User talk:Desert brook

September 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Imtiaz Bhatti. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. SMS ^Talk 09:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder you were blocked as for some reason you pick up/start edit wars. Kindly try contributing something constructive or positive, instead of reverting edits.Desert brook (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you have started contributing something positive, instead of reverting edits. Thank you Desert brook (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Imtiaz Bhatti, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. The PAF Falcons website has copied the text from PAF Museum site. So it will be best not to add it again. SMS ^Talk 09:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proper credit was given and source cited, who are you to judge who has the copy rights over public domain content. Maybe PAF Museum copied it from newspapers as did the PAF Falcons, in any case its citation in public domain. Again I will suggest you recheck your actions, if you cant contribute then refrain from deleting useful content.Desert brook (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent contributions and also for the fact that now you agree its a citation in public domain. Desert brook (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Hi Desert brook! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Theopolisme (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent copyright violations. You have provided no evidence to support your claim that the content is in the public domain, and if it is then the Pakistan Air Force Museum is falsely claiming copyright. Wikipedia's policy is that we do not link to sites where we know or reasonably suspect that copyright infringement is taking place, and this case clearly falls under that heading, since the Pakistan Air Force Museum's site has a notice saying Copyright © Pakistan Air Force Museum, All Rights Reserved. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=Arbitrary decision amounting to misuse of authority/previlige. [[User:Desert brook|Desert brook]] ([[User talk:Desert brook#top|talk]]) 04:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)}}

I have deactivated the above unlblock request as the block has expired. Singularity42 (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Defence Day. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As per my understanding, no commentary or own personal analysis was added, infact few facts duly checked and backed by reliable sources were added. These facts were 1. The day is meant to honor both the living and dead of all the Defence forces, which include Army, AirForce and Navy 2. city of Sargodha, Hilal-i-Istaqlal receipent was added. 3. Few Air Force heroes as widely honored and printed were added. Now, these additions or contribution may not correspond to SMSarmad or your personal view but kindly advise out of these 3, which particular addition/s violated Wikipedia neutral point of view policy and breached the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Desert brook (talk) 04:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such language as "those who gallantly defended the country", "those who set the finest tradition in sacrifice and professionalism" and "gave supreme sacrifices" is not neutral. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, thats what they pay tribute to on Defence day. But now, that you had narrowed the problem/issue down to "those who gallantly defended the country", "those who set the finest tradition in sacrifice and professionalism" and "gave supreme sacrifices" if you can be kind enough to revert the remaining non-controversial portion of the contribution. Thank you Desert brook (talk) 10:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't "narrowed" anything down. I have simply given you examples to illustrate the non-neutral nature of your editing, since you apparently couldn't see it for yourself. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be kind enough to "edit" the contribution in question to make it neutral instead of a blanket revert, so i can better understand. Thank youDesert brook (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note about PAF and copyright

It is not clear to me which of Desert brook's contributions triggered the block. However I would like to point out that Desert brook and I had a conversation on my talk page after I expressed concern about quoting blocks of text from that site. I am not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that the Pakistani government publishes reports which are intended for wide publication, and that the PAF website is within their rights to republish them. The copyright notice on the PAF page is likely not intended to cover the republished text. I am not clear on whether PAF is committing a copyright violation by republishing the government report without citing the source. I advised Desert brook to set the text off as a quote and to provide a citation for its source. DPRoberts534 (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its apprently the PAF Falcon website that copies content from the official website of PAF Museum, thus making it a possible WP:LINKVIO. And addition of link to PAF Falcon website (that is not an official website, more of a fansite) triggered this block. --SMS ^Talk 18:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The essential point is that Wikipedia policy is not to link to sites where there are reasonable grounds for thinking there may be copyright infringement. It may be that the content is copied from a public domain source, without attribution, on both the sites referred to. In that case it is necessary to provide evidence that it is so: it is not sufficient that one or more Wikipedia editors think that it may be so. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May be the problem / issue lie at some other place but for that one has to check before any arbitrary decision. Fact is that neither of the sites (PAF Museum and PAF Falcons) are Government owned official (.gov) sites, they are both commercial (.com) sites, at best you can classify them as semi-government or semi-commercial with both claiming copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright for both sites may be true for the original content they create, as far as matter of citation is concerned its common knowledge, open source, public domain, widely available both in books, news and in print media. SMSarmad may not like the fact but the fellow we are discussing was and will remain the receipent of the award along with the citation, no matter what we write or say. cheers Desert brook (talk) 04:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all please correct yourself, I am not opposing any of the content you added or the links because of my personal liking or disliking, its the Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that you are violating by addition of these. My primary concern as an editor is to uphold these rules.

