User talk:Oasis.54515

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Oasis.54515, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Khanqah-e-Moula have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of 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 sources to avoid copyright and 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 cite the source using an inline citation. 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 the 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 legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse 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 must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:INS Arihant.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:INS Arihant.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 15:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Khanqah-e-Moula, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Khanqah-e-Moula, you may be blocked from editing. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Khanqah-e-Moula, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. ML⁹¹¹ 10:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV

Re: this, two different editors have reverted you, and most recently, I pointed out that your gossipy-content fails Wikipedia's policy on neutrality, since you've elected to avoid presenting a neutral perspective. Don't add this content again without seeking WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion, as your editing privileges will be interrupted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for persistently making disruptive edits, specifically for failing to adhere to our policy on neutral point of view. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions, but you also need to read our policy on biographies of living persons, because if you treat Wikipedia like a gossip blog, and add poorly-sourced, single-sided, gossipy content again, the next block will be permanent. You can't add potentially defamatory content into articles.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Oasis.54515 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Every single piece of information added on the biography of Aamir Khan was a fact available in public domain and was backed by citations. Oasis.54515 (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are blocked for violating WP:NPOV, not for inserting uncited material. Yamla (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion, you still need to adhere to our policies on neutrality and our policies on what sort of content gets added to biographies of living people. There is no justification for adding potentially libelous content and treating Wikipedia like a click-baity gossip rag. While including information about a subject's controversial behaviour can be appropriate, editors have to consider the long-term academic relevance of the information. Someone complaining that they were offended by the clothing worn by a rickshaw driver in one of Khan's films is of dubious academic worth. And you editorialising in the article by calling his actions blasphemy is wholly inappropriate. The content about him funding Ramchandra Guha, is of questionable value, because there is insufficient context for a reader to understand what that means. Are you trying to make a claim that because of his donations, Khan must be anti-BJP? What is the message that this content is intended to convey? I can't tell, because it's so vague. And why is it in a section on intolerance? These are the issues that are raised when editors fail to provide context and fail to present content in a neutral way. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one more thing: per our Bold, Revert, Discuss system, when you are reverted by another editor, your recourse is to open a discussion on the article's talk page to seek WP:CONSENSUS for the changes you want made, not to obnoxiously resubmit the content over and over again. That is called edit-warring, and it is contrary to the function of a community editing project. Note also that editors are required to removed potentially defamatory content, and those who do, are exempt from edit-warring sanctions. That means that if anybody else had removed the potentially libelous content multiple times, you would be the one who got blocked, not the other editor. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Abhishek Chahar

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Abhishek Chahar requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your edits and not remove sourced information without good reason

I have reverted your edit at marginal employment. Your edit removed multiple pieces of sourced information and replaced it with what read as an essay:

Marginal employment, known as mini-job, is a two-edged sword. For many mini-jobber it has not been worthwhile to work longer hours up to now. This is an avoidable obstacle for securing a sustainable supply of skilled workers. At the same time, neither a continuation of the status quo nor a complete abolition of marginal employment is a proper solution. A well-thought-out reform completed in reasonable steps aiming at the improvement of the overall situation of employees, enterprises and the state budget is feasible.

This is not Wikipedia is about: the information you add to articles must be verifiable and cannot be original research. When you make edits, best practice is to use edit summaries, especially when making non-routine edits like removing sourced information. Moreover, minor edits are for changes that you expect no reasonable person to object to, such as correcting spelling ("Indea" to "India") or capitalisations ("sindhu" to "Sindhu"). Removing information is not a minor edit, unless that information is clearly vandalism. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Abhinav Bindra. Thank you. NitinMlk (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caste-related details in biographies

The mention of caste requires self-identification in the case of living people – see here for details. So add the caste-related detail only if the person self-identifies with it. Even in the case of non-living people, you need to provide a reliable source which mentions that the person was of a particular caste. - NitinMlk (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]