Jump to content

User talk:Rajeshbieee/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Blocked as a sockpuppet

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).

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

Request reason:

This is confusing as my account has been blocked saying as a sockpuppet of Gantlet, which I am not and this is the second time my account is getting blocked for the same sockpuppet blame. Please note that I do not have any other accounts other than Rajeshbieee, so please unblock it, so that I can continue editing as I am doing the same for the past 5 years.

Decline reason:

Since this is the first time this account was blocked for sockpuppetry, I assume you meant your other account previously was blocked for sockpuppetry - the other account you say you do not have. Whether or not you are a sockpuppet of Gantlet, you were definitely abusing multiple accounts. Huon (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

My first account was blocked saying I am the sockpuppet of a certain Gantlet and my request to unblock it was declined and I was left idle without any account with wikipedia hoping that the administrators will give me a chance. Please let me know, what a person has to do when he is blocked? yes, he requested to unblock it which was declined. I waited for 6 months, but my account was never unblocked, so without any other option I created a new account and started editing once again covering 5 years, 900+ articles and 18000+ edits and this account creation happened only because my first account was blocked and I was never given a chance again eventhough I do not have any association with that so called Gantlet. Now history has repeated and my account is again blocked saying it as a sockpuppet of the same Gantlet again, which I am not. I don't know why I am shown the door eventhough I am not that certain Gantlet. Now I am confused again as I don't know how I have to prove that I am innocent. Atleast you people should have researched on the circumstances of creating a second account and you would have found the answer. Anyhow once again I request to unblock me as I would like to continue my contribution. 900+ articles and 18000+ edits are not joke and please consider my hardwork I have done, atleast in 'humanity' way. Help me.FYI this is my facebook page [1]Rajeshbieee (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

So, what other accounts did you use? MER-C 05:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

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.

