. Is it possible to add a pronunciation for the other spelling?

If you want a faster reply, to someone's talk, I would recommend "pinging" them. You can add {{ping|Adakiko}}. Click on the word ping to see the document on that template. (The nowiki stuff keeps the code in its uncompleted state, so leave it out). There are a few caveats: if it doesn't work or you forget to add it, you would need to redo it and sign again. You should see a notification that it was successful. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the cross section was for Governmental study to assess the structural safety of the dam.

1. The Cross section of the Dam before strengthening works is available in the page anr is prepared by the Late. Prof. Shivaji Rao for studies and openly available: https://sites.google.com/site/profshivajirao/mullaperiyardam

2. The Cross section of the Mullaperiyar Dam after the strengthening works carried out by Tamil Nadu PWD with the recommendation of the Central water Commission (CWC), it's a government document prepared by IIT Roorkee for the Kerala government which was submitted to during the case between Kerala and Tamil Nadu (State of Tamil Nadu vs State of Kerala & Anr on 7 May, 2014; O.S No.3 of 2006 in front of the Supreme Court of India). It's openly available : https://expert-eyes.org/mullaperiyar/

(In Chapter No. 3)

@Adakiko: Sreenivasan KG1 (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rao was Director of the Centre for Environmental Studies, a UK group. It was defunded by Margaret Thatcher and shut down in the 1980s. They might have owned the rights to that paper. Now, it's anyone's guess. Adakiko (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But when he composed the cross sectional image during 2011-2012 for study regarding structural and technical aspects of the dam, at that time he was the Director of Environmental Studies, GITAM University in Vishakhapatnam, Andhrapradesh(India).

@Adakiko: Sreenivasan KG1 (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what to do next. My apology. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know a lot in detail about this Case in front of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and have studied the controversy surrounding the dam and this topic in depth also active on this page. it's very disheartening not being able to provide diagrams to explain technical details crucial to this topic. Sreenivasan KG1 (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please use edit summaries

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks!

December 2021

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Mullaperiyar Dam, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - SUN EYE 1 08:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have given links regarding now. Most of the official technical documents from Central Water Commission (cwc) qnd TamilNadu public works department (tn pwd) are in PDF format. Sreenivasan KG1 (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

when I try to attach PDF and other links the Wikipedia is not taking. I can provide other dozen sources too.. Sreenivasan KG1 (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at OpIndia, you may be blocked from editing. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at OpIndia, you may be blocked from editing. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Alt News. And start using edit summaries! You have ignored too many warnings, and are very close to an indefinite block as not being here to create an encyclopedia. Bishonen | tålk 20:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reposted under proper heading. The introduction was completely biased and the content regarding was given under proper headings. Instead of giving under proper regarding title don't use Wikipedia to spread propaganda. Sreenivasan KG1 (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will edit regarding the information that is posted under proper heading but content should be neutral and not based on what you want. Sreenivasan KG1 (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The content you removed was based not on "what I want", but on reliable sources, which is what Wikipedia goes by. It's completely disruptive to remove it without explanation. Please don't do it again. Bishonen | tålk 20:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Sreenivasan KG1 Please stop for a moment and read about Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Thanks! — DaxServer (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reposted the same content I removed under proper heading. These should not be in discription and doesn't give a neutral introduction. Controversies and Allegations must be all under seperate tab and must be on thta section. Sreenivasan KG1 (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction is anything but a neutral point of view but completely biased. Controversies and Allegations must be in a seperate heading where all allegations and controversies must be given with reliable source. Sreenivasan KG1 (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consult Talk:OpIndia/FAQ. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have an FAQ page? Didn't know!! — DaxServer (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to post your notes on the talk pages of the articles, so that others could comment and improvise. Does that sound good? — DaxServer (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before even I had the chance to paste all the allegations and controversies under seperate section and tab, you people began to reverse the edit. This is how it's being seen in most other media info pages of Wikipedia, not like such one sided projecting info right at the reader like seen in this page. Sreenivasan KG1 (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infowars, Breitbart, need more examples? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TrangeBellam check all the sources I have posted, it's TOI and LiveLaw. Sreenivasan KG1 (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We were talking about OpIndia and in my experience, it is better for new editors to branch out from a single article.

