User talk:Grizrene phelps

December 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Zakir Naik. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Mustafa Kamal (mayor) has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/pages/Karachi-Pakistan/Mayor-Syed-Mustafa-Kamal/83367362573?ref=ts (matching the regex rule \bfacebook\.com).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright warning

Your edit here restored content that was copied from [1]. Wikipedia's copyright policy takes precedent over any other policy on the site, including NPOV, due to its legal ramifications. Do not restore the copyrighted text again or you will be blocked. Consider this your only warning. MER-C 07:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of civility, please do not threaten me when you have an issue. There was in fact 2 paragraphs under the section Aryan Period that were directly lifted from kurdistanica.com. I can understand how this is tantamount to a copyright issue. I have thus removed them. However, the other paragraphs are not from kurdistanica. Now if the previous version is restored, it is not a copyright issue. But it will become an NPOV issue as that particular section is a highly slanted one

Paragraph wise:

"People in the ancient world that..." is copied from [2]
"It is said that at the request of a Sindhi Raja, Mabrook..." copied from [3]
"According to Syed Sulaiman Nadvi...", "One must also disinguish...", "Several Arab scholars relied on Indian...", "Sindhi accountants were also popular..." and "But after forced Islamization, the progress of science in Sindh slowed..." copied from [4]
etc.

You should assume that all text is copyrighted unless indicated. You must verify that the stuff is free from all infringement BEFORE restoring it. We take copyright problems very seriously as they place the project into legal jeopardy. MER-C 07:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasons for protecting wikipedia from legal reprocussions. I also appreciate them, by the way. How do I verify the legality of the information? More importantly, how do you determine whether the wikipedia article copied the weblink or vice versa?

Also, don't you think an article can be improved gradually by removing line by line, or paragraph by paragraph rather than deleting the entire article? Wikipedia is getting better and more reliable over time, I believe in being patient and methodical in approach MAKootage (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, I've been hunting for the copyrighted stuff. Unlike the kurdistanica episode, some of the links you provided (http://www.scribd.com/doc/13455764/The-People-and-the-Land-of-Sindh) are dead links. Please reply

This can be achieved by checking the last modified time of the page against when it was inserted in the article. For the first case, the content was created in October 2006 and inserted in 2009. Also, note that the addition referenced the places where the copyvio text came from.

Copyright problems are removed on sight and, if unsalvageable, routinely deleted. Once the article is cleaned, you can build it up again. You need to start from scratch, if you don't you risk creating a derivative work which is still a copyright problem. It sucks, but we have no choice.

(The scribd link works, do you have JavaScript enabled? You can also try the Google cache.) MER-C 09:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I've painstakingly re-constructed a portion of the article myself. That minor in South Asian studies is finally paying back! Now what happens if another user deletes my version for no good reason? This page is after all the victim of edit wars. MAKootage (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks, CCI processes

Personal attacks are against Wikipedia's policies. I am an uninvolved administrator cleaning up copyright problems, and I do not appreciate your incivil assumption of bad faith in this edit summary: "The previous editor, Moonriddengirl deleted swathes of historcial information in favor of his/her own personal bias." Please try to conduct yourself appropriately with other contributors and do not attribute actions to personal bias without strong and carefully detailed evidence.

The question of your restoration of copyright violation to Wikipedia has already been addressed. As for your assistance here, it is appreciated, but you seem to be operating under a misunderstanding of our policies when you write, "insufficient evidence to assert copyright infringement." The contributor's past edits are alone sufficient evidence to presume copyright infringement in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations: "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately." It is a courtesy to other contributors and to the project that we take the time to try to clear material rather than simply deleting everything he has added to the project. If we cannot check content and copying seems likely, we must assume that the material is unusable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Moonriddengirl. Please try and understand my initial, albeit misplaced, outrage at your revert. The article on Sindhis is the subject of edit warring. The version you restored notoriously flouts NPOV policy. It asserts some unusual points of view and supplies almost no citations.

In addition, the website you directed me to (kurdistanica) contained a only 2 paragraphs that were lifted into the Sindhi article. Only when I spoke to another admin (MER-C), did I come to know that there were other sources that had been photocopied into the article. Therefore, it appears I misunderstood your reasons for the revert.

In response, I constructed paragraphs using my own knowledge and submitted them to the article.

I hope there are no hard feelings. MAKootage (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings; thank you. The template that I used to announce the reversion is supposed to explain that additional text by the same contributor may also be suspect. I'll take a look at it to make sure that this point can't be clarified.

There are likely to be many occasions on Wikipedia when it seems as though a contributor is doing something underhanded or inappropriate. You should always start with an assumption of good faith, although sometimes it is beneficial to check somebody's contributions just to see if there is a pattern. If there is not or if another reasonable explanation for their behavior exists, you should generally presume that they meant well; you can even ask them for more information if you just can't be sure. This is important to keep people working together harmoniously, and though you sometimes will encounter editors who are behaving out of process, your own civility is only likely to serve you well. Those who are not involved in the matter will find it easier to see the misbehavior if there doesn't seem to be an argument going on.

I realize that there were problems with the version of the article that I restored. However, as an uninvolved admin, I am limited in the influence I am supposed to exert on an article's content. While I would not revert to an older version that I recognized contained additional copyright concerns or blatant vandalism, selecting a version because it seemed generally better to me would be an abuse of my admin authority. In the case of copyright cleanup, we restore it to a point before the additions of the problematic contributor, and we trust that interested contributors to the article will take it forward from there, addressing the issues that had already been present prior to the cleanup. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

globally renamed MAKootage to Grizrene phelps

globally renamed MAKootage to Grizrene phelps --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]