  • I have only 2 accounts, one is Rajeshbiee and the second is Rajeshbieee. Both are blocked here saying as a sock puppet of Gantlet and let me confirm you, I am not Gantlet. Rajeshbieee (talk) 09:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • To the administrators who are deleting my works, please understand that India is the largest producer of films (quantity wise) and each of the films have its own significance. Most of the films I have created are made in late 70's, or 80's and I have added valid references for each films.Rajeshbieee (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Ebay is not and will never be seen as a reliable source on Wikipedia, nor will any other e-commerce site of this nature. The other sources you tended to use were to YouTube clips of the film, which run afoul of Wikipedia's copyright guidelines. The point I'm getting to is that very, very few of the sources you used have been reliable. I'm aware that older films tend to not have coverage in RS, but they still require some proof of coverage in reliable sources like news articles. That you don't understand what a reliable source actually is on Wikipedia just sort of hammers home that you really don't know what you're doing and that your article creation was doing far more harm than good on here since now we have to clean up all of the various poorly sourced articles that you've made. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Even if you weren't a sock, your editing is still very problematic and fairly disruptive since now we have to go through 900+ articles to see which ones would actually pass NFILM on Wikipedia. I don't see where you understand the guidelines on here at all, yet you continued to create articles. As it stands, I don't see where you understand sourcing or notability on here and even if the sockpuppetry wasn't an issue (which it is, especially since there's the possibility of a PR company involved) the mass creation of very poorly sourced articles and the adding of poor sourcing to other articles would be enough to where I'd decline any unblock request. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Basically, right now we're barely 100 pages into your mass of articles and very, very few of them actually warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. Citing article creation numbers is essentially meaningless - and can actually work against you - if the articles themselves are problematic and require cleanup. I'd recommend that no one unblock you until we finish going through your articles, which may take months. I have a funny feeling that the remaining articles (not including redirects) might actually be only a quarter of the amount you created. I'm hammering this home because you don't seem to understand any of the guidelines on Wikipedia, yet you were here since 2010 and made hundreds of articles. At some point this shows an almost deliberate disregard for the notability rules and guidelines on Wikipedia, which lends credence to the idea that you may be editing on behalf of a PR organization, since this tends to be what they do in favor of placating a client. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Tokyogirl, your point is right regarding the references of old films and you have admitted that old films won't have much references from web and for example if the film has a youtube link, then its the biggest video reference as well as evidence that the film existed. You cannot make a fake claim there when you have a video link itself. Why should a PR company feed me for old and outdated films? I am a person who passionately love films and India has 1000's of films made every year and each film is having its own significance. Many of the films I have created is forgotten by people, so wikipedia should have those rare film pages that should help people who search for old films. I believe I am following Wikipedia:NFILM and I am very surprised when you deleted Abbayitho Ammayi, an important film of Telugu language. Rajeshbieee (talk) 09:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The existence of something does not mean that it's notable, as existence There's actually an entire guideline devoted to this per WP:ITEXISTS. The fact that there are thousands of films made in a specific country (let alone all over the world) is the exact reason why there needs to be reliable sources that discuss the film in depth. Not every film is notable and Wikipedia is not a film database that hosts information for every film ever made. The PR information was brought up in the sockpuppet investigation, which is why I mentioned it here. The fact that you're still trying to argue that sources like eBay and copyvio YouTube videos are valid sources to establish notability shows that not only do you not understand policy, but you don't seem to even want to learn policy. You were on here for years and you even had one of the best people from WP:INDIA, Titodutta working with you. Despite all of that, you showed a clear disregard for policy and even if we were able to prove that you weren't a sockpuppet, there's still the fact that you have disregarded policy and despite having explanations as to why your edits were problematic, you are still trying to argue that your form of editing was correct. Let me be very blunt here. You created hundreds of problematic articles that were sourced with some of the poorest sources possible. You also created articles that were very promotional, which is likely where the concerns about working for a PR company came into play, and were also likely problematic as far as sourcing goes. Your talk page archives show that you've had multiple warnings about disruptive edits and you've also been warned multiple, multiple times about reliable sources and notability. There's no way that you couldn't have known that you were doing something wrong by this point in time. At this point you're being deliberately ignorant, which is one of the worst things one can actually be on Wikipedia, and it makes me seriously doubt that you could contribute to Wikipedia if you were ever unblocked. To be very honest, I'm debating revoking your talk page access because I don't think that there's any chance you'll ever be unblocked at this rate, given that you have three things going against you: suspicion that you are likely editing for a PR company, evidence that you are a sockpuppet of a now blocked user, and a clear disregard for policy despite multiple warnings and attempts to help get you to edit properly. One of those things would be enough to keep someone permanently blocked. Three of them all at once? That's pretty fatal, especially since your words here are telling me that not only do you not care that your edits were problematic, but that you also don't care and will almost certainly continue to edit in the same fashion if you are unblocked. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Tokyogirl79 for the ping. . Rajeshbieee, I am trying to explain things to you, please tell me if you think I need further clarify/explain something. There are two issues:
  1. Your account(s) are blocked for sockpuppetry.
  2. Your articles don't follow some Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

