User talk:Varghesejacob
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of Vrghs jacob (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. |
Sock puppetry concerns
Unfortunately, if you are not the same Varghese Jacob to whom you are being compared, there are enough similarities in your edits to raise serious doubts.
You have a very similar username, you edit articles in the same area, and you have been violating Wikipedia's copyright policies, for which that user was blocked. For instance, in the now-deleted article National Debt of India, you used information from this source, which says, in part:
The concept of borrowing from the public in India was pioneered by the East India Company to finance its campaigns in South India (the Anglo French wars) in the eighteenth century. The debt owed by the Government to the public, over time, came to be known as public debt. The endeavours of the Company to establish government banks towards the end of the 18th Century owed in no small measure to the need to raise term and short term financial accommodation from banks on more satisfactory terms than they were able to garner on their own.
You copied that material as written into the article. Other content in that article also followed too closely on that source, although it did not copy it verbatim.
Wikipedia is bound by United States copyright law. Except for brief and clearly marked quotations, we cannot copy or closely paraphrase content from other sources without being able to prove that they are public domain or compatibly licensed. Most content will not be. As a result, while we are required to use external sources to verify facts, we cannot copy from most of them. Please see Wikipedia:Copy-paste. And please note that even if you can prove that content is public domain or compatibly licensed, you have to acknowledge that you are copying in accordance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Citing your source is not sufficient under local practices.
With respect to the other user with a similar name, he kept copying content after we told him he could not; we were not able to stop him, and he has come back in multiple accounts to continue copying content. In order to unblock you, we would need to be able to establish that you are not the same man and that you will not continue copying content onto Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am sorry as I could not respond earlier as I was out of town. You can have my assurance that me with the username "Varghesejacob" is not the same person with the username 'Vrghs jacob'. It seems to me that the ip addresses are shared between many users. I checked and it shows that my ip address changes everyday though I am not responsible for that. I need my Wikipedia account restored as I had before my account was blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of Vrghs jacob. And in regards to creating article and copying from the source - I wanted to assure that I have now gone over Wikipedia:Copy-paste and Wikipedia:Plagiarism. The same issues of copying from source wont happen again.--Varghese Jacob (talk) 08:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Varghesejacob (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am sorry as I could not respond earlier as I was out of town. The Wikipedia administrators, users and editors should have my assurance that me with the username "Varghesejacob" is not the same person with the username 'Vrghs jacob'. (My name is a common name and there are over a many hundred thousands with my similar name; please do Google.) It seems to me that the ip addresses I use are shared between many users. I checked and it shows that my ip address changes everyday though I am not responsible for that. I need my Wikipedia account restored as I had before my account was blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of Vrghs jacob. And in regards to creating article and copying from the source - I wanted to assure that I have now gone over Wikipedia:Copy-paste and Wikipedia:Plagiarism. The same issues of copying from source wont happen again. Varghese Jacob (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Nope. I can see quite a clear connection between you too. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 23:47, 8 March 2012 (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.