In any case, TOI is largely unreliable and we are not a news-site to cover routine cases of media harassment in a non-contextual fashion. Consult this discussion for a similar case with The Wire. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wire is most unreliable and biased. TOI is largely neutral and applicable. Controversies and Allegations needs to be under seperate headings along with reference not in Introduction just like how you do under AltNews which you keep on reversing Edit. Sreenivasan KG1 (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You won't survive long if you choose to not read any policy or discussions, that are cited at you. You didn't even bother clicking on the links. This is not Twitter where the shrillest (typically) wins the day; you need to understand our policies and then, argue in a coherent manner. In the meantime, please read our prohibition on "edit-warring" - you cannot keep reverting back an article to your preferred version. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I given links to substantiate edits in AltNews. Either you prove me wrong otherwise there is nothing wrong. LiveLaw is a trusted site that posts regarding only legal matters. Even after I have put 3 links from different sources largely neutral, you choose to try to reverse the edit. Sreenivasan KG1 (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Sreenivasan I can see a block coming your way if you don't stop immediately. You will lose your editing rights if you get blocked. I would suggest you to discuss your points properly on the talk page of the respective page and only then make the edit. You need to respect the consensus of editors. Akshaypatill (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which information I have given is wrong? I have provided multiple reliable sources in the AltNews page. Kindly point out which is wrong. The FIR is available in site if you want. Sreenivasan KG1 (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I will use the Talk page regarding OpIndia.

The info must be neutral and content sorted based on proper heading and tab not complete onesided projection at the introduction itself. Before I had the chance to paste the "cut" portion it was reverted. Sreenivasan KG1 (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been great if you had discussed it on the talk page and what their objections are. Anyway, you are blocked from editing those pages. Akshaypatill (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the edits I have done are neutral and with proper source in AltNews, I can if you want provide even more dozen sources regarding that.

In Opindia I was trying to move the biased introduction under an allegations and controversies tab. Sreenivasan KG1 (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I ain't discouraging you from making an edit. But if a editor objects your edits, or reverts it you have to discuss it on the talk page before reverting. Akshaypatill (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction or lead section — the part before the named sections — is supposed to be a summary of the article. You must not remove important elements of that summary and hide them away in a "criticism" or "controversy" section, or "allegations" or whatever. Not in any article. It is very misleading for the readers to do that. See WP:LEAD. Bishonen | tålk 07:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Page blocks

As for the content you first removed from Alt News, I see that you tried to cover my objections by moving it about and making some additions, but the net result was completely tendentious. I see you have also removed well-sourced content from OpIndia. You're supposed to use talkpages and try to get consensus for these edits when they're reverted, not try to push them through by edit warring. You have been blocked from the articles Alt News and OpIndia for three months. Note that you may still edit the articles' talkpages. Please use them for discussion. If your disruption moves to other articles, you risk an indefinite block from the whole of Wikipedia. Bishonen | tålk 21:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Adding: If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 21:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sreenivasan KG1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was trying to properly sort the page like other media companies are written. I have given 3 source regarding controversies of AltNews. All the links I have posted regarding FIR in AltNews is true. I have posted largely neutral sources including the LiveLaw, Times of India. Still have not given any reason for the attempt to reverse such an edit on a truthful information and content.

Decline reason:

You were trying to make articles give an impression closer to your own preferred point of view. As long as you continue to deny that was what you were doing, and provide no reason for us to suppose that you don't intend to do the same again, unblocking you will not be helpful. JBW (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@ Sreenivasan KG1 :-I have transcluded the unblock section for you and your's review is now live. Make sure to add the justifiable unblock's reasons.Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 21:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]