In my opinion, the first issue "sockpuppetry" is more important now, so let's discuss it first:
I have noticed User:Gantlet has also written against their block on their talk page. First and the most important: if that is your account, admit it, that's the only way. Second, note these points: please read this page carefully Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gantlet/Archive#Gantlet it is an archive,don't edit). Your Rajeshbiee account was blocked in 2010 as a sock, and clearly your Rajeshbieee account is your account as well. So, that 2010 block played an important role in the recent investigation. There is another thing: behavioural match/evidence.
Another issue is: not adhering to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Ya, most of the articles had issues, and I feel some of these articles could be saved if you had added more reliable sources etc. --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Tokyogirl and Titto.... thank you for the reply and let me confirm you once again that I am not Gantlet and I was never using 2 accounts at the same time. Tito, my first account Rajeshbiee was blocked saying that I am the sock puppet of Gantlet, which I am not. My request to unblock it was declined, so after 6 months I had to create another account with the same name, Rajeshbieee, with an additional 'e'. Tito, I never wanted to create 2 accounts and play on them simultaneously, but only wanted to continue as editor as I believe I have a good knowledge base on Indian films so that I can contribute as much as I can. Now coming to the policy factor, if there are issues, then I can change it by adding more accurate references. But Tito, suddenly how come my articles are not upto the mark as I remember getting several barn stars and one even from you. Alright, the bottom line is I am not Gantlet and I am pretty sure about the same and I would like to continue my editing contribution in proper way (as Tokyogirl says about the issues) as Rajeshbieee. Now let me know how you people can help me. See Tito, this is my fb page [2]. Rajeshbieee (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I just spoke to Titodutta and thank you for your valid points and suggestion. Yes, I feel really sorry for my first account Rajeshbiee as I could n't do many unblock requests as I was n't familiar with rules and policies at that time. Anyhow I am confident that I will be given a chance as I do not have any association with the so called Gantlet. Rajeshbieee (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • information Administrator note - I will point out that (assuming the tool is working today) there appears to only be two articles of intersection between Gantlet, Rajeshbiee and Rajeshbieee. I would have to question what sort of behavioral evidence we're basing this block on, or even what behavioral evidence justified a CU back in 2010 that led to the original Rajeshbiee account being blocked. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll ping @Salvidrim!: and @SpacemanSpiff: as they were active in the SPI. I still have to say that even if there's no sockpuppet connection to Gauntlet, what we have here is a user that has added hundreds upon hundreds of problematic articles with sourcing that's so poor that it's actually ridiculously unusable. They've been here for at least 4-5 years, during which time they had multiple people tell them about sourcing and they had at least one extremely good editor from WP:INDIA mentoring them to some degree, yet they still created very, very poorly sourced articles. Most editors learn within the first year or two of editing that they cannot use places like eBay as a source. Rajeshbieee has been putting down eBay as a source in some of his most recently created articles. I've stated several times in this section that links like that were not acceptable and that not all films are notable, but there's a definite WP:IDHT going on here since he doesn't seem to understand - or even want to understand - that these sources are unusable and that a film's existence does not give it automatic notability. Even if the sockpuppetry wasn't an issue (I'll leave that up to the people involved in the SPI) I'd have to say that I'm not entirely sure that Rajeshbieee could make helpful edits if he's unblocked since he still doesn't see where he posed a problem in other areas. It's likely the fact that he made so many poorly sourced, problematic articles and edits that made him stand out as a potential sockpuppet to begin with. Basically, if he is unblocked I just see him continuing to make extremely poor articles that require hundreds upon thousands of editor time to clean up. Out of the articles that myself and the others (predominantly @Ymblanter:) have been checking so far, less than a quarter of those are either sourced or sourcable. I'd wager that out of the 900+ articles this editor has created, less than 200 actually merit articles, if that many. That's a sign of a serious, serious problem and an editor that's been editing since 2010 should have a far better grasp of film notability and sourcing by this time. That someone would continue to think that places like eBay is a valid source by this point in time shows that they either are unable to understand guidelines (ie, that they'll never understand) or that they're unwilling to understand or worse - that they just can't be bothered to look for valid sources and only want the article creation count numbers. (Even if they meant well, all films should have sourcing to prove notability. Wikipedia is not a database of every film ever created.) At this point we have to ask: even if the sockpuppetry isn't an issue, is he really helping Wikipedia? And most importantly: does he seem to actually understand what he did wrong and want to change? So far the answer to the second question seems to be that no, he doesn't seem to understand what he did wrong and I don't see where he's actually saying that he'll do anything differently. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Tokyogirl, I agree with you and as you have mentioned about poor sourcing, I can add more reliable sources, but I remember getting many barnstars for the creation of old films. Rajeshbieee (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Getting barnstars doesn't really mean much when the pages that you create are essentially unsourced! That's what I'm trying to get across to you - that while you have created many articles, almost all of them fail notability guidelines based on the current sourcing. Going through them will take an extremely long amount of time to clean and find sources, redirect, or delete. Other editors shouldn't have to go behind you and clean up. Like Tito said, some of these articles could have been salvaged if you'd took the time to find better sourcing. I'm aware that some of these will be difficult to source outside of India because the vast majority of newspaper and print coverage prior to the mid 2000s is not available on the Internet, but the problem here is that you are still required to provide sourcing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Basically, why I'm coming down so hard on you is because if you do get unblocked, I need to be able to ensure that you won't just go back to engaging in past behaviors. You've been here long enough and had enough edits to where you should have been aware of policy, especially as you had many people trying to give you help. I'm just puzzled as to why you seem to have ignored all of the help and warnings you'd been given in the past. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I totally agree with Tokyogirl on the second point (sourcing and other issues). Most of the articles you created had sourcing issues. I strongly recommend you contact an experienced editor and start a 2 weeks' online training to learn more and more about Wikipedia policies. A training page looks like this User:Titodutta/CVU/Students/TheOriginalSoni, (however I'll not be a primary trainer here, as I am already involved). Please do it. I believe it'll improve your editing skills. --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Just spoke with Titodutta on sources and other off line references. I showed him one page I have created long time back[3], where off line references are more. Tito checked the page and said the offline references are okay. I am confident in adding more references like this for every page which need more references/sourcing than e-commerce sites. I am also ready to get trained under an experienced administrator to gain more experience, so that it will help to make error free articles. Rajeshbieee (talk) 09:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Off-line references are fine, but you really, really, really can't use e-commerce sites for sourcing. The other thing to take into consideration with off-line sourcing is that you really need to list the particulars. A good off-line source would look like this: "Smith, Gina (September 16, 2004). "New York actress recalls friendliness". The State (web archive). Retrieved 2016-01-01." This would give enough information so that people could look up the specific article if they wanted to. Now @Cyphoidbomb: is vouching for you (albeit on the sockpuppetry front), as is Tito, which counts for an awful lot in my book. If none of the admins at the SPI have a problem with this, I'm willing to consider an unblock if you agree to the following conditions:
  1. That you go through a primary training program like the one listed by Tito above. I'd also recommend going through WP:ADVENTURE. This will not take the place of the primary training, but will be a show of good faith on your part.
  2. That any and all new article creations go through WP:AfC until you can show that you can create a good page.
  3. That you not create any new articles even at AfC until you've gone through and cleaned up the articles you've already created.
I also need for you to show us the following:
  1. An example of a good source with a very brief explanation of why it's reliable and can show notability. (IE, that it's a movie review by the Times of India, a trusted newspaper)
  2. An example of an unusable source and why it cannot be used. (IE, why is an e-commerce site or a movie poster unusable? {hint: it only shows existence, not notability})
  3. A brief explanation of what's needed to show that a film passes NFILM. (IE, two reliable sources like movie reviews, news coverage, or a substantial mention in an academic source)
This is dependent on the input of @Salvidrim!:, @Bbb23:, and @SpacemanSpiff:, as they were the admins involved in the SPI. I'm just really, really concerned about your editing skills so I need an extremely strong and solid assurance that you'll stop making problematic articles. I don't think that you realize how much work you've left behind for other editors. I don't want to sound too harsh, but making articles that lack any sourcing to establish notability is not helpful. If anything, it's the opposite of helpful because the other incoming editors now have to search for sourcing, a task that is extremely, extremely difficult for people outside of India, especially if they aren't fluent in the films' languages. (IE, someone who doesn't speak Tamil will be very unlikely to find a source that's only available in Tamil and many, many sources from India are not accessible via the Internet.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Since I became a CheckUser, I rely more on others to analyze behavioral evidence. However, in this particular case I remember I was struck by the same things that Tokyogirl79 has pointed out in this discussion. Regardless of socking, the user's behavior was very disruptive and a drain on good editor resources. If Tokyogirl or someone else chooses to unblock the editor with restrictions and monitor their conduct, that's entirely up to them.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Therein lies a very good issue: I don't know that I'd be able to directly monitor and guide them. @Titodutta: I actually don't have a problem with you mentoring them, even though you're involved. The issue here though is that they'll require some fairly close monitoring overall. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • If it is proved that he was not a sock, I propose conditional unblock:
Conditions
  1. They need to to learn Wikipedia policies and guidelines from an experienced uninvolved editor. Until they finish the training, Rajesh won't start any article on mainspace.
  2. When he'll start writing articles, they'll have their first 2-3 articles reviewed by his mentor/us (he may follow WP:AFC as well).
  3. He'll reply if someone comes to his talk page to discuss problematic issues.

