User talk:Postbox 2: Difference between revisions

Line 183: Line 183:

:Pls read Source 1. It mentions the number of children for boys and girls separately(174 boys and 166 girls). Which adds up to 340. Each of the facts is mentioned in this long article. As for the other article(s), kindly specify which fact/facts are not verifiable. Thanks for the minute focus, which I request may pls be continued. [[User:Postbox 2|Postbox 2]] ([[User talk:Postbox 2#top|talk]]) 04:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

::I am reading source 1 right now, and I do not see that anywhere in the article. Are you able to provide quotes from the source that support the claims that 1) There were 174 male missing children and 2) All but three of those male children were eventually found, but not by him? You also haven’t cited source 1 for these sentences — it’s important to make sure you’re placing your citations in the right places to ensure that the article’s claims are [[WP:V|verifiable]]. [[User:MCE89|MCE89]] ([[User talk:MCE89|talk]]) 05:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

:::You are right. When I had downloaded the sources I had kept two articles together and later assumed it was from the same article. I have added the correct source and citation now. Pls see [https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/girl-no-166-will-this-retired-cop-ever-stop-looking-for-pooja/ source No. 3] . Thanks for pointing that out. [[User:Postbox 2|Postbox 2]] ([[User talk:Postbox 2#top|talk]]) 07:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

:::You are right. When I had downloaded the sources I had kept two articles together and later assumed was from the same article. I have added the correct source and citation now. Pls see [https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/girl-no-166-will-this-retired-cop-ever-stop-looking-for-pooja/ source No. 3] . Thanks for pointing that out. [[User:Postbox 2|Postbox 2]] ([[User talk:Postbox 2#top|talk]]) 07:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bonadea was:
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 after they have been resolved.

bonadea contributions talk 18:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind review. I am trying to improve as suggested.

Why I thought this is fit to be an article has been the following.

The person mentioned has been the Director of the National Police Academy, Hyderabad, India’s most Prestigious Police Training Institute, training the Indian Police Service Officers both at the induction level as well as for their training courses to become Police Chiefs(of different states, as well as the Central Organsiations including Border Security Force, Central Bureau of Investigation (the equivalent of FBI in the US).That he has been the Director has been cited using very reliable sources and also the Wikipedia entry(this is being cited) on National Police Academy, Hyderabad.That these are the credentials of the national Police Academy has been mentioned in the Wikipedia entry on National Police Academy, Hyderabad.
He is one of the most celebrated officers of the Indian Police Service, attested by multiple articles published on India’s most reputed newspapers including the Indian Express and The Hindu. The article by Indian Express and the article by The Hindu , to cite two highly reliable sources, may be seen. I have stopped short of writing ‘one of the most celebrated officers’ because that this is a derivative though very logical assessment, yet not as objective as the more factual statements I chose to write.

I have edited the article as suggested and pls do guide more as required. Thanks once again for the quick review and useful suggestions. Postbox 2 (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Postbox 2!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we’d love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! bonadea contributions talk 18:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was: The comment the reviewer left was:

Neither the position as Director of National Police Academy nor the Director General of National Disaster Response Force are automatically notable positions. Nor does being the first Indian civil servant to summit Mt Everest. Requires significant coverage about the individual (not a series of mentions in passing) in multiple reliable secondary sources (not YouTube videos or opinion pieces, authored by the individual).

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 after they have been resolved.

Dan arndt (talk) 06:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind review and suggestions. Trying to improve.

“…not YouTube videos or opinion pieces, authored by the individual”.

This was a bit cursory. It may pls be noted that

The Youtube Video cited is NOT authored by the individual but the official channel of the Academy.
The article written by the author is cited only to buttress the point that he is an established author. The article is not published in a blog or a dubious page, but published by a reputed newspaper in India.

To quote from Wikipedia Guidelines as to what is significant coverage: “Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.”

I request you to see the sources cited and see if there is any item that qualifies for non significant coverage.

Postbox 2 (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please see the previous reviewer’s comment, which still applies.

