User talk:CSHN Murthy

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Nanduri Sambasiva Rao Director General of Police Andhra Pradesh.jpg

Whpq (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Please restore the file immediately or else I will upload again. I am aware of the wikipedia non-free content policy. I have no way to source the original photograph as it is a photo of a high profile police officer. The non-free content policy allows uploading photos and images of persons/objects when no other option is available, and/or when the source is available for free use even if it is copyrighted for non-commercial purposes. Further, wikipedia has recently (a few months back) called for stories on Uniformed forces. CSHN Murthy (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The story is not meant for any commercial or promotional activity.CSHN Murthy (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC) I have recently uploaded images from books and news paper sources in public domain and had no problem.CSHN Murthy (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Please restore the file: File:Nanduri Sambasiva Rao Director General of Police Andhra Pradesh.jpg immediatelyCSHN Murthy (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I cannot restore the image. I am not an administrator. You would need to ask the deleting administrator, user:Ronhjones. However, before you make such a request, please note that the file you uploaded was not claimed to be used as non-free content. You had claimed that you were the copyright holder and that the image was released under a free license. As for uploading it again to use as non-free content, it will get deleted again. Non-free content must meet all of the non-free content criteria. In particular, for living people, non-free images are almost always deemed to be replaceable as a free image could be made of the person and so point 1 is not satisfied. -- Whpq (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Actually when I uploaded the image the box which appeared below the upload was that -I own the copy right and that the image was under free license. It did not strike to me that I have to scroll it to the point I tick the non-free content criteria. But I wish to take the images available from public spaces such as news papers or websites which the non-free content permits and that whatever you are saying as criterion 1 is not there in the wikipages I checked now. In principle wikipedia allows such use of non-free content. Where is the dispute? I will also contact Ronhjones on my talk pages. In fact my article came under attack by two people one is you and another Ronhjones. I have also sent messages to him and am waiting for his response. Point is I am regularly facing the problems of this kind of late. Some times Adminabuse is also happening without knowing the significance of my write up on Bellamkonda Ramraya Kavi. After I moved it to article from draft, again it was moved back to draft without any notice to me. I have sent some messages including Adminabuse to the administrator contesting the redirection move from article to draft. People who are not familiar with Indian ancient culture and modern system of political economy are often interfering with my contributions causing huge problem to me. CSHN Murthy (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Pl helpCSHN Murthy (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I should have also included a link to Wikipedia:Non-free content. From that policy, "Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people." (emphasis added). So the use of the image under non-free content policy will fail point 1 (No free equivalent). -- Whpq (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

As the others have clearly stated, this image is not suitable for Wikipedia until...

1. The subject dies.
2. You get written permission from the copyright holder, and go via Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries to have that permisson approved.

Hope that helps. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

You are right as far as your interpretation is concerned but there is no blanket ban on using the image of a living person. Situations world over are not same. Wiki policies have to be understood and interpreted in the context of lived-in situations. Getting a licensed image of a top cop of the State is not that easy; security protocols prohibit it strongly. Even media use stock shots instead of taking images afresh every time. I am an ordinary mortal and may not be able to obtain a licensed image of a living top cop of a State. At the same time, situation demands a write up on the number one of the State Cop. Further, the procedure prescribed for using licensed image of living person is different and I need to send it to wiki editors for transferring it to wikimedia commons. It is after that I get the link of image. It obsoletes the effort. Hence, exceptions are not excluded from wiki non-free content policy. I am getting threats of blocking my editing from some editors or administrators by notices such as speedy deletions without valid reasons. There is no response when I used my right to contest the speedy deletions. They are forgetting the voluntary services done to enrich the wiki content in the name of tyrannical execution of wiki policies than enabling the contributors to enrich it. Please do react positively and help.CSHN Murthy (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself, as you did at Sambasiva Rao Nanduri, you may be blocked from editing. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Please stop unleashing threats of blocking as I am a voluntary contributor who is still acquiring enormous editing policies of wikipedia simultaneously while contributing to its enrichment. Nothing is done intentional. With a great respect for Wikipedia sources, as a Professor in Media studies, I am struggling hard to contribute to Wikisources by travelling and interviewing concerning people to collect data. Instead you please answer why you have posted the speedy deletion on this article and why you have deleted the jpg file of Sambasiva Rao Nanduri. I not only contested this but also cited the relevant rule of wiki under non-free content policy which allows posting of such images from public spaces and books, papers, websites, etc. The fact that he is living alone does not disqualify its use under non-free content policy as it is not easy to obtain images of a living top cop of a State in India who is under terrible security protocol. Wiki policies are not universally relevant in all parts of the world. In certain contexts, the images of living persons may not be available in public domain under free use policy. It is different that I have mentioned a wrong technical reason qualifying my uploading it purely due to little familiarity with technical knowledge of uploading. Exceptions are not exempted under non-free content policy. Without knowing the geographical and political limitations with regard to Indian articles and images, the editors and administrators of wiki are unleashing threats of blocking and/or posting speedy deletion notices. Wiki policies do allow for contesting such speedy deletions and those who posted the notices need to accept the decline notices from the contributor to Wiki or explain the reasons to the satisfaction. CSHN Murthy (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Bellamkonda Ramaraya Kavi. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 14:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