--Tito Dutta (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Sounds fair, although I'd recommend that he be restricted to AfC only for a year at the very least until he has clearly shown that he can understand sourcing and notability. The amount of articles he's written with little to no RS is extremely staggering. Now it's just a matter of getting the input from the closing admins at the SPI over the sockpuppetry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Naxal

As you worked on this article Naxal, could you tell me the difference between "plot" and "synopsis"? There are several numerous WP:MOS issues, I'll be fixing soon. --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Tito, though I had created the page Nakshal in the first place, someone created another page Naxal later with more details, so I had to redirect Nakshal to Naxal.

Plot gives the sequence of complete story covering important events while Synopsis is a brief summary, a one liner description.Rajeshbieee (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Rajeshbieee, a "logline" is closer to what you're describing—a one liner description. "John and Jane learn about love and friendship on a cross-country trek through Germany." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • hm I have copyedited the section and removed unsourced details. I could not understand the climax from those three sections "plot", 'synopsis", and "summary' (why do we need three sections?), but we should not end with "What happens next?" It's too dramatic. --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Archiving request

Your talk page is too long, may I archive some of you messages so that others and me feel comfortable to access the important messages? --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Annajoshifilm.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Annajoshifilm.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Vetta poster.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Vetta poster.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lakshmi78film.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lakshmi78film.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lakshmi82filmhindi.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lakshmi82filmhindi.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

  • DatGuy has awarded a barnstar to Josu4u for "stopping" me. Many editors are now in competition to delete my articles. All my efforts of 5 years are now getting removed. All these are happening just because many believe I am a sock puppet, which I am not. As far as articles with less reference are concerned, I can add more references and the issue will be resolved.Rajeshbieee (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • A slight mistake: these articles are not nominated because of you were a suspected sock. Most of these articles are affected with WP:N and WP:N issues. --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC) I meant WP:N and WP:V issues. --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Tokyogirl79: --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The sock issue was what brought these to attention, but the deletions are only coming after there has been a good faith search for sourcing. The sock link has been mentioned in past PRODs and AfDs, though, because right now that's still an issue until the people who closed and heavily participated in the SPIs come and weigh in. One has weighed in and said that he's fine with an unblock as long as you're closely monitored. I still have yet to hear from SpacemanSpiff and Salvidrim!. Salvidrim is the one I most want to hear from since he was the one who closed the SPI and was responsible for the block. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I got your point. I am waiting for the decision for a new beginning.Rajeshbieee (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:JabJabPyarHuafilm.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:JabJabPyarHuafilm.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Maahir for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maahir is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maahir until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jijesh Menon

The article Jijesh Menon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Insufficient indication of notability; no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of M.I.Vasanthkumar

The article M.I.Vasanthkumar has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is essentially a BLP PROD; there is no substantive coverage of this individual, the single source in the article does not really cover him, and the presence of the imdb link is the only reason I'm not actually tagging this for a BLP PROD.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Siriloveyoufilm.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Siriloveyoufilm.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:OrayThaaiOreykulam.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:OrayThaaiOreykulam.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AakhriMuqablafilm84.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AakhriMuqablafilm84.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PonnuPudichirukkufilm.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PonnuPudichirukkufilm.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DharmaYuddamfilm.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DharmaYuddamfilm.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ayithamfilms.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ayithamfilms.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

A set of questions for you

Rajesh, please answer these questions --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Q: Tell us what actually went wrong in your editing? When other editors are saying "Rajesh is not following WP:RS, WP:Notability" - what did they actually mean?
A: I agree with other editors as valid references (reliable sources) was missing from many film articles that I have created recently as i used only ebay link to those pages and wikipedia wont accept ebay or other ecommerce links as valid reference...as far as notability is concerned, the subject should be eligible to get a page in wikipedia and it is important to check the notability factor and references should have valid write up on the subject in many recognised newspapets or websites that are true.

Q: If you accept that there were issues, how are you planning to correct these mistakes (please write in details)?
A: My plan is to adhere to wiki policies in creating a page. But I have created hundreds of valid pages means I know the job.. so the current issue is on less reference/invalid links added in many articles. In this case i will be concentrating to add more valid references and of course will make sure to check the notability factor.