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 after they have been resolved.

bonadea contributions talk 10:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Postbox 2. Thank you for your work on Kate Kitagawa. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work! Please add a source for “She received her Ph.D. from Princeton University in 2009 and taught history at Harvard University from 2009 to 2012.” Please also explain the two names in the first sentence. Thanks and have a good day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Postbox 2. Thank you for your work on Fundamental Duties. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Unfortunately, it is not yet ready for main space. Please add sources, footnotes, and establish WP:Note. I will be moving it to draft space. Please feel free to republish once it meets the above criteria. Thanks and have a good day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Draft:Fundamental Duties requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://gdcnaidupet.co.in/fr-and-fd-3/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia’s copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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 deleted 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. jolielover♥talk 12:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Arjayay. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of Northeast India. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an “External links” section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal wikilinks. 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. – Arjayay (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Arjayay. No problem. I am new to this and I didn’t know. Postbox 2 (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!

Here’s wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Postbox 2! I see that you’ve already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

If you have questions, just use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Squawk7700 (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you might have noticed, two of your recent creations got tagged with a few problems that still need addressing. You might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Writing better articles for guidance on how you can improve your writing and layout them more consistently. Kind regards Squawk7700 (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Postbox 2 (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Postbox 2! Your additions to Policing for children have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license—to request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it’s important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (“) and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source’s wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file’s eligibility.
Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § Licensing.

It’s very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. MCE89 (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MCE89, Thanks. Pls show me a single copyrighted sentence or even a clause that has been added in the article. I have done the research with a lot of effort and have taken care not to do so. Thanks for the concern Postbox 2 (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Postbox2. There are a few places where you’ve copied from or closely paraphrased your sources on Policing for children. To give one example, I’ve copied a passage from the article below and bolded the words that overlap with the source:

Your article: Joint Anti-Child Exploitation Teams (JACETs) was formed in 2015 in Australia to provide a more coordinated investigative response and achieve the best possible outcomes for children and vulnerable young people. In its efforts to detect and stamp out hideous online child sexual exploitation committed by South Australian offenders, a small and dedicated taskforce of AFP and South Australia Police investigators have protected more than 370 children around the world from further abuse. MCE89 (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. That’s the AFP News Centre. Not covered under copyright as the very idea of the centre is to share the news. They would rather welcome that. To the best of my understanding. Now that would beg the question whether it is a secondary source? Yes it is, as it is a government body duly reporting the work of its subordinate units. Hence reliable. Fit for Wikipedia. Is there any other instance you would like to point out? Thanks again, sincerely, for the kind concern. Postbox 2 (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct with regards to copyright — just because something is designed for public dissemination, that does not mean it is not protected by copyright. For instance, copying a press release onto Wikipedia would also be a copyright violation. While the AFP’s copyright policies are somewhat contradictory, they say that the contents of their website can only be used in unaltered form form for non-commercial purposes. This is not a compatible license for Wikipedia’s purposes.

If you look at the parts of the page that were cited to this journal article, you will find that there is also significant overlap. The sentence Children today enjoy enormous goodwill from Police, courts and almost every segment of society was also taken almost verbatim from this source. MCE89 (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, MCE89.

As for the first point: Wikipedia is decidedly a non-commercial purpose. You may like to check the relevant IPR laws, concepts as well as the Wikipedia policies. As for the second, honestly, I wrote that sentence on my own after reading this and some more articles and I had no idea I am writing something the author of the articles also had written. However, this does not in anyway infringe any of the copyright regulations neither of Australia, nor India where I am, nor Wikipedia where we do our work. Copyright laws allow for such trifle overlaps, you may like to check case laws in this regard. I genuinely thank you for your concerns and am open to correction based on verifiable facts about a law or policy regarding the matter. May God bless us all. Postbox 2 (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not accept text that is only licensed for non-commercial use. You can refer to WP:NONCOM or Help:Adding open-license text to Wikipedia for more on the licenses that Wikipedia does and does not accept. This is because Wikipedia’s text must be freely reusable, including for commercial purposes. Adding text that is too close to a source protected by copyright is indeed a violation of Wikipedia’s copyright policies, which is something that is taken seriously. MCE89 (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Characterising the AFP News Centre copyright policy as ‘only licensed for non-commercial use’ has no basis and taking the discussion forward from that assumption will take a lot of time.

