User talk:Anand.abhishek73

Speedy deletion contested: The Ninth Vishnu
Hello Anand.abhishek73, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of The Ninth Vishnu, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. - MrX 15:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Noted. Thanks for bringing it up. -  Anand.abhishek73 (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Union Public Service Commission
Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://www.importantindia.com/1736/union-public-service-commission-upsc-history-functions-powers/. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. It looks like a government of India website, but it's not, and even if it were, it would not be okay to copy, because the Government of India copyrights their material as well. All material you add to this website needs to be written in your own words please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't Copying text directly from a source. At most can be close paraphrasing, which I think it is not. Your history deletes here are a WP:DISRUPT. Kindly Talk here in case of conflicting views - Anand.abhishek73 (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC).

June 2017
Your addition to Union Public Service Commission has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Kindly explain the copyvio part. Also, do not just delete entire history. There is a reason for which I have done each logical edit in a separate commit. You should have atleast raised a talk before just carrying out the deed. I refrained to speak last time. But now it seems just overkill. I may need explanation and undo of "history delete" - Anand.abhishek73 (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * is a government website. It has copied the very text from Constitution of India. And Constitution is an open document without any copyrights over any text of it. One can even use it verbatim on Wikipedia . Respond, I was in middle of an edit on that page. - Anand.abhishek73 (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. Works of the Government of India (including legislation) are copyright for sixty years from first publication, and we are not allowed to copy them here. The webpage http://tnpsc.gov.in/constitution-provision.html is marked at the bottom as "© TNPSC. All rights reserved." Here is a copy of the copyright law of India, which states that "28. Term of copyright in Government work.- In the case of Government work, where Government is the first owner of the copyright therein, copyright shall subsist until Sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the work is first published." Please don't copy any more of their material, including legislation or the constitution, unless you can prove that the copyright has expired and the material is now in the public domain. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You are grossly incorrect here. Firstly, Constitution of India is owned by citizens and protected by Supreme Court of India. Secondly, it is not a "work of government" neither owned by it. Government may compile a PDF doc of the constitution which will make that file unavailable for reproduction under commercial use. Thirdly, there are verbatim published copies of Constitution by various private publishers in India (example). Lastly, it have been 67 years since the Indian Constitution was first published, well beyond any copyright bounds. Your above claim is too bold. In any case, please justify your entire history delete of my edits. They were more than 50. - Anand.abhishek73 (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, this is one of the authoritative source for Constitution of India, and it is without any copyright marker. Moreover, the source u mentioned (http://tnpsc.gov.in/constitution-provision.html) has itself taken that text from page 191-198(page 219-226 of pdf file) of this authoritative and free document. Moreover, I have filed an RTI request with Secretariat of President of India (Registration Number: PRSEC/R/2017/50352) for your exact authoritative reply on copyright status of Constitution of India. It may take up to 30 days to get reply from there. I will like you to have an expert's involvement in this discussion here or these discussion may just end-up being futile. - Anand.abhishek73 (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I stand behind my previous remarks. The page you are copying from is marked as copyright, so we have to assume that they mean it until proven otherwise. If the Secretariat of President of India has a different opinion they will have to send documentation directly to the OTRS team using the instructions at WP:Donating copyright materials. We can't take your word for it; the release has to come directly from the copyright holder and go directly to the OTRS team, who are the contact point for such documentation. The edits were hidden under section RD1 of the revision deletion policy, which calls for revision deletion of copyright violations to completely remove them from the edit history. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You might need to stop saying that I copied from this page. I stand by my request of involving an expert in this discussion since you are not able to comprehend well what I previously said. By saying that I copied from that page you are simply implying that you don't understand how a Public domain thing works. "It is axiomatic that material in the public domain is not protected by copyright, even when incorporated into a copyrighted work"; which remains the case with this using content of Constitution of India. Even CC BY-SA Compliant work of Wikipedia used on copyrighted websites doesn't make Wikipedia violating the copyright law.(see WP:BACKWARDSCOPY). You must refrain from intimidating genuine editors by overly bureaucratizing simple tasks, and surely by posting back-to-back copyright warnings on his talk page. Though I don't like stating it but I have seen a pattern in your copyright redactions lately; you seem to like using "WP:DCM" a lot. You must know that works in Public Domain shall not need any Donation to Wikipedia. Also, use of redaction under RD1 must be avoided if redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution(must see ). Administrators in this situation may wish to initially edit the page to revert or remove the grossly improper material, and then consult. This whole ordeal, at most, is a case of proving the public-domain status of Constitution of India. - Anand.abhishek73 (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Forgot to add one more thing: Documents that are not available for commercial use cannot be reproduced here, because our license is more lenient than that: It permits any re-use whatsoever, including commercial uses. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that. Already sought information on commercial use under RTI request with Secretariat of President of India (Registration Number: PRSEC/R/2017/50352). - 18:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Checkout Constitution of India. Part_XIV is my source of copy pasting. You may either redact entire thing for copyvio backed up by this or back up your act of redaction on Union Public Service Commission now. Or start finding some other way of Gaming the System. - Anand.abhishek73 (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Since the material is present on Wikisource, I agree that it appears to be in the public domain. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on User talk:Diannaa, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. ''You do NOT post loads of warning templates on the talk page of Wikipedia administrators who do their "job" in full accordance with the rules of Wikipedia. Period.'' - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Those template additions were done in light of above discussion and were done as a precursor to sought an arbitration under WP:ARC. Also, it was done before Diannaa undid the 'revisions deletes' on UPSC. I was only following the stated procedures for arbitration resolution which states that the user must be warned at multiple levels before filing a case. Yes, I purposefully added those templates only to put things on record and get justice. I do not intended harassment to anyone(see this, this and this : my approach to the only cases of disagreement). I will also suggest going through above thread for understanding the context and gravity of this situation where I find myself helpless against admin-level actions. Actually, to say of my heart, I feel myself to be in center of a purported coordinated attack by admins. I would even appreciate if you undo those template's deletion edit if you find that to be okay. - Anand.abhishek73 (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's no excuse, you do not post multiple warning templates on the talk pages of administrators or other very experienced editors, you post a nice and friendly "hand-written" message expressing your views. And assume good faith while doing so. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 21:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not concur with you on this. Admins too are humans and are not God. It is only okay to make mistakes, be it by an admin. I even see a slight pinch of hypocrisy when you defend and delete a warning template for a genuine case of mistake and posts a Warning Template on my talk page for a questionable case of harassment. - Anand.abhishek73 (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Thomas.W. I am doing my best to protect this website and follow our policies while doing so, and working to the best of my ability. I found your approach to the disagreement to be aggressive and rude. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I must apologies if my approach seems to be aggressive and rude. I respect you tireless effort in keeping this repository of information safe. In fact, I was in middle of writing a 'thank' message to you for reverting you edits and also improving the page thereof. But then came this message. A little disappointed but still I can understand your frustration even while doing all great selfless work for this website. If it helps, I must say that I have no hard/personal feelings for you. In fact I am all game if you ever think of adopting me on Wikipedia. Looking for a positive response. WP:AAU. - Anand.abhishek73 (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.
Thank you for helping with creating the page on fiber network mechanics. -Ehsan ban 16 (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What should be the appropriate title for this page? Random fiber networks with a subsection on its mechanics or just fiber network mechanics - Anand.abhishek73 (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello Anand.abhishek73! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! &mdash; MusikBot II  talk  22:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:IIT Jodhpur Logo (red).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:IIT Jodhpur Logo (red).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)