Q: You have been asked to find a mentor. Please explain-

  • What will be the role of a mentor?
  • How will you co-operate with him?

A: The mentor will guide me and give suggestions to make sure no errors happen with my edit and I will be in touch with him using talk page option or facebook chat or mobile phone (If the mentor is Indian)..... for instant update.

Q: You have been told that for next 1 year you would not create any article on Mainspace directly, but you will submit drafts to WP:AFC. --

  • Please tell us what you understand from this? Suppose you want to start an article "AnExample", where will you start, and then what will you do?

A: I have to submit the articles directly using WP:AFC which will be reviewed by the concerned team for next steps....... But I feel 1 year is too much and I hope it can be changed to 6 months.
Q: Do you understand if you are unblocked and continue to make problematic edits, you may be indefinitely blocked from editing?
A: Yes I understand the same and I dont want to be a spoiler in wikipedia and I would like to continue my contribution as I have good knowledge on film Industry news and statistics. Moreover the issue is not going to happen again as I will be watched by many admins as well as my Mentor.... Rajeshbieee (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshbieee10:44, 25 January 2016‎ (UTC) (talk • contribs)

@Tokyogirl79, Salvidrim!, Cyphoidbomb, and Bbb23:, please check these answers. In my opinion, the answers look good. --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  • The answers look good, but I will specify that the year is mandatory unless otherwise approved by the mentor and at least two admins familiar with the situation. I'm fine with an unblock and the others appear to be fine as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, I need to make sure that you understand that your unblock means that you need to go through each and every one of the remaining 900+ articles and properly source them. If you cannot find proper sourcing, you need to either request that they be moved to your userspace, redirect them to an appropriate target, or nominate them for deletion. Leaving them without proper sourcing will not be an option. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm tagging Ymblanter with this since he's been active with the cleanup and one of the requirements with the unblock is that he clean up his past submissions. Ymblanter may be able to help with this somewhat. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Tokyogirl79's comments, although I don't think the answers look that "good". They seem to me to be relatively perfunctory. I'm not sure how much of that is competence and how much of it is lack of English skills. Those two things worry me more than the socking issue because at bottom the question is whether Rajahbieee is capable of writing quality articles that benefit the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I have to admit, your comments are giving me a good amount of pause. I don't know that we have a way for him to create a new sample article, but I think that a good alternative would be to have him list sources to show notability for two prospective articles: one for an old film and one for a new film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    *Thank you team and I am eager to start editing once again, but I promise you people that I am not going to create new articles soon as my primary target is to rectify all the remaining articles for proper sourcing as Tokyogirl79 suggested. Anyhow we have lot of editors here rushing to create articles on new films, but my interest is to create pages for old and important films and it is a task. I hope my WP:AFC will be only for 6 months and not for a year, moreover I will be good editor within this 6 months span as I am confident on the support of you people. Rajeshbieee (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Ping once again Ymblanter, Tokyogirl79, I don't know that we have a way for him to create a new sample article -- perhaps Google Docs, or test.wikipedia.org? --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Alright - you're unblocked. The requirement though, is that you can only create articles via AfC for at least a year (or until it's decided that you can be trusted making articles on your own) and you must clean up the articles that you've already created. If you cannot find sources, they must be nominated for deletion or redirected. Incubation in your userspace is also an option. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

A set of suggestions for you

Now here comes a set of suggestions for you. User:Tokyogirl79, please read and add your comments.

  1. I was and I am worried that after your unblock, you are going to leave Wikipedia, or going to become irregular. I don't think our "over-all" behaviour was really friendly and welcoming. Things could have been done in a much better way.
  2. I remind you about the suggestions you have been given: don't start articles on mainspace and submit to WP:AFC, find a mentor etc. Please follow these. Have you found a mentor yet?
  3. I suggest you to contact User:రహ్మానుద్దీన్ for resources. tell him that for more than 500 of your articles (which you need to save) you need references.
  4. If you know any specific offline book/magazine, ask at WP:RX, or Rahmanuddin (the user I just mentioned above).
  5. I am also worried about how you can work on so many articles single-handedly. ONLY IF we can find enough resources/references, I may go ahead and ask India noticeboard to come ahead and save the articles. We may conduct a week long edit drive or something for those articles.\
  6. MOST IMPORTANT: You need to improve your editing skills. Work on it.

