User talk:Postbox 2

This is Postbox 2's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

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

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

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

October 2025

Hello, I'm Arjayay. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of Northeast India. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

A belated welcome!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia and copyright

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, MCE89.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have sent you a note about a page you started

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

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

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

Failed verification on Rajendra Bhosale

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

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

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

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

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

Kerala school and calculus

I reverted your addition of a paragraph to the article about the Kerala school. I think it's important to give a nuanced summary of what they did and didn't do, rather than make somewhat vague statements such as that they "developed calculus", which are likely to be misleading to many readers.

What Madhava and his followers accomplished was amazing and should be celebrated, but it was not a fully general framework like the one Newton and Leibniz worked on that people think about when they hear the name "calculus" or take an introductory course in that subject. It takes some care to both describe and credit the work of the Kerala school while also putting it in context. There's a bit more material at Madhava series, Madhava of Sangamagrama, and Indian mathematics, if you want to see what has been written at Wikipedia to date, but if you want to work on this it would be even better to go to a scholarly secondary source (rather than a book aimed at a popular audience) such as Plofker's Mathematics in India, or similar. (Or go to more topic-specific work about the Kerala School per se.) Be a bit careful about books written as polemics like Joseph's, rather than as neutral summaries by topic-expert historians, and try to find a few sources and try to make a neutral treatment which describes the current scholarly consensus, rather than pushing a particular point of view.

All the best. –jacobolus (t) 20:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, jacobolus. Much of what you have written makes sense. I will mull over it at some length. And would stand by your edit for now. Meanwhile, in case you are interested in the history of mathematics and historiography in general, I would suggest you to read the highly acclaimed The Secret Lives of Numbers (Penguin Viking, 2023) by Kitagawa& Revell. Things may have moved on even after Plofker's work. Pls see Chapter 8. Pls see their conclusions based on the work of Madhava's disciples Nilakantha and Jyesthadeva at page 123. We constantly improve upon our understanding of the past and what was accepted wisdom yesterday may not stand true today. You may like to read the reviews of the work by NYT and FT also. Thanks anyways for your inputs, we need not and should not hasten to reach conclusions. Warm regards,Yours sincerely, Postbox 2 (talk) 05:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just saw what you had reverted. I had only mentioned THE FACT that an acclaimed (acclaimed indeed) work had mentioned as such. I did not state that they had developed Calculus. The fact that there is such a mention, is incorporated, and under the heading Recognition.

You will have to prove that the work is a work not worth quoting. Or that I have quoted wrongly. Hope you understand what you have done.

I trust your scientific spirit given the utter clarity with which you have written much of your response. I cherish that deep understanding. But until you have seen the work and examined its worth, and the quality of its arguments, please hold your fire, lest we lose the sheen of the benefit of such expertise. I would go by your comments once you read the work and give a studied response. Postbox 2 (talk) 06:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, puffing up a particular mass-market book or its author isn't really relevant to the article in question, especially not in the unencyclopedic tone used (cf. MOS:PEACOCK). Save it for an article about the book or author, and ideally show (rather than tell) readers how great the book/person is. But secondly, no, it's not good enough to put words in another author's mouth (especially so when they are a non-topic-expert glossing other scholars' conclusions that we don't mention). You have to pay attention to what your text implies, and what context is omitted. Before writing a summary paragraph like this about a nuanced and moderately controversial point of interpretation, you should look for multiple sources with different perspectives, so that you can fairly represent the subject to readers instead of just pushing one author's point of view.

I don't think there have been any dramatic new developments, so it's more a question of how we characterize the work of Madhava and followers than what it consisted of. My general preference in this kind of situation is to try to be concrete about what was done, leaving readers to make up their own minds about it. We can definitely point out how this relates to calculus concepts later independently worked on in Europe, but the phrasing "developed calculus" by itself is open to a wide range of misinterpretations and really can't be left as an unelaborated summary. –jacobolus (t) 07:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, jacobolus. We will resume the discussion when you have read the work. Lot of works to do.