The site of PAF Museum is an official website, and having .com domain doesn't have any affect on it. Besides the PAF Museum itself is a semi-commercial venture of PAF. And for that text to be considered in public domain, we need evidence. When it comes to Copyright, Wikipedia's is very strict in implementing its policy. On a side note, that text is not an official citation for the award at all, it is just a brief description of the act for which he was awarded this award, not even the source you are citing calls it a citation. --SMS ^Talk 09:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am very clear and don't have to hide behind any policiy and guidelines. On one hand SMSarmad states PAF Museum is an official website, so when he will look up "citation" and combine the two, he will probably find what he is looking for.

The other link, i.e PAF Falcons particular page refered to was to source/backup the Legend by PAF Falcons. On that particular link or page there is no copyright violation that I know of, maybe SMSarmad and JamesBWatson can clarify, which part of the page/list is copyright violation. Its just a list of names of Legends. But for that again one has to be patient and check instead of following contributions and reverting just because one or one's buddy personally don't agree with them.

If anyone, that includes SMSarmad has a problem/issues with some one's rank, title, or awards, my humble suggestion would be to go work may be they will achieve better. cheers Desert brook (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read any of the policy/guideline that you have been asked to numerous times? If not please start with WP:LINKVIO, probably will answer some of your questions. --SMS ^Talk 11:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, and I have no questions and when I do, I dont mind asking or enquiring for clarifications like from SMSarmad and JamesBWatson to clarify which part of the page/list is copyright violation so a solution be found. but this I can't say for some who are just vandalizing or abusing their positions and now hiding behing WP:LINKVIO. Thank you Desert brook (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to a website that violates copyrights of someone else is considered a copyright violation here at Wikipedia. --SMS ^Talk 12:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besides its time you read: Accusing others of bad faith. --SMS ^Talk 12:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can be kindly more precise in the link where http://paffalcons.com/legend/gallantry-1965.php where is the copy right violation, there is none. No need to hide behind generic messages, or maybe JamesBWatson can clarify.

Also, instead of throwing Accusing others of bad faith at me, may be you should read and act upon Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, Wikipedia:Assume Ignorance, Wikipedia:Assume no clue, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith, User:Ben/Assume the presence of a belly-button, Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade, Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact, Wikipedia:Newbies aren't always clueless, Wikipedia:Don't assume and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing among others. Thank you Desert brook (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken in saying that the page you link to is "just a list of names of Legends". It is a list of links to pages which contain content which appears on the website of another organisation. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am really not sure what might help you to understand the copyright issue, since all the essential points have already been explained, and you still don't seem to get the point. However, I will try collecting the essential points together, and adding a few more, in the hope that doing so may help to clarify things for you.