--Tito Dutta (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

  • This all sounds reasonable. My main concerns is that he will need to improve his editing skills, he needs to improve the articles he's already created, and he must submit articles only via AfC. If he has a mentor that is willing to QC his articles and is also willing to take responsibility for the accepted articles, I have no problem with him working one-on-one with the mentor and the mentor personally approving the articles. My recommendation with any new article creation would be to slow down and ensure that each and every article passes guidelines. Part of what worked against you was that you were creating a large amount of extremely problematic articles within a fairly short period in time - the emphasis on article creation needs to be on quality, not quantity. If you make poorly sourced articles, a situation like this one can come about. As far as the edit drive goes, I think that's a good idea and should be largely run by people within India or with access to non-English language sources, since many of the sources will likely be inaccessible to someone like me, who lives in the United States and is not fluent in Hindi or any of the Indic languages, and/or is unlikely to know all of the various spellings that various India-related topics (films, etc) can use in their title. That doesn't mean that editors like myself can't help out, just that there is a barrier here - which is why it's so important to make sure that you source things properly. You have to assume that the average editor is in a position where they cannot access sources or even find evidence to show that they exist. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you Tito Dutta and I am not going to leave wikipedia as I have the responsibility to create pages for lost and forgotten films of India, but as you have mentioned, I might be doing only less number of edits. (My Laptop is also having issues) As of now my primay target is to clean up the pages with right resources. As far as mentor is concerned, I would like you to become my mentor as you know me for a very long time. Anyhow let me get back to wikipedia slowly, but steadily.Rajeshbieee (talk) 08:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Tokyogirl79, thank you for the support and I request you to restore the well written pages of new films Abbayitho Ammayi and Love & Love Only as they had valid resources and please remove my name from sockpuppet list.Rajeshbieee (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I removed the sockpuppet tag from your userpage, since I assume that this is what you were talking about. I've restored Abbayitho Ammayi, although I do need to caution you that the article did have some issues with sourcing. 123 Telugu is the type of site that would likely be seen as unreliable on Wikipedia because it doesn't really have a clearly stated editorial guideline. YouTube trailers cannot establish notability and in general you shouldn't link to YouTube videos of the music, since that poses a copyright violation. Iqlik looks like it'd likely be considered non-usable on Wikipedia as well, as it appears to have the same issues as 123 Telugu - I can't really clearly identify any of the site's staff members or editorial oversight. Filmibeat is OK for basic information, but it's not something that can give notability. The only source that appeared to be reliable was The Indian Express. I did add a review from The Hindu, which should keep it safe from deletion, but I have to stress that you really, really need to work on recognizing reliable sources. The article for Love & Love Only had similar issues.
This is part of the issue with your articles, as you viewed an eBay listing as a reliable and valid source. This was actually one of the things that made me hesitate with unblocking you, so hearing you state that these were all reliable sources is a little disheartening. This is why it's extremely important for you to really get a firm grasp of policy, especially where sourcing is concerned. I'm just afraid that you will continue to create articles with very poor sourcing, which could eventually lead to you getting reblocked if it's believed that you're not learning policy despite receiving a large amount of help towards this end. I can't stress this enough since you're very unlikely to be unblocked a second time under these circumstances. I've moved Love & Love Only to User:Rajeshbieee/Love & Love Only and left some notes there. I hate to sound like a broken record, but again - I need to impress upon you the importance of recognizing reliable sources. Stating that the articles contained RS isn't really an accurate statement given the situation here. This may sound like splitting hairs, but a better way to approach restoration would be for you to ask to have the pages restored so you (and a mentor) can review the sources and work out which are reliable, which aren't, and the reasons why each is reliable or unreliable. Stating definitively that the sources are reliable isn't a good idea in this situation, given all of the past dialogue and concerns here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • They look good! Times of India is a RS and while this is short, most film related articles are typically short. IndiaGlitz is also usable, and one I tend to like myself when using reviews and film related coverage. The only one I'm uncertain about is Great Andhra, but a look at their "about us" page shows that they use editorial staff so this should be OK. That's usually one of the best ways to decide if a site is usable or not - if they don't have an editorial process and/or staff posted, they will likely not be considered a reliable source. There are exceptions of course, since I don't think that IndiaGlitz has their staff posted, yet they're still considered a reliable source. I'd ask at WP:INDIA about sourcing, then if needed go to WP:RS/N. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PyasaSheitanfilm.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PyasaSheitanfilm.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Biwi Ho To Aisi (DVD cover art).jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Biwi Ho To Aisi (DVD cover art).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of P. Anil

