Jump to content

User talk:Tinpisa/Archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An Invite to join the WikiProject Railways in India

File:Goldenchariot train luxury service in india.jpg
- - - - - - - - - - - - WikiProject Railways in India- - - - - - - - - - - -
Hi, Tinpisa, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the Indian Railways ! The WikiProject Indian Railways in India is an evolving and expanding WikiProject. We are a group of editors who are dedicated to creating, revising, and expanding articles, lists, categories, Railways in India and Wikiprojects, to do with anything related to Railways in India.

As you have shown an interest in article related to Railways in India we thought you might like to take an interest in this growing WikiProject.Thank you for your contributions.

We look forward to welcoming you to the project!

naveenpf (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tinpisa, please add your name in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Railways_in_India#Participants. Mention what your are working on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian railways so others can help you -- naveenpf (talk) 06:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure! Name added. Thanks, Naveen! --Tinpisa (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Tinpisa, can you please keep {{User WikiProject Railways in India}} in user page --naveenpf (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Done --Tinpisa (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Railway ministers

Hey, you just added the political affiliations of all the railway ministers to Minister of Railways (India). Where did you get this information? Can you provide a source on the page? Also, you seem new. Can I help you with anything? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I linked up the names of the Railway Ministers with their parties, using the exisitng list with information on the official parliament of india page from the 1st lok sabha onnwards and the members of the rajya sabha and the IRFCA page. Probably, we could add their photographs as well. I have been using Wikipedia as my primary source of knowledge for a very long time, and I joined to help improve this wonderful resource.--Tinpisa (talk) 08:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Concerning the pictures - getting pictures of Indian politicians is a total pain. Most of them make infrequent public appearances and restrict how close anyone can get so it is difficult for anyone to take their photos, and also I think the government rarely posts official portraits. I am not sure what the law is regarding redistribution of photos from Indian government publications is, but the pictures in the Times of India are not allowed if they are owned by the newspaper. Check this -Wikipedia:NFC#UUI. It is describing unacceptable use of another person's work without permission. I have no idea how I will ever get into a major Indian political function and get lots of pictures of lots of politicians and ministers, but I hope to do so someday so that I can put it all online! Again, please write me if you need anything. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, buddy! I shall surely request you whenever I need some help! Thanks once again!--Tinpisa (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Advice needed regarding Improper content on some pages

Hi Blue Rasberry, I need your help. I found a number of articles of places with a section on a cricket tournament that would take place (in future) and requesting people to contact the organisers on the telephone numbers provided. It is a clear case of advertising and violation of WP:SOAP and other guidelines. All of them originate from the same IP.

I have posted a request for deletion of the section on the 'Discussion' pages of these articles. Is there something else I could do? Thanks in advance for your help! --Tinpisa (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I checked all the links above and the matter was resolved before I got to it. Check the time stamps in the history section. You posted your request for help on the discussion board, within two hours all of these advertisements had been deleted, and now I am just waking up (in USA) and everything is fine.
If this happens again in the future, WP:BB and just delete the ads when you see them rather than posting a request on the discussion board. Your judgment was indisputably correct - this sort of thing does not belong on Wikipedia.
All edits to Wikipedia done by anonymous users get checked by other users multiple times. If you see vandalism then revert it; otherwise, you can see how quickly other people find it and change it. After seeing an IP address disrupt one article, check their contributions by clicking their IP address in the history part of the article and see if they are disrupting other articles. I am sure that this is how this person's work was all found and reverted. Let me know if you need anything more, ever. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. --Tinpisa (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of K C Surendra Babu

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 K C Surendra Babu 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 person or group of people, but it does not 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Night of the Big Wind talk 12:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of J G Jolly

The article J G Jolly has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Added links, and removed the tag.--Tinpisa (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:J G Jolly.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:J G Jolly.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mlpearc powwow 11:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Dr. J G Jolly.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Dr. J G Jolly.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or provided a license tag. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, select the appropriate license tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you can't find a suitable license tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Dr. J G Jolly.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Dr. J G Jolly.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —SpacemanSpiff 16:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The site you uploaded the image from is copyright protected: "Copyright 2005 Ind Medica Pvt. Ltd. All Rights Reserved." Please do not upload image unless the source specifically releases the image through a compatible license. —SpacemanSpiff 16:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkbalk: User:SpacemanSpiff

—SpacemanSpiff 18:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Swami Vivekananda Article Reference