Sincerely, Postbox 2 (talk) 08:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Robert Reiner(scholar)

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 Robert Reiner(scholar) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://soztheo.com/authors/robert-reiner/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MCE89 (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article since. Hope that is fine now, Thanks. Postbox 2 (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still mostly copied from the source. See [1]. MCE89 (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did copy the text initially and then edited it. His work is in a particular field and difficult to describe in any other manner I guess. It will not infringe any copyrights now.

I have read his works and he is indeed a wonderful scholar as is described. Pls feel free to edit. I have never seen the author and have no connection whatsoever except that I felt a lot of respect for him. If it is too bad, pls modify or if that is not possible, pls delete the article. I will write some other time. Anyways, thanks for being there to correct and guide. That is important.Postbox 2 (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As is explained in the template, you cannot remove a speedy deletion tag from an article that you created, so please do not remove it again. In my view the article is still eligible for G12 deletion.

It is not true that there is simply no other way to describe his career. The content that you have copied from the source contains substantial creative expression and is a long, long way from falling under WP:LIMITED. This means that it is still a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. MCE89 (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copied that. Won't remove. Let it go. Postbox 2 (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You just removed it again? MCE89 (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not after I read your comment. Postbox 2 (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to touch the article now. Let it go. I had no malice. No violations. Except maybe I removed the speedy deletion tag without knowing the provisions. Postbox 2 (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your work. But would suggest you to study the copyright policy in some more detail now that this your chosen specialisation. Postbox 2 (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I read WP:LIMITED. It permits close paraphrasing in certain contexts. And my case fits that. Anyways, if you know better, pls go ahead. Postbox 2 (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The entire second paragraph of your article is an almost verbatim copy of the source, as is much of the first. Again, please look at the overlapping text highlighted in red at this link. This does not fall under WP:LIMITED. If you think I am mistaken in my interpretation of Wikipedia's copyright policy in some way and would like a third opinion, I'm happy to ask another user with copyright experience to take a look at the page. MCE89 (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Will modify. Thanks Postbox 2 (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pls see now. If that is okay pls remove the warning and do not delete. Postbox 2 (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is still far too much overlap with the source, but it's enough that the page itself doesn't need to be deleted anymore. For instance, there is no need for you to take the entire phrase ...on police legitimacy, the impact of neoliberal governance on policing, and the role of mass media in shaping public perceptions of crime and law enforcement verbatim from the source. I'll remove the deletion tag, but I am still concerned that you don't seem to be understanding Wikipedia's copyright policy. I'd suggest you have a read of this FAQ page and that you be much more careful not to copy from sources in future. I'll remove the remaining copyright issues myself and leave a different tag so that an administrator knows to redact them from the page's history. MCE89 (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point. Will keep that in mind. Thanks. Postbox 2 (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why that warning is there now? Postbox 2 (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The revisions requested to be redacted". Who is requesting, whom? Postbox 2 (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That tag is there to flag to an administrator that they need to redact the previous revisions of the article's history that contain copyright violations. An admin will review the tag (usually within a few hours), hide those revisions from the article's history, and then remove the tag. MCE89 (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you. Postbox 2 (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the edit " ... he studies sociology of policing' was almost like modifying an article on Shane Warne to "....he has bowled cricket balls" :)) to ensure absolute neutrality. That's okay. Just joking. I will improve later. Postbox 2 (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made one more round of modification, in deference to your able suggestions. Postbox 2 (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Reiner(scholar) > Robert Reiner (scholar)

Hi, just to let you know I have moved Robert Reiner(scholar) to Robert Reiner (scholar), adding a space before the disambiguator per standard formatting. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @KylieTastic Postbox 2 (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Policing for children moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Policing for children. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability, it has too many problems of language or grammar and it gives undue weight to India-based policing programs. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Aesurias (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, comments. Postbox 2 (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indian National Movement has been nominated for merging

Category:Indian National Movement has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Wikishovel (talk) 06:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nicolas Delamare, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dearth.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]