You repeatedly posted links to a web site.
That web site has copies of content which appears on another web site, which claims copyright on the content. It looks as though the web site you posted to may have copied it from the other one. If so, the web site that you linked to is infringing copyright, unless the other site's claim to hold the copyright is false.
You say that the content is public domain, but you provide no evidence for that statement at all. We cannot accept that text is in the public domain just because someone creates a Wikipedia account and says so, since anyone at all can create an account and make any claims they like.
Wikipedia's copyright policy is that we do not link to a site if we know or reasonably suspect that copyright infringement is taking place on that site. Since the content in question appears on another site that claims copyright, we certainly do at least reasonably suspect that there is infringement.
It follows from the above that your links infringed Wikipedia's copyright policy, whether or not there was also infringement of copyright law.
You said "Maybe PAF Museum copied it from newspapers as did the PAF Falcons". Quite apart from the fact that we can't assume that something is the case because someone says "maybe" it is, there is the even more important fact that if that happened then both sites are infringing the newspaper's copyright, so we can't link to either of them. Contrary to what you seem to think, no newspaper I know of anywhere in the world puts its content into the public domain. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification, I am not mistaken, but may be you are when you take arbitrary decision by assuming and going forward to the pages which may contain content which might appears on the website of another organisation. Kindly address where is the so-called copyright violation on the link that i created http://paffalcons.com/legend/gallantry-1965.php Kindly dont jump around, point wise your replies instead of solving the issue created more confusion, which i am sure you will be kind enough to clarify.

Does it say any where in the wikipedia not to post links?
Both web site has content which appears on another web site, with both claiming copyright on the content. I believe, their copyright at best is over their "original" content. i believe its an assumption that the web site I posted may have copied it from the other one, it could be vice versa, so kindly lets stay away from false assumptions.
I indeed say content is public domain, pretty much like counting 1,2,3,4 is public domain, so are the Gallantary awards and its recepients. If you have any thing to substantiate that what I wrote or contributed is copy right protected, do let me know, i will be more than happy to correct.
Wikipedia's copyright policy is that we do not link to a site if we know or reasonably suspect that copyright infringement is taking place on that site. But if the content in question does not appears on any other site that claims copyright, then how can one be certain that there is infringement.
I strongly believe its wrong to state that the above links infringed Wikipedia's copyright policy, whether or not there was also infringement of copyright law.
I indeed said "Maybe PAF Museum copied it from newspapers as did the PAF Falcons" because I do not know for sure, and the word for that is "maybe". This is apart from the fact that it is a Government citation released to all newspapers for public consumption. If you can kindly elaborate on that both sites are infringing which newspaper's copyright, and how come any one particular newspaper had a copyright over public press release. Contrary to what you say, or think, no where in the world any newspaper can claim copyright over public domain.

Its ok we are all human and make mistakes. cheersDesert brook (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is my absolute last attempt to clarify this. If you still fail to hear what I say, then there is really nothing more I can do about it.

If you know that this "is a Government citation released to all newspapers for public consumption", then you presumably must have got that information from somewhere, in which case you can tell us where, we can check that you are right, and the matter will be at an end. However, we can't simply assume that it is, because some Wikipedia editor says so, without substantiation. I have searched for some of the relevant content, and I can't find anything anywhere that says that it comes from any government, or that it has been released to all newspapers, nor can I find any evidence anywhere that it has ever appeared in any newspaper.

You ask "how can one be certain that there is infringement". However, we don't need to be certain, because, as I have repeatedly told you, and as you can see if you follow the link i gave you to Wikipedia's copyright policy, we must not link to sites if we reasonably suspect that the site infringes copyright. Here is another link to that policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely right, this is my last attempt also as instead of realizing the mistake, you are trying to twist issues so it can be justified.

First, there is no copyright infringement on the link http://paffalcons.com/legend/gallantry-1965.php so no sane person can suspect any. If for some reason SMSarmad and JamesBWatson suspect any they are welcome to precisely point out instead of vague statements. Maybe, fancy imagination got the better of them and they will be better off reading Threshold of Originality.

As for Government of Pakistan citation kindly check The Gazette of Pakistan and the Pakistan newspapers for September 1965, before making any claims or passing judgement.

Cheers, Desert brook (talk) 04:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that SMSarmad has agreed that the post was the Gentleman's official citation and is correct to the dot barring a small "-", only pending matter is an apology from JamesBWatson for arbitrary and wrong decision. I am thinking not to press for the apology as this fellow is neither James nor Watson and his actions and posts suggests a mental IQ of an idiot certainly devoid of all manners. Cheers Desert brook (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Hello, thanks for pointing out, will include required citation. Desert brook (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]