Talk:Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited

Recovery of Article & Absolute Vandalism by WP:ADMIN's Chzz, Sowhy, Slon02
To Wikipedians & WP:Admin's, I appealed for Peer Review few time back. In the name of Peer Review, one of our WP: Admin - Chzz has vandalized the TNPL article. He has cut short the complete article without properly going through the entire article. In few places there are copy right violation which i have checked & corrected after his advice. But complete article has been cut short to one paragraph without properly analyzing the contents.
 * 1) TNPL is subsidy of Govt of Tamilnadu. So in Govt of Tamilnadu's website, information about TNPL has been displayed for the information of public. Pls read Disclaimer information at Govt of Tamilnadu's website. Under Right To Information Act 2005, the government website is liable to display information to the public & also the website it is not holding any copyrights.
 * WP: Admin - Chzz has read & matched TNPL article contents with TNPL website contents & he has tagged the article as Copyright violation without Checking Govt of Tamilnadu's website.
 * 1) Also he has deleted Criticism / Controversy Section which has reliable reference document (Public Hearing Proceedings) from Tamil nadu Pollution control Board. To maintain transparency,normally Public Hearing Proceedings are published for Public information.Criticism / Controversy Section has information from Public Hearing Proceedings & also from Newspaper information (the Hindu).
 * WP: Admin - Chzz doesn't care about the effort behind the work. Being an administrator it's easy to delete entire contents of the article instead of helping to improve the article.
 * 1) The article has nearly 25 references, i request WP:ADMIN's to cross check & punish me if references are wrong. If references are not enough for the article Chzz would have asked the user's / me to add more references instead of discarding all the contents.
 * 2) Contributors to Wikipedia are normally volunteers, if admin's using their power discourage user instead to extending assistance has demoralizing effect on New User's.
 * 3) Apart from Deleting contents of the article, downgrading article rating none of the Admins (Chzz,Sowhy,Slon02) made any sort of constructive edits like adding References, correcting grammatical mistakes,etc.

'''I have completely changed the contents of the article & gave a new look with more than 20 references. I hope the Multiple issues Tag can be removed now.''' Raj6644 (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Raj,
 * TN govt works are not in public domain. Govt retains the copyright according to indian copyright law (even if not specifically mentioned in the govt website). The RTI act does not release govt documents into public domain - the govt is bound to display the documents; that does not mean we can copy the source and display it anywhere else.
 * primary sources cannot be used to cite information for eg. court/hearing documents.WP:PRIMARY
 * Ppeer review is a thorough process - every article submitted gets this treatment. What the reviewers have done is normal. Please do not accuse them of vandalism. The article needs to cut down greatly. You asked for a peer review and they gave it you. It is in bad form to accuse multiple admins of vandalism when they are following established wikipedia policy
 * Find secondary sources (newspapers/analyst reports) etc to source the sections currently sourced from primary documents. (The controversies section is completely sourced from primary docs, it wont stand scrutiny anytime)--Sodabottle (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Sodabottle! Thank you for stepping in to discuss the issue. I understand few of the government website holds copyrights for sensitive information. Apart from that information intended for public information are always not copyrighted by government & the same is clearly indicated in the Disclaimer's information of the Govt of TN website. I too can understand the Peer Review process which normally involves severe scrutinisation but at the same time till now also nobody is interested in Improving or providing any sort of value addition to the article rather than cutting it short which is the main reason for such a lengthy Talk. I hope the links given in First paragraph of this talk page can serve the purpose. Thank you once again Sodabottle. Raj 6644 09:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)