User talk:Suraj845

Your edits on
Suraj845, your edits on the disambig page, although not disruptive, aren't following the basic editing policies of how to edit disambig pages. For example, you should not put punctuation marks to end statements. You should also not write that you are arranging alphabetically, and then end up arranging the sequence in a random way. But I assume you're new to Wikipedia. So have been I a few months back. So request you to perhaps give logic for your changes. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 03:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009
Your addition to User:Suraj845 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification,i will take care about it and will add my own complete fresh content soon about him...--Suraj845 (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:David dhawan .jpg
Thanks for uploading File:David dhawan .jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 16:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Images taken from websites
Hi Suraj845, I am going to delete all of the recent images you have uploaded. You have taken them from various websites and uploaded here. Please note that we cannot accept images taken from other sites, unless the original copyright holder has released them under a free licence or the image meets the very strict non-free content criteria. Images of living people almost never meet the non-free criteria. Please drop me a note if you need some assistance or advise on images - Peripitus (Talk) 06:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Peripitus, The images added have been used by various websites and they are commonly spread over the internet and people are using it. If you search google you will find how frequent these images are being used and i have added the common ones and not the rare which leads to copyright violation as if that would be the case then no one would have used it except the copyrighted holder.... Kindly check my point of view before doing so, as i feel by adding it we are giving a realistic touch ( a face to the article of a living person who might be not so known by all of us.).I feel adding image is just giving more value additions to the articles--Suraj845 (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Suraj845. That is a common and understandable misconception. The images are copyrighted when created and most uses, including by most websites, without the authorisation of images owner is a breach of that copyright. Copyright is widely ignored across many websites, and I presume that it is too much trouble for the copyright holder (if they notice) to get them to remove the images. Some of the sites you see images on, though, have permission of the copyright holder to display the image. This permission does not extend to this site. Wikipedia seeks to only host free content ("Wikipedia - the Free Encyclopedia") except when there is no option and the use of the image meets the strict rules for this. While the images will add to the articles, it was decided long ago here that the use of such images goes against one of Wikipedia's five founding principles - Peripitus (Talk) 12:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Arindam Chaudhuri‎
Please stop reverting the edits: (1) The source is not the unpublished book. The source is a published article, which qualifies as a reliable source as per Wikipedia's existing guidelines. Please stop making your own guidelines about what qualifies as a reliable source. (2) You're reverting the entire set of changes blindly -- not all of them are based on the article you're talking about. (3) Please read the Wikipedia policies on conflict of interest, if you've any connections with IIPM or Arindam Choudhuri. utcursch | talk 15:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

(1)The article that you say has not been written for the caravan, it has been written for unpublished book. This was not the case then the caravan would not have written "printed from the book" (2) Sorry for reverting all changes... (3) I saw on your page, your are a management schools student in Mumbai, therefore I think you have a confilcts of interests editing an article about another management schools professor. so please read the guidelines your selves and clarify on the articles talk page about the conflicts of interests you have.You are administrator OTRS user, I expected higher ethic and value from you. Suraj845 (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And on that note, please do not call good faith edits that are verified in reliable sources "vandalism". That term has a very specific, very negative meaning on Wikipedia (you can read about it at WP:VANDAL), and is not appropriate just because you disagree. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused
Hey, I saw your reply on Requests for adminship/MikeLynch, and I'm curious to know what page it was and what comments I left on the talk page. Regards, --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I found it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
-- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Feb 2015
This account is blocked as a probable sock or meat puppet of, and in any case, the account has been whitewashing the article of IIPM's head, and that alone is sufficient grounds to block. Jehochman Talk 22:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)