You have not responded to my talk message (see below). If you have moved my article on Bellamkonda Ramaraya Kavi to draft and posted speedy deletion notice, please respond or restore the draft to article status immediately. Please paste speedy deletion notices after giving a notice to the contributor. I was shocked to see one sided tyrannical approach of administrators which falls under admin abuse. I contested it and speedy deletion notice is now removed but article is still kept under draft status. Kindly move it back to article status and make it visible to the international readers. If you do not know the significance of article, do not damage my efforts by deleting it. I know how important this piece is for international scholars working in Sanskrit and Yoga of India, as a Professor in Media Studies. Please respond and do needful immediately. CSHN Murthy (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Please stop unleashing threats of blocking as I am a voluntary contributor, like you, who is still acquiring enormous editing policies of wikipedia while simultaneously contributing to its enrichment. Nothing is done intentional. With a great respect for Wikipedia sources, as a Professor in Media studies, I am struggling hard to contribute to Wikisources by travelling and interviewing concerning people to collect data. Instead you please answer why you have posted the speedy deletion on this article and moved the article to draft. It hurts my studious and laborious efforts and amounts to Abuse of admin. I posted my contesting notices on my talk page but no response to them. I understand you did not have basic knowledge of the significance of the article in Indian and international contexts, and hence you feel it unworthy of retaining. I welcome any vetting or editing but posting a speedy deletion notice for nothing is Admin abuse. I strongly contest that notice and you are taking the efforts of the contributor for granted. Please revert the article to its article position from current draft stage. Such notices and moves are troubling new contributors like me as we are yet to familiarize with the editing rules and policies of Wikipedia.CSHN Murthy (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Teahouse

You seem to be running into quite a few difficulties in your editting. You may wish to visit Wikipedia:Teahouse where you can ask questions and get some help. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

No use. Some administrators are acting overtly and excessively. Wiki policy clearly stipulates that prior discussion is required for deletion of an article and there should be a consensus. The time stipulated for deletion through consensus among editors is 7 days. None is followed in deleting the article on Sambasiva Rao Nanduri even as I am contesting the deletion of image and posting of notice for speedy deletion. Jd 22292 has deleted the article on Sambasiva Rao Nanduri stating that the article is unambiguous promotional and advertising. How can an article on a Government top cop be promotional and advertising?. No discussion with contributor. I wish to take these matters to the arbitration committee for appeals. Gross misuse of the provisions of wiki policyCSHN Murthy (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Here are the beginning sentences of your deleted article:

"Sambasiva Rao, Nanduri (born 10 December 1957) is a high profile police officer who reached the zenith of his career by becoming the second full time Director General of Police of newly formed State of Andhra Pradesh on Nov 24, 2017. He is an eminent scholar in Engineering and Technology with an ample aptitude for teaching Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics for the students aspiring to become IITians. He is not only prolific in English and Telugu (in reading, writing and speaking) but also a mellifluous singer. Above all, he is quite gentle, generous, and humane police officer who maintains very cordial relationships with his colleagues both above and below."

That is overtly promotional language that violates our core content policy known as the neutral point of view and cannot possibly be accepted in Wikipedia in its current form. That deleted article also violated our ban on original research. Complain all you want, but writing like this is simply not acceptable here. If you want to contribute to this encyclopedia, you must comply with our policies and guidelines. Articles that are so far out of compliance can be deleted immediately, and only those that are borderline are discussed for a week. Compliance with our core content policies and most important guidelines is mandatory and not optional. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I most definitely will not restore that deleted article because it violates our policies and guidelines as I explained above. I am not the administrator who deleted it but I do not disagree with the administrator who did. If you disagree, you can take the matter to Deletion review, but I very much doubt that the deletion will be overturned. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Just noting that I have seen the article, (prior to deletion) and agree with Cullen.Also see WP:OSE.Regards:)Winged Blades ^Godric 06:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Please do not edit my user page. It is not a talk page and it is completely inappropriate for you to edit it. I will remove all such edits on sight. Stop making false accusations. I neither deleted nor tagged any of your articles. I simply commented later. When you make demonstrably false accusations, it damages your credibility. Stop this behavior now. Consider this a warning. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