If we visit the AFP News Centre website and read the content carefully things are quite clear.

The first sentence reads ‘The AFP encourages the dissemination and exchange of information provided on this website.” They make the matter abundantly clear in the last sentence: “The details of the relevant licence conditions are available on the Creative Commons website, as is the full legal code for the CC BY 4.0 license.”

Kindly read the legal code available on the link. Pls also see as to what is the limited context in which they use the clause ‘only licensed for non-commercial use’ Postbox 2 (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, and is why I said that their copyright page is somewhat contradictory. But the page you’re quoting also says You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining any headers and footers) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation for non-commercial purposes. Those are “non-commercial” and “no derivatives” clauses, which mean that the content is not compatibly licensed for use on Wikipedia. MCE89 (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MCE80. I can only say that there is no contradiction in their policy. It is quite coherent. Interpreting legal clauses is tough, most of the pieces looks contradictory in the initial reading- it is not deliberate but the result of efforts to bring in super-precise clarity lest they attract legal problems later. It requires some training, which is like mastering a new tough skill. My article has not violated wikipedia policy or any of the IP regulations to my best of understanding. If you still feel I have, pls take the best course you find fit. I am more concerned with the subject which has a lot of bearing for the well-being of small children, all across. Police giving more space to them is making their lives safer and also endearing police to the public. Anything that would help them, without creating any problem for others including the AFP or Wikipedia is fine for me. I would be the last one to peddle a wrong information or do a copyright violation. Integrity is one whole. Love and Regards. I cherish and welcome your continued inputs and suggestions.Postbox 2 (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Postbox 2. Thank you for your work on Rajendra Bhosale. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for adding this brief biography for Bhosale, for whom there is some evidence of sustained coverage (in 2022 and 2025). There is the question of whether the more notable topic is ‘missing children in Dadabhai Naoroji Nagar’ (or similar), but regardless, the biography page seems a suitable place to aggregate this content.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mahatma Gandhi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thinker. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It’s OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, —DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Postbox 2. I was reviewing the page you created, Rajendra Bhosale, and noticed that much of the information in the article does not seem to appear in any of your sources. For instance, I can’t find where in any of your sources these sentences are supported: In 2011, he was assigned the charge of the missing bureau at Dadabhai Naoroji Nagar police station, where he pursued 340 separate cases of missing children (of 174 boys and 166 girls). Out of these, he traced 171 boy children and 165 girl children between 2011 and 2015. The remaining three boy children were also traced later, though not through his efforts. I noticed similar instances of failed verification on your other pages that I reviewed for copyright violations, where there also seemed to be content in the article that did not appear in the cited source.

Can you point me to where you got this information from? Thank you. MCE89 (talk) 04:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pls read Source 1. It mentions the number of children for boys and girls separately(174 boys and 166 girls). Which adds up to 340. Each of the facts is mentioned in this long article. As for the other article(s), kindly specify which fact/facts are not verifiable. Thanks for the minute focus, which I request may pls be continued. Postbox 2 (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am reading source 1 right now, and I do not see that anywhere in the article. Are you able to provide quotes from the source that support the claims that 1) There were 174 male missing children and 2) All but three of those male children were eventually found, but not by him? You also haven’t cited source 1 for these sentences — it’s important to make sure you’re placing your citations in the right places to ensure that the article’s claims are verifiable. MCE89 (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. When I had downloaded the sources I had kept two articles together and later assumed the matter was from the same article. I have added the correct source and citation now. Pls see source No. 3 . Thanks for pointing that out. Postbox 2 (talk) 07:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment