User talk:AmritasyaPutra/Archive 2016

Copyright
It is acceptable to use copyrighted text in some limited circumstances - see Non-free content. Quotations are part of this, and it is sometimes OK to use them. However there are restrictions - in particular they have to be brief and not used excessively. It certainly isn't true, as you were told on that article talk page, that if it is within quotemarks and the source is given it is not a copyrightsviolation (and I'm happy to say so on the article talk page if you want me to). Personally I think that the use of quotations from copyrighted sources in that article is excessive, as there are several sections comprised entirely of quotations.  Hut 8.5  19:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is of course true that you cannot site an entire book or large amounts of text and just put it within quotemarks. But when dealing with normal quotes it is a question of judgment whether they are too long. And it is not the case that if you think a quote is too long you can simply remove it quoting copyvio and bully people who put it back in with the copyrights policy. That is not how the copyrights policy works, or how it is implemented. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, AmritasyaPutra made a mistake in immediately removing the material as blatant copyvio, but that looks like a good faith mistake - s/he thought that copying text from copyrighted sources was always copyvio and didn't know about the exemptions allowing limited use of copyrighted content. If this material had been a blatant copyvio, then removing it immediately would have been the best course of action. On the other hand statements like if it is within quotemarks and the source is given it is not a copyrightsviolation or This thing is a quote, presented as a quote. There's no copyvio here are unhelpful because they ignore the fact that Wikipedia has hefty restrictions on the use of non-free content within articles. Yes, there is an element of judgement in deciding whether a quote is too long, but this article has entire sections consisting predominantly of paragraph-length quotations from copyrighted sources, which is excessive (the standard is a lot less than "an entire book"). The article needs work to replace these quotations with original text. Non-free content compliance is taken rather seriously here.  Hut 8.5  17:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You should of course consider it a goodfaith mistake. I however am acquainted with AmritasyaPutra's editing over a longer period and can n longer assume good faith on their behalf. They are not here to improve the encyclopedia, but to enforce a particular way of looking at the world and removing anything that is critical of it. No one is claiming the article is good or that it doesnt rely too much on quotes - but fixing that does not work by inventing bogus reasons for selectively removing the parts of the article that a given editor with a pov happens not to like.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hut 8.5, perhaps I was a little abrupt in that statement of mine; if you had been acquainted with AmritasyaPutra's behavior, I think you would better understand what motivated that statement. Of course I understand that long quotes are unacceptable with or without attribution; in the 50 or so articles I have written or rewritten, I have not once used blockquotes, for that very reason. The quote as used in the page in question wasn't, IMO, long enough for that concern to be relevant. The quotations in that article are most certainly excessive. As Maunus says, what I was objecting to was an attempt at white-washing using copyvios as an excuse. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not familiar with AmritasyaPutra's editing history or the subject matter of this article, and I don't have any desire to get sucked into contentious disputes over either, so I'll refrain from commenting on that. It sounds like everyone agrees that parts of the article use quotations excessively though, so I'd suggest that the best course of action is for all parties to work towards fixing that issue.  Hut 8.5  20:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Hut 8.5, I posted on talk page. I waited. I edited. I was reverted immediately without talk page remark. I explained myself again. On my talk page too, instead of content, here is continued attack on me rather discussion on content and you can see that the content has yet again been reverted though Maunus also accepted it should not go back in without tweaks. I think I do understand what bullying means and I can see it happening here and would like intervention. Joshua Jonathan you also know it is extremely close paraphrasing and extremely long and the sources are primary. And the argument are revolving personal remarks about me and not the content. User:Hut 8.5, Would you mind checking my editing history and validate their accusations, please do consider their response in any interaction too, take my hard arguments in the light of continued personal remarks and accusation from them? --AmritasyaPutra T 06:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I read the part, and I don't understand why you removed the whole section, and not just the quote, or summarised the quote. Also, accusations of copy-vio were a favorite instrument of OZ/Blades; I tend to think that (mis)using this argument should be reason for caution, if not sanctions. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  07:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Joshua Jonathan then put back relevant part not whole section like you also admit? Don't you see the irony? I think we all agreed on talk page and here that there are problems with it - don't tell me there is no copy-vio and I am summarily wrong in raising it? Is that what you mean? User:Hut 8.5, could you make things a little clearer/easier here for discussion. I don't think my points are being considered, discussion is more or less about me, and I am unable to help it. There is this summary repetition of "there is no problem - your point is invalid" (at least I perceive it so, after continued remarks along that line). I am deeply disappointed JJ, for receiving more personal attacks; I am sad to note, my guess is, there will be more of it now from here. --AmritasyaPutra T 07:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that, as long as you are trying to defend and insert specific POV's, meanwhile (mis)using Wiki-policies to remove whole sections diff diff, instead of taking a more objective stance, the "personal attacks" against you will continue. Self-pity is not going to help you here; on the contrary. And no, "raising concerns" is not the problem; deleting whole passages with the wrong arguments is the concern. I thnk you should just let it go now, and try to improve that section. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As I've said, I have no desire to get sucked into a content dispute about a subject I know nothing about and have no interest in. You need to follow the dispute resolution process, if you need external input to help you resolve the dispute then consider filing a request for comment or notifying a relevant Wikiproject.  Hut 8.5  11:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

