User talk:DrSubrotoRoy

Speedy deletion nomination of Surendranath Roy
Hello DrSubrotoRoy,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Surendranath Roy for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, EagerToddler39 (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * To add to the above, as I see that you queried it with the administrator who deleted it, you may perhaps not have followed the link from copyright violation to the further guidance on donating copyrighted material? - David Biddulph (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Mr Biddulph, Wikipedia is not, as far as I know, owned by anyone except everyone. I do not know what role anonymous admins have or have attributed to themselves. As will be clear from my blog, I have much experience with publication and editing from quite long before the Internet was born. Following your link led me to no new knowledge. The "administrator" who deleted the entry did so, in my assessment as a sheer act of vandalism under the guise of editing. Yes there are many ways in which my entry can be improved to which I,as its author, or others, as commentators,may in due course contribute as we wish. The entry may kindly be restored immediately and without further pseudo-editorial discussion. I have freely donated text on an important issue,namely, the origins of constitutional politics in Bengal (and thence India)in 1912-1913 and the apparent role of certain prominent persons of the time in it. The deletion was an act of vandalism, perhaps unintentional by persons unfamiliar with publishing from the era before the Internet; you may agree that Wikipedia is in general attempting, with some increasing success, to codify the known norms and canons of publishing; but it is two steps forward and one step back and this case thus far has been a step back.DrSubrotoRoy (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ",may in due course contribute as we wish" is not at all an accurate premise upon which to build your position. All content content contributions must follow the content policies of which WP:COPYRIGHT is a major piece (in fact, COPYRIGHT trumps pretty much all other content policies). When the content at a Wikipedia article is a copy of content at a site that is not public domain or copyleft, then an adminstrator's clear duty is to delete it. If you feel that a admin doing their specifically delegated duties is "a sheer act of vandalism ", you are perhaps in the wrong place. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * and off topic but ...
 * because Wikipedia in almost all things works by the consensus of editors, making demands that other editors acquiesce to your whim is going to be a good tactic to create an environment that in any pretty much any discussion, there will be lots of editors lining up to ensure that the consensus doesnt fall your way. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello, DrSubrotoRoy, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style

notice of conflict of interest
Hello, DrSubrotoRoy. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion
Thanks for message. Although you may own the copyright, your blog states that the text it can only be quoted under the fair use rules, with attribution. This is not compatible with Wikipedia, since text must be free to use and modify by anyone, including for commercial purposes. Effectively, it needs to be public domain.

You need to provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Blogs are effectively WP:OR, and not acceptable as reliable sources. It was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. There are lots of value judgements like "eminent", "expert" and so on  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, I am sorry but this is simply nit-picking from an editorial standpoint -- and please, I am the editor of numerous books including, for British readers, the very topical *Margaret Thatcher's Revolution* (Continuum 2005). Neither you nor I own Wikipedia as private property, and you had no business deleting this without proper enquiry as to the provenance. Yes, my blog says what you have said for quotation by others besides myself! But if I quote myself and type it into Wikipedia *knowing precisely what you say about Wikipedia being public domain*, I have then made the text entirely public domain. Not only is there absolutely no copyright infringement but there also no legal issue in this at all.

As for "conflict of interest", yes I am a distant descendant of the person concerned -- but would it not be ridiculous of me to have not identified myself, gone by some anonymous monicker as most people do, and then done more or less the same thing? This academic reference made to this important development in Bengal and Indian politics one hundred years ago may kindly be restored. Or perhaps you may like to identify yourself publicly and engage in an open scholarly debate with me at my blog. DrSubrotoRoy (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point. The web page verifiably limits the copyright. If you want it to be usable on Wikipedia, you need to change the licence on the website, so that we can confirm that the text is free for anyone to edit on Wikipedia. And that doesn't change the other issues; your ancestor may well be notable, but as a scholar you are surely aware that sources better than a blog need to be used, and that an encyclopaedia should be written in neutral, non-judgemental language.


 * But the bottom line is that we cannot accept text or images copied from any website unless that website has an explicit licence compatible with Wikipedia  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

-- I think we are making progress. I will change the text of the blogpost to indicate that the text may be freely used in the public domain and is the content of a Wikipedia article. Will that be a reasonable way to proceed? DrSubrotoRoy (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That would certainly remove a major problem, but obviously you would need to tweak the text and add academic references to meet the other points. Let me know if you need any help on formatting for Wikipedia, good luck  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  10:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As a note, a "free use for Wikipedia" disclaimer would not be sufficient, it needs to be completely free use for everyone. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * and as another note, most blogs fail our criteria as reliably published sources and so even if it didnt violate our copyright policy, it probably still wouldnt be able to be used. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
EagerToddler39 (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
EagerToddler39 (talk) 05:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
EagerToddler39 (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)