The article P. Anil has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is essentially a BLP Prod, as the only reference is the IMDB page of a movie he directed. There is no substantial coverage of him in reliable sources that I can find.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Adukkaen.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Adukkaen.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Kelly hi! 10:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Satyabhamane96.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Satyabhamane96.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. —Vensatry (Talk) 05:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Love & Love Only


*Thank you.. please restore the page with above given references.Rajeshbieee (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


Orphaned non-free image File:Aval Viswasthayayirunnu.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Aval Viswasthayayirunnu.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Dilshad A for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dilshad A is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilshad A until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Kida Poosari Magudi

Hi Tito Dutta and User:Tokyogirl79..... I have submitted a new article using WP:AFC. Please review it. Rajeshbieee (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Oggaranekannada.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Oggaranekannada.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:OR

Hi there, in this edit you add what appears to be your personal interpretation into Thoongaa Vanam, where you write, "the film is differently told with many original ideas, but as a thriller movie, it is not made with unusual twists or turns concluding as an okay action film." Our personal opinions do not belong in articles as they constitute original research. We're not here to analyze or compare or weigh facts or draw conclusions. I don't go into film articles and write "the film was slow-paced and John Doe's performance was painful" because that would represent my opinion and it would not necessarily agree with your opinion on the film. There's no difference between editorializing in my example and editorializing in the content you provided. You absolutely must be able to distinguish your personal POV from objective facts, and leave your opinions out of articles. If you don't understand the difference, ask someone who has experience here. If you want to include a critic's opinion you can do that in an appropriate section such as the critical response section, but you must attribute opinions to the person who formed the opinion, like:

Jane Bloggs at XYZ Times commented that "the film was slow-paced and John Doe's performance was painful."

I ask that you please avoid this mistake in the future. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Point taken, but I believe I just mentioned the overall description under "Analysis" from this review [6] as a "lengthy one liner" rather than the forbidden "copy/paste" format of entire description.Rajeshbieee (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
While you may paraphrase sourced content, you may not closely paraphrase content sourced or not, as this would constitute a copyright violation. Changing a few words around doesn't get you out of trouble with respect to copyright. Quotations can be fairly extracted from sources if used sparingly, sourced, and presented as quotations, i.e. with quote marks, attributing the opinion to a specific voice, etc. The problem as I see it, though, is that you did not make a mental distinction between a fact and an opinion. If you knew the content you were inserting was an opinion, it would have been intuitive to cite the source and properly present the content as an opinion. The content you added was presented as though it were indisputable fact. You should probably familiarize yourself with MOS:QUOTATIONS. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

File:RAJESHBselfie.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:RAJESHBselfie.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 09:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, please see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 June 19#Files uploaded by User:Rajeshbieee for a discussion of several photos you have uploaded as "own work". Kelly hi! 09:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi Kelly, I am an actor as well as assistant director working in Indian films and I am associated with many film industry people, photographers etc. As far as several digital camera doubt is concerned, I use their camera to take some pictures (shooting locations, press meets etc ) and get my copy from them. I also posses many old photographs from many people with me. Rajeshbieee (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
You should probably reply at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 June 19#Files uploaded by User:Rajeshbieee. Also possessing photographs doesn't make you the copyright holder. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rajeshbieee/Archive_7&oldid=1140284797"