And don't edit my user page either. You shouldn't query the competence of others when you don't even know where to post messages Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Ditto. CSHN Murthy, you clearly have a massive conflict of interest on these subjects, and since you are incapable of writing upon the matter neutrally, as said above, you should avoid doing so. Let someone who assesses the notability of the subject as worthwhile and who has no personal interest or connection with them write the article. Incidentally, by moving your article to draftspace, I actually gave it a degree of protection, rightly or wrongly. It is your refusal to accept this that lead directly to the articles being speedy deleted. Indeed, you are now having enough conversations on this issue on so many different pages, with so many different editors, that I think we can safely say that the timesink has already begun. — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 10:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Reply

Hi, thanks for message. You appear to be confusing speedy deletion with articles for deletion. It's the latter that has seven days discussion, speedy deletion is immediate and without discussion for article that seriously ignore our rules. I deleted your article because

• it did not provide adequate independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. It is now Wikipedia policy that biographical articles about living people must have independent verifiable references, as defined in the link, or they will be deleted. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the him or any affiliated organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the he claims or interviewing him. Most of your text was completely unreferenced and the two refs you gave were an alumnus magazine and a press release, neither of which is an independent third-party source. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls
• He may be notable, but that doesn't mean that you can just write what you like with complete disregard of our rules.
• it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced or self-sourced claims presented as fact include: high profile police officer... zenith of his career... eminent scholar... an ample aptitude for teaching... prolific in English and Telugu... mellifluous singer... quite gentle, generous, and humane...very cordial relationships with his colleagues both above and below.— and that's just the first paragraph! Full of your opinions, no actual facts. This is an encycopaedia, not a FaceBook page and this gushing praise is totally inappropriate
• the article was created in a without wikilinks or references, and looks as if was copied from an unknown and possibly copyrighted source. I haven't checked for this because it was clearly spam anyway, but you should note that copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.
• If you have a conflict of interest when editing this article, you must declare it. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that your organisation is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could, if you wish, post a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles for the article to be created. See also guidance for editors with conflicts of interest and writing about yourself.
• If you work directly or indirectly for him or the police force, or otherwise are acting on his behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly. Regardless, if you are paid directly or indirectly by him or his organisation, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:CSHN Murthy. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=CSHN Murthy|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message.
• If you think that I am abusing my admin powers, or am just incompetent, you are welcome to report me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. You must also reply to the COI request above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC).

Thanks for your clarifications but let me clarify that I have no conflict of interest (COI). I am not writing any piece for any organization or person for any income or money or any benefit. Except enriching wiki sources as a researcher and as a scholar who also depends a lot of wiki for my own research sources, I have no other interest in contributing to Wikipedia. Hope this clarifies you and Jimfbleak Jimfbleak on COI.

As far as other things that you mentioned prior to COI, I will study some more articles posted on wikipedia and examine whether they have complied with the rules or policies which you cited especially about independent verifiable sources and references of third parties.

As far as posting the article on Sambasiva Rao, Nanduri in a different neutral tone, I shall try again using the template you provided on contributors page. But, what I regret is that you did not understand what I have asked for. I have asked to restore the article as a draft only for my editing and reverting to you with all the adjectives which you interpret as 'promotional'. Since you are not willing to do so, I shall send another using the template. Whatever I pointed out regarding speedy deletion is from the very same notice not from any other article deletion page of wikipedia. Hope this clarifies you.CSHN Murthy (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest is not just about paid editting. The very first line states "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." (emphasis added). -- Whpq (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive

This is getting disruptive. You need to stop badgering every editor who has attempted to explain to you the issues with the file uploads and articles you've made. You need to stop making messages on their user pages, and use their talk pages. Better, you should just reply to them here. You also need to stop with the personal attacks and trying to claim authority as a professor with such statements as "don't try to teach a professor" and other such comments to long term editors who are well aware of when and how to apply Wikipedia's policies. I've already warned you about disruption on Jd22292's talk page. -- ferret (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Ferret. Nobody with any experience here agrees with your interpretations justifying your deleted article. If you persist, it is quite likely that you will be blocked. If you are not willing to edit in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then go blog elsewhere. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

He has now posted on Winged Blades of Godric's user page too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I posted this as a result of that. I feel he has been sufficiently warned though at this point, and the next time warrants a block. -- ferret (talk) 07:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Since many of you are interfering unduly in this matter which should actually rest with the concerned editor/administrator I had no option but to quickly bring this matter and my displeasure to your kind notice. Hence I had gone to your user page. If this has interfered with your freedom of using your talk pages, I apologize. But, kindly leave matters between me and the actual person who tagged my article with speedy deletion. That is it. CSHN Murthy (talk) 07:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

That's not how things work here, CSHN Murthy. Any interested editor can participate in these discussions, and they will. And I objected strongly to you editing my personal user page, not my talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, CSHN Murthy. You have new messages at Winged Blades of Godric's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

.Regards:)Winged Blades ^Godric 09:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC) Winged Blades ^Godric 09:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)