All posts on this page are permanently linked through User talk:Oiyarbepsy/2021B

Hi! You wrote here that this thorny problem was resolved a year and a half ago. That's good news; could you point me to the resolution, because I'm not seeing it? As far as I can see, these pages still contain copyright violations and still need to be dealt with. I'd be delighted to find that I'm wrong. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 July 1, a comment at the bottom has a green checkmark and a comment that it was confirmed to not have any copyrighted material. Dated December 2019. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

oh yeah, forgot to tag you @Justlettersandnumbers Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

No problem, I have that page watched any way. As I understand it, Diannaa's comment there relates only to the "List of minor planets" pages, and not to the "Meanings of minor planet names" ones. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid this matter is not resolved as far as I can see. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I've restored it to the page, and reformatted the case page so the situation should be a lot more clear now. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Oiyarbepsy,

I did understand that why you have pushed our old Wikipedia page. I have been working on it and just updated it with new related information and project pictures. So could you please help in understanding why our organisation page cant have all the information which we need?

Thanks Teerath Rawat

@Teerath Rawat:, first of all, I am fully aware that your are the Senior Communications Officer at Ashoka Trust. So, you are essentially trying to use Wikipedia as free advertising. In addition to being against our conflict of interest policy and our terms of service, this also reflects very poorly on your organization. Reputable organizations do not promote themselves by posting promotional material on non-profit websites.

In addition, I've found that some of the material that you posted on Wikipedia is taken word-for-word directly from your website. That makes this material a copyright violation, which we absolutely can not accept here.

As an organization that does work on environmental education, a much better use of your organization's time on Wikipedia would be to make improvements to some of the many environment related articles we have here. One such article that immediately comes to mind is Environmental policy of India, which looks like it might be outdated and missing some key information.

One last question - Are you a professional photographer? You posted a lot of photographs and tagged them as your own work. I seriously doubt that you took these photographs yourself and I suspect that these are all copyrighted by the actual photographers.

Thank you, and have a good day, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy Thank you for sharing detailed inputs. I Just want some more clarity on few below points:

1- Which point make you feel to use Wikipedia as free advertising? because when I updated the content it's just from the information point to view. (we are a think tank, Educational, NGO) 2- I have added centers because we are in now center mode. 3- Yes, you are right some of the material is directly from our website (atree.org) 4- I am not a photographer. I have tagged photographs as "own work", which means these photos are collected and clicked by organization staff, so I am uploading means its organisation pictures, it's our"own work". (means it's not downloaded from anywhere else)

Now, I request to you if you could tell me which part or information can't be added to the ATREE Wikipedia page then I will work accordingly.

Thank you

• Mr. Rawat, the fact that you are an employee writing about your own organization makes your contributions inherently biased. It does not matter how much you try to be neutral, you will never be neutral, because your are paid to make your organization look good to the public. It's similar to if a politician accepts huge payments from an oil drilling company - you can't really trust that politician to do what's right for the environment no matter what that politician says, because they are obviously paid to not benefit the environment. And your writing is not nearly as neutral as you think it is.
• As far as photos, does Ashoka Trust own the copyright, or does the original photographer? If the photographers still own the copyright, then you don't have the right to upload them here. And when you upload photos to Wikimedia Commons (as you have done), you grant permission for anybody to use those photographs for any reason, anywhere in the world. If the photographers still hold the copyright, this violates their right to sell these photographs to others. If you actually ask someone in your organization's legal department about this, I guarantee that they'll tell you to take the photos down.
• Now, as far as the final question as to what you can add to the ATREE Wikipedia article? The answer is nothing whatsoever. This is called a conflict of interest, and you've already made it clear that you're not here to build an encyclopedia. You are allowed to propose specific edits on the talk page, allowing neutral editors to add it if they feel it's appropriate.
• I hope that I've made the situation here clear. And I hope that you accept my advice to improve Wikipedia's coverage about environment issues in India instead. Good accurate coverage of these issues is part of your organization's mission, after all. Thank you, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I saw this revert:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Box_Social&oldid=prev&diff=1021336347

I reverted a sock puppet account who is blocked now. Others in good standing should be free to close the AfD. Wareon (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh whoops, I missed that in the deletion summary. I look a bit more carefully next time. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Oiyarbepsy. Thank you for removing misplaced userbox from 49 48 pages (edits like this). Unfortunately, this effort was a bit misguided, because the template was originally a navbox. It was recently converted into a userbox for unknown reasons. Similar thing happened to Template:Barisan Nasional. Because of that these 48 edits (all of which seem to do with such kind of disruption to the navboxes) need to be reverted. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I've fixed miscalculated the number of edits. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh Jesus, why the hell did someone do that? Sorry for my misguided edits. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect SuperNova 2. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 12#SuperNova 2 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Oiyarbepsy, thanks for this edit, and I understand your feeling about it. I'm also okay with the discussion going on, and perhaps leading to a result different from the current one, and perhaps more to your liking. I purposely left that bit in, because several people distinguished between the "remove both" and only one of them, and it seemed that maybe I should split the difference since I was involved. I also appreciate your move, because I try to do the same thing that it seems to me you just did, that is, go with the procedures and guidelines as best you understand them, even if it doesn't match your desired outcome. Anyway, just wanted to acknowledge your edit, and to let you know that I feel we're both on the same side wrt to upholding the principles of the project, and how any particular discussion or content issue comes out is strictly second place. Much appreciated. Mathglot (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)