Thanks for adding reference in Swami Vivekananda article (though a reference was already given for the statement there, but, no problem). If you see the article, you'll find some tags "Citation needed". Can you add some citations there? If you have any question or comment you can post it here or ask in my talk page. Thanks for the reference and happy festive season. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 22:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tino, thankyou for the kind words. As you can see, there are some new facts in the reference I citied, which could be used to enhance the article Vivekananda. Besides, the last few sentences in the section on "Second visit to the West and last years" could be split into a new section on his death or mahasamdhi, which occured a few hours after the aphelion in 1902. Thanks once again.--Tinpisa (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I have rechecked "Death" section, but, we have to re-write some portion before creating a section for it. I have posted it in Talk Page. You can join here.
Thanks. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 12:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
In the same section of Swami Vivekananda Talk Page you can give your feedback on creating new section on Swami Vivekananda's death. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL

funny coincidence. Because JUST as you were writing on my page (without me knowing yet), I changed it to "almost four years". So your message to me on my talk page turned out to be unnecessary. Cute coincidence though. Cheers. Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

and when I checked the page again, I found you had already corrected the error, so I deleted my post on your talk page. Have a nice day! Tinpisa (talk)


Your note on my talk page

Please see my response to your post there. Shirtwaist ☎ 21:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 3961555b225c149500a9267e978565f5

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Talkback

Hello, Tinpisa. You have new messages at Physics is all gnomes's talk page.
Message added 10:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Physics is all gnomes (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Bhagat Singh

I'm afraid not. I suggest going through the GAN channel, which I'd advise even if the article were at FA standard, which I do not believe it is. The quality of the prose would certainly be a next step. Consider carefully reading through, correcting any lose English (the maxim is "say what you mean and mean what you say") and then submit the article at WP:GOCE/REQ for a more informed opinion.

I have indicated two references requiring page numbers. #119 needs tidying; in #129 "Mar" should be "March". #51 has a typo. #38 needs a trailing full stop/period. #24 needs fixing. Consider also moving all the remaining books to the bibliography section - it will help identify which are stronger/weaker sources. Is "Many conspiracy theories" justified - is there a source that says this? Ref #106 should be after the full stop.

These are just a few things (stated neutrally, I see you've put in a lot of good work so far, and Wikipedia does not cover Indian topics particularly well, so this is all the more worthy), I think the article can, with a little more work, pass GAN, but this is a necessary first stage. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Grandiose. Will work towards it. Tinpisa (talk) 11:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Some more points:you can pipe #4 (and any others) [[Frontline (magazine)|Frontline]] in the appropriate field to avoid "(magazine)" appearing (just as in any other link); typo in #81; #4, #85, #115 also have the double work/publisher that I removed from some; #87 should be "3 June" and not "03 June"; #2 needs more details; #15: "Monday, Jun 03," should be just "June 3,"; #41 should be in MDY date format; "Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc." is just too repetitive; I notice the page does actually spell it "Writtings" but it really ought to be "writings" and I would be tempted to change this - and make sure the text is the same (#49/#51). Also standardise the link to the homepage; a reminder that #110, #111 and #112 need page numbers. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Grandiose! Could you please review sections 4 & 6 and advise whether they could be merged, or probably deleted. Thanks.Tinpisa (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Could you clarify what you mean? "Criticism" could go in the "ideology" but it needs to be kept and possibly expanded. Not sure there's another section to which your question is applicable. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I meant, could "Criticism" and "Controversy" be merged to make a section on "Controversy and Criticism" with sub-sections on "Controversy" and "Criticism". I thought so as the section on Criticism is very short. But, probably, you are right. It needs to be expanded. Thanks! Tinpisa (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Shaheed Bhagat Singh’s handwritten writings

Hi Dear, Appreciate your effort. There is a need to make Shaheed Bhagat Singh’s handwritten writings available online. Please make a humble effort to get to these and scan them to PDF. This will be persuasive effort for generations to come in any culture.

Thanks, Robin

Email: swerobin@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.99.46.193 (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Robyn, thanks for your encouragement! Unfortunately, like you, I do not live in India, and have no way to access the writings. Maybe, you could request the research committee which has done valuable work (although there are a lot of spelling mistakes in their articles). Have a nice day! Tinpisa (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Tinpisa. You have new messages at [[User talk:Rothorpe (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)|User talk:Rothorpe (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tagging

HI Tinpisa, thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. I would suggest that instead of adding banners to articles for bare urls, for example, it's as quick and supportive of Wikipedia to fix the links or find the source. Thanks Span (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Spanglej! Thank you for the polite reminder that I could have fixed the page. I think its better for an editor more familiar with the article to edit it. Somebody else could unintentionally introduce citation errors on the page (as you have done)! I am also unsure if [http://www.britishmuseum.org/the_museum/management_and_governance/trustees/bonnie_greer.aspx British Museum profile page] is a proper cite on the page. Cheers, Tinpisa (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for an administrator

The policy on putting up the {template:main} states that it should be put up under the heading of the summary, to link to the sub-article (main (more detailed) article) that has been (or will be) summarised. On the MoMK article, this template is used in Section 2.2 above a paragraph that is more detailed than the main article on the subject. I brought up the issue on the article talk page, and indicated two options:

  • removing the template:main
  • moving the details to the main article, and keeping only the summary

Every editor who discussed the issue, agreed that the summary had more details than the main article, and so there seemed to be consensus that the tag was not as per the policy. There were various views on the second option i.e. moving the details to the main article, but nobody objected to the first option. Consensus, on Wikipedia, is not necessarily unanimity. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections .... I took this as consent. pabloX stated: "It's not my concern - it's Tinpisa's if anyones. I don't care whether it says 'see main' or 'see also' or whatever". I communicated my decision to remove the tag, and requested all the editors to not to revert me; on the edit summary, I politely requested "removing {{main|Amanda Knox}} as per consensus on talk page ~ pls do not revert, but discuss your concern on the talk page. Thanks ~)". pabloX brought up the topic for discussion at 12:28 and reverted me at 12:35, after just seven minutes, inspite of my polite request to discuss any revert on the talk page. I find this editor's way of functioning extremely impolite and disruptive, would like help in understanding how I could report this incident. Thanks in advance!--Tinpisa (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Issue resolved. Tinpisa (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Rv of your edits

Sorry, that rv and stealth remark was aimed only at Brmull's edits not yours which have all been well sourced and discussed that I have seen. I've obviously reverted some stuff of yours by mistake or because I thought it was the only way. Please put your stuff back in, but please do so without leaving Brmull's recent edits ( as far as I can see they're mainly of Discovery of the body and Interrogation and arrest sections). Brmull quietly took out some important established text that was sourced Careless of me to take out good faith edits of yours. In my defense Brmull did not make it easy to see what he had been doing or to revert it. I'll be more careful in future. Overagainst (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, Overagainst. We're only human! Have a nice day ! :-) Tinpisa (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
BTW about the bar.The bar was dead he opened at 6 and didn't have any sales receipts till 10.30, the Swiss alibi guy said he was embarrassed as he was literally the only customer (Follain).Overagainst (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the Follian's book to the list of references.Overagainst (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
You're very welcome :-) Tinpisa (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Bhagat Singh

Hi, my apologies i couldn't do much work on the article today. Net was unusually slow today, plus google, gmail and google book search doesn't seem to be working either. Tomorrow, i shall work on the article's text and fix any MOS issues i encounter. In the meanwhile, you get to work finding sources to reference the info i have tagged. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 19:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Joyson. Will try to do so. Thanks once again. Tinpisa (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


Your GA nomination of Bhagat Singh

The article Bhagat Singh you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Bhagat Singh for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Jez! User:Grandiose and I have managed a thorough copy-edit, and tried to address the issues you have raised. I look forward to your comments. Thanks once again. Tinpisa (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Bhagat Singh, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.indialawjournal.com/volume1/issue_3/bhagat_singh.html, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Bhagat Singh saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Jezhotwells (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

An Invite to join the WikiProject Offline Wikipedia for Indian Schools

- - - - - - - - - - - - WikiProject Offline Wikipedia for Indian Schools - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hi, Tinpisa, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the Offline Wikipedia for Indian Schools. The WikiProject Offline Wikipedia for Indian Schools is an evolving and expanding WikiProject. We are a group of editors who are dedicated to help the organisation of articles on English Wikipedia for the purpose of making offline compilations for schools, colleges and general community in India.

As you have shown an interest in article related to India we thought you might like to take an interest in this growing WikiProject.Thank you for your contributions.

We look forward to welcoming you to the project ! To join the project please click here

naveenpf (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou, Naveen for the invite! Tinpisa (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm worried you've misunderstood the effort required here. The article, as Jezhotwells would surely agree, in in a very very bad shape in this regard. I'm concerned that you may think edits like this are sufficient, but they are not. Change has to be a lot more fundamental: ideas and their order and presentation cannot remain the same. I would suggest rewriting sections completely that trying to tweak individual bits. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Grandiose, thank you for helping me out. I need some guidance.
Would a particular text (or the idea that goes behind the text) be considered a copyright of one particular source, even if it has been used in multiple sources? I mean, what is being reported are historical facts - and have been reported by multiple sources, so would the Wikipedia text be considered a copyright violation, even if the text has been used elsewhere. All the facts of the India Law Journal article are also available in the Noorani book. Also, the India Law Journal allows its text and images to be copied but requires a request to be made to them. Maybe if somebody from Wikipedia approaches them, they would give the permission (have not responded to my email, probably since I do not represent Wikipedia, and have no weight). A simple search on the phrases from India Law Journal (reported as violations by the duplication detector), also brings up other sources as under:
In fact most of the facts have been cited from at least two different sources in the article. e.g. the escape of Bhagat Singh and Rajguru at Lahore railway station (where Rajguru dressed as a servant, carrying the luggage, and Bhagat Singh & Mrs. Vohra acted as a couple) has been mentioned in Gaur book, another book, Khullar book, Nayar book, Rana book, Noorani book etc. Please guide me how to rewrite the section without infringing upon the copyrights of any of the multiple sources. Thanks for the help. --Tinpisa (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I haven't the time to check exactly, but I imagine that the differences in presentation between books are more substantial. Often it is difficult to see the similarity between yours and another person's words, but it can be pointed out. It's probably been linked above somewhere, but I find the essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing particularly helpful. If we put the article's text on one line, and wrote the other text beneath, then we could match one section up with another, and it should be impossible to do this. By all means try to contact copyright holders, but ultimately it may be worth just getting on with breaking sentences up, rearranging paying no heed to where they come from. Challenge yourself: where there are currently full stops, there needn't be; rearrange everything. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Have re-written some sections of the article. Do you think it is now in order? How do I ask an administrator to check and remove the copyvio tag? --Tinpisa (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Request to remove copyvio tag

Copied over because it's going to get lengthy and because my page archives often. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I have rewritten large parts of the article that were suspected of copyvio and have requested that they be checked, and if appropriate, the tag removed. Thanks. Tinpisa (talk) 10:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm afraid that this has become very complicated now. There is a reason that the tag placed on the article advises the following:
Simply modifying copyrighted text is not sufficient to avoid copyright infringement—if the original copyright violation cannot be cleanly removed or the article reverted to a prior version, it is best to write the article from scratch. (See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing.)
Writing from scratch means starting over. Incrementally modifying a copyrighted work creates a derivative work, and at a glance I am concerned that this is what you may have inadvertently done. For instance, I see the following sentence in one of the sources:
The evidence of G.T. Hamilton Harding, senior superintendent of police, took the court by surprise as he said that he had filed the FIR against the accused under the instructions of the chief secretary to the government of Punjab and he did not know the facts of the case.
When you placed this into the article, here, it read as follows:
The evidence of G.T. Hamilton Harding, senior superintendent of police, took the court by surprise, as he said that he had filed the FIR against the accused under the instructions of the chief secretary to the government of Punjab and he did not know the facts of the case.
Now it says:
The evidence of G.T.H. Hamilton Harding, the Lahore superintendent of police, shocked the court, when he stated that he had filed the First Information Report against the accused under specific orders from the chief secretary (D.J. Boyd[79]) to the governor of Punjab (Sir Geoffrey Montmorency[79]) and that he was unaware of the details of the case.
As you can see, you are still using the structure of the original.
I need to look more deeply into this to determine how extensive such issues actually may be. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Explaining a little bit further, when somebody has copied content from a copyrighted source and later tries to change it, rewriting must be thorough. I myself have higher standards for rewrites than I do for text as initially placed, because with a rewrite there is plenty of evidence that the original was copied and the courts have not been sympathetic to people who have attempted to misappropriate content by superficial alterations.
I suspect that you have been attempting to rewrite sentence by sentence. This is very hard to do, since you will almost certainly retain the structure of the original, as well as probably retaining some of the language. While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both language and structure - are.
Because of this, I am concerned about some of the rewrite of content under "Assembly bomb case trial".
Looking at the source, I see this:

The Crown was represented by the public prosecutor Rai Bahadur Suryanarayan and the trial magistrate was a British Judge, P.B Pool.... The prosecution’s star witness was Sergeant Terry who said that a pistol had been found on Bhagat Singh’s person when he was arrested in the Assembly. This was not factually correct because Bhagat Singh had himself surrendered the pistol while asking the police to arrest him. Even the eleven witnesses who said that they had seen the two throwing the bombs seemed to have been tutored.

When you placed it in the article, in the same edit above, you wrote:

The Crown was represented by the public prosecutor Rai Bahadur Suryanarayan and the trial magistrate was a British Judge, P.B Pool. The prosecution’s star witness was Sergeant Terry who said that a pistol had been found on Bhagat Singh’s person when he was arrested in the Assembly. This was not factually correct because Bhagat Singh had himself surrendered the pistol while asking the police to arrest him. Even the eleven witnesses who said that they had seen the two throwing the bombs seemed to have been tutored.

What you have now is this:

Rai Bahadur Suryanarayan was the attorney for the British Crown in the court of the trial magistrate was P.B. Pool, a British Judge.[53] ...Sergeant Terry said that a concealed pistol had been recovered from Singh in the Assembly,[53] which was incorrect, as Singh had surrendered the pistol himself when he asked the police to arrest him. All the eleven witnesses who testified that they had witnessed them throwing bombs appeared tutored...

You've changed most of the words (although some of them have been moved around), but the structure is the same. The more of this we have, the more we remain derivative of the original. I see there is similar close following in other sections, at least from this source. I haven't checked other sources or reviewed the entire article.
What I would do with something like this is pull out important information:
  • Public prosecutor: Rai Bahadur Suryanarayan
  • Trial magistrate: British Judge P.B. Pool
  • Star witness: Sergeant Terry
  • Discrepancy on when pistol was found?
  • Witnesses tutored?
I would then look at other sources. For instance, the passage from the source we're using suggested to me that Terry claimed the gun was concealed. Another source, [1], tells me at page 47 that Terry actually testified that the pistol was held openly in Singh's hand. It also tells me, interestingly, that another officer claimed that Singh had fired the gun, in contradiction to Terry's testimony. So I would add some facts to my list:
  • Officer testimony contradict each other
With I would try to craft my own passage out of that, like, perhaps, this:
Doubts have been raised about the accuracy of testimony offered at the trial, magistrated by British Judge P.B. Pool and prosecuted by Rai Bahadur Suryanarayan.[proper source 1] One key discrepancy related to the automatic pistol that Singh had been carrying prior to his arrest. One witness told the court that Bangh had being firing the pistol two or three times before it jammed, and some police had stated that Singh was pointing the gun when they arrived.[proper source 2] Sergeant Terry, who had confronted and arrested Singh, testified that the gun was pointed downward when he took it from Singh and that Singh "was playing with it."[proper source 2 again] According to the India Law Journal, however, even this was incorrect, as Singh had turned over the pistol himself.[proper source 1 again].
By utilizing multiple sources, you avoid following too closely on the structure of any one.
You may find this way of rewriting more successful. I would strongly suggest you start over. (And be careful not to synthesize your sources. In your proposed rewrite you have cited this sentence to the India Law Journal: " All the eleven witnesses who testified that they had witnessed them throwing bombs appeared tutored, since the incident had been sudden and could not have been anticipated or watched." While the India Law Journal mentions possible tutoring of the witnesses, it doesn't explain why; that came from 2000's The Martyr: Bhagat Singh Experiments in Revolution ([2]).
I don't have any more time to evaluate this right now - I've already been at it for over an hour, and I've got to go work - but I would really recommend you rewrite completely the content you have added to this article, as it seems that you may not have understood the requirements of our copyright policy when you added it and I am afraid that your rewrite may contain issues in other areas as well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response and help at guiding me. I shall try to rewrite the article completely as suggested by you. Do I have some time to do this, or would you be blanking the article immediately? I would also earnestly request you to also write an email to India Law Journal requesting for permission to reproduce parts of their article as an intermediate step. Thanks once again. Tinpisa (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Trickle charging

You might like to look at the recent history of this, before this large deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like an issue with verificable sources. I did add a source to back my edit. There are many more sources that could be added. Tinpisa (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tinpisa/Archive1&oldid=1141371565"