User talk:Jithmatt

January 2016

Hello, I'm Bonadea. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Suicide of Rohith Vemula seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 20:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Suicide of Rohith Vemula. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 21:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message on my user talk page. I'm sorry, but the neutral point of view policy really is not negotiable. To take only one example of many, Wikipedia cannot describe somebody as "a beacon of light". An even more serious problem is that you had added text that was copied directly from the sources (or with only a few words changed) and that violates the copyright policies of Wikipedia. Please read the information provided in the links posted here. If you have urther questions, you can ask them at the information board for new contributors ; many experienced editors come there to answer questions. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 21:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Jithmatt, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Suicide of Rohith Vemula has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 21:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, Jithmatt, I have no tools or powers to delete any pages on Wikipedia. Only administrators can do that. Sadly this is a subject I don't know anything about - I do understand that it is a terrible event and I don't doubt that the current version is problematic as well. Again I advise you to ask for assistance at the help board for new editors - I will log off very soon and won't be around for a day or so, so I can't help further with this. Warmest regards, --bonadea contributions talk 21:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Your recent editing history at Suicide of Rohith Vemula shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BC108 (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rohith Vemula (January 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rohith Vemula and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Rohith Vemula

A tag has been placed on Draft:Rohith Vemula requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Content fork of Suicide of Rohith Vemula. This text has been added to that article repeatedly, and removed as most of it is it is a copyright violation of the sources, in addition to being severely POV.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. bonadea contributions talk 07:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, you must not add copyright violations anywhere in Wikipedia. If you don't understand how this text is a copyright violation, please ask. There are many people who are prepared to help, if you ask at one of the notice boards - links have been provided for you above. Furthermore, you have continued edit warring on Suicide of Rohith Vemula, and you have not respected (or taken the time to understand) the guidelines and policies concerning a neutral point of view. Unfortunately, each of those things could lead to your account being blocked if you don't stop immediately.

Once again: use the article's talk page to discuss the changes you want to see made. When your changes are reverted, do not restore them to the article, instead go to the article's talk page and ask why they were reverted, and argue your case there. Repeatedly restoring your text with minimal changes is edit warring. Posting to individual editors' user talk pages means that other editors who work on the article won't see it, so it's often better to take it to the article talk page.

The subject is obviously close to you personally and so it can be difficult to view it dispassionately and write a neutral article about it. In such cases it is often better to step away from the topic entirely. Thank you, --bonadea contributions talk 07:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:BC108. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I am willing to engage in conversation with you, but not if you resort to comparing me to a fascist dictator. BC108 (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors [1], [2]. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

The section "Wikipedia and copyright" above includes exactly the information you asked about (right before you chose to attack me). bonadea contributions talk 10:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]