To AP's credit, he has raised an objection on the talk page and waited for roughly a day before deleting the section. But I don't think he noticed the additional sources that were added in the interim. The only objection of his that has some merit is the COPYVIO issue. The way to cure it is to paraphrase the content that has been quoted verbatim. A copyedit tag has been on the article for several months. AP is an expert copyeditor and a member of GOCE. There is no reason why he could not have done what was needed. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Kristallnacht example of physical damage.jpg shows Kristallnacht, an example of physical damage. (Note: I have hid this non-free image per WP:NFCC, WP:UP and WP:TPG: Non-free images may be linked to when the subject of discussion on user talk pages, but may only be displayed in the article namespace. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC))

"...The personal attacks against you will continue" -- Okay! Previously, on this article, I had completed two doctored quotes and I was blindly reverted twice! And there was silence when I asked for an explanation (there on article talk page). Kautilya3 The additional source "Partridge Publishing India" is a self-publishing company. The memoir did not have editorial oversight, I had checked, do you know the editor or editorial team's name? I know you insist on history compliant sources each time.. but not here. Look at the kind of caustic edit summaries and commentaries. Where was the discussion to begin except reverts and personal commentary? Joshua Jonathan with Maunus, Hut, Kautilya, all admitting close paraphrasing and excessive use of quote I hope you see my point and won't repeat the side remark again elsewhere. That has the potential to take any discussion to the dogs. I had impassively put my view on the sources too before editing. Yes, I see your point about content. --AmritasyaPutra T 02:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * AP, I've already taken a look at the page, to see if I could paraphrase it. But it's not my topic, I know too little about it. Stop complaining, just try to improve it. And reflect a little bit: how does a pogrom help in the development of a nation? Does it? Or is it a recipe for trouble? Just think about it. At the left and the right side are some starters. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Joshua Jonathan. I did not understand your question: "how does a pogrom help in the development of a nation? Does it? Or is it a recipe for trouble?" It does not, it is clearly a recipe for trouble. We completely agree here, don't we? --AmritasyaPutra T 06:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi AP. I think that Maunus is right that the section as it is is undue; yet, it does not mean that this info should not be mentioned. It's a very painfull episode, putting M. S. Golwalkar in a vey unfavorable light. But if he really did plan to execute a pogrom, then this unfavorable light is completely due to his own efforts, isn't it? And it is worth mentioning. When you remove the whole section, you raise suspicions of POV, COI, etc; it looks like you don't want Golwakar to be exposed.
 * I think that most editors here are truly and honestly disgusted by such things as pogroms, and are very cautioness about these things happening again. I provided the examples of the 1930s in Europe, and the present stream of refugees. For India, it's of course the Partition. People shouldn't mess with etnic and religious differences; the world is on fire, and it's only getting worse. So, removing this info looks like censorship, and it's alarming.
 * Wikipedia is not just some digital words on a computer-screen; it's also about the real world. And that real world should be informed about that real world, instead of presenting idealised pictures. Please be worried. And take all those responses serious.
 * I know you've got the feeling you're being hounded; please let go of that feeling, and try to take serious those concerns. Forget yourself, and aim for the better good. Also if that may mean to let go some of your hopes and dreams, and some of your certainties. Ypu know, after 28 years of Buddhism, I tend to think more and more "it's not about me; it's about this world and this humankind. My personal salvation is irrelevant; it's the world that needs tobe saved." Not by Truths and certainties, but just by being a good man, even if this means that there's nothing to be certain baout, and facing this messed-up world in all its cruelty. Be a good man, and do the right thing. Let your hear speak, not ideologies and group-concerns. The Muslom that's in need of safety and protection is as human as your Hindu neigbour who's so much more familiair. Take care, and all the best, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Appreciate it. I only wish to address a certain bias that I perceive. Advancing unconfirmed allegations on people who sacrificed their entire life for the welfare of all is serious. We should certainly not censor any info. You will see tons of positive books, personal experiences, my neighbors father had met him too... there are countless human beings remembering him fondly and none in bad light, unfortunately most of the info is in regional languages. Someone even as credible as S. Gurumurthy, B B Lal, will be shot down immediately with stray comments. (I read three different biography of his in Marathi, Kanadda and English couple of years ago.) But some author with no track record and some self-published book is also hailed as reliable when it is negative. I finished reading some (earlier) censored books in the Government Library that were released after due time... they confirm my suspicion, it was systematic then and that is continuing its effects now. (I am still more of pencil-paper than e-book.) Say, this quite revert, was it necessary? That is a blog, don't we already have better reference? At least a simple note instead of remark on my motivation in edit summary would have helped build a good environment. I have not done that. I have duly put forward my perception, and I am pretty confident they all are not figments of my imagination. While I need to introspect, I am not convinced I am a summary of negativity, and do others not need introspection? This place is for collaborative editing and is recreational in nature, it is not our (holds for me at least) primary obsession or activity. The censored books... Nehru treated him as political rival and used the entire government machinery in his power to malign him, for decades. --AmritasyaPutra T 09:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sanskrit
The article Sanskrit you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Sanskrit for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Maunus -- Maunus (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta
Tito Dutta (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sanskrit
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sanskrit you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Maunus -- Maunus (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ironic. --AmritasyaPutra T 09:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Third Party Opinion Sought
Would you please be so kind as to render your opinion on Draft:Sorcha Faal after reading article and Draft talk:Sorcha Faal?

Please start a new section on Draft talk:Sorcha Faal to leave your comments at, if possible.

Thank youPicomtn (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 1
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 2
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 3
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup-Round 3 Clarification
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Finals
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Wrap Up
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup Announcement
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

4th Annual GA Cup - Round 1
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)