- Unsurprisingly, you come up as a
Possible match for Vrghs jacob (talk · contribs). I am not familiar with Vrghs jacob, but as a fact you do look like him, even taking aside the obvious username similarity. - After reviewing your contributions to Commons, I would take chances and won't oppose an unblock, but I don't know the blocked user enough to make the call myself. If you are unblocked, please keep in mind at all times that copyright violations are taken very seriously here, and that your account (and maybe your entire ISP) will be promptly blocked if you engage in such behavior. -- Luk talk 09:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- In considering your unblock request it would help if you could explain a bit more how you have access to 18-year old photos like commons:File:AK_Antony_at_his_office_1994.jpg. Dpmuk (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- AK Antony is my blood relative and Dr KV Jacob is my biological father. Hence, the photos I have produced and submitted at Commons are that I have been given from them personally. All pictures that were taken 16 to 20 years before were taken by my dad. However, now all pictures are with me and I possess them. In coming days, I will present more pictures which are very rare and are very recent. (These pictures or any other I post no one can have them). I think those would be great picture assets of Wikimedia Commons.--Varghese Jacob (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm going to give you hopefully some helpful pieces of advice. If you wish to continue editing, I highly recommend that you take the standard offer as well as admit to the socking. 6 months is a recommended time period. If you can go at least 6 months without socking, you have a better chance of getting unblocked. Also, reiterating what others have said, be sure to always brush up on your copyrights. These are extremely important. Prove to us that you're willing to do what it takes to get back into the community. Regarding the socking, I can say without a doubt that you are Vrghs jacob (talk · contribs). This is more of a trust issue and admitting to the socking would further aid you in getting unblocked in the future. We need to see that there is going to be a change here. This can be the first step. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 00:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I will come back September 2012 and this would be my last text until then. Also for record, all images I have posted/uploaded into Commons are mine (more and other pictures will be posted after I will come back in September and be removed off this block) and own the sole copyright. None images were copied and stolen from anywhere (you may check anywhere in library or the internet). The photos posted were either uploaded via my scanner or were personally taken by me by my camera. I though am not a professional journalist or a photographer, I do own several professional point and shoot, digital and SLR cameras (its a hobby).--Varghese Jacob (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, scanning photos does not give you copyright - the photos given to you by your family members are still the copyright of the original photographer (unless they're so old the copyright has expired) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- The scanned images that I have uploaded is with the permission of my dad and the Minister of Defence. The copyright owner of the scanned images that I have posted is solely my dad who is the Chief of Staff and the Head of Government of the MOD (however the Defence Secretary is the senior most civil servant and the in-charge all things at MOD). Also I would like to point out that the pictures were taken in personal nature and has nothing to do with official business or other government activities. I have talked with MOD and they have no problem; however if you do - you can clarify the same from them.--Varghese Jacob (talk) 04:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- If your dad actually took the photos, then yes, the copyright may be with him. But if someone else actually took them, the copyright will be with them or possibly with whoever they worked for at the time. If the Ministry of Defence has any claim over them, it is not acceptable for you to just say "They said it's OK - call them to check". But any way, the copyright is not yours and they are not your "own work" as you claimed on the uploads. Material needs to be donated using the procedure explained at WP:DCM. (PS: I've reduced the indenting - just one extra ":" is usual, otherwise things get too far to the right too quickly) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Let me clarify this issue once for all times. Photographs presented by me fall into 2 categories. One is scanned and the other is not scanned. The ones that are not scanned were taken by me personally when I was with my dad by my camera. For the other part, the pictures which are scanned were wither taken by my dad personally firsthand or was taken by my dad's assistant by my dads camera (this would be when my dad is himself posing in the picture or otherwise he couldn't be in it). The camera that is used my dad is his personal camera for his personal record and personal collection (a digital SLR which he owns and other cameras - which I too use when he is not using those). Hence that makes my dad the copyright owner of all scanned images. Usually my dad after a period of time 'like a half year' discards old images and keeps digital prints. The images which I personally scanned from my home computer are those digital prints which my dad discarded from his personal camera but the digital photo paper prints that is now present. However as those images my dad does not need or find use of has been given to me - for my personal collection and storage use. Hence, now I own the copyright of all scanned images.--Varghese Jacob (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think you are misunderstanding a few important things here. The photos you took yourself are fine - there's no argument about those. But your dad giving you the prints does not give you the copyright. Also, the photos taken by your dad's assistant may be the assistant's copyright (unless perhaps there was some sort of legal agreement between them). Ownership of the camera has no bearing on copyright - for example, if you took a photo with my camera, you would own the copyright, not me. Copyright can be tricky - I'll ask an expert for some help -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Boing! said Zebedee is correct. If your father's assistant took a photograph, your father's assistant owns the copyright. If your father gave you digital photo paper prints of his own pictures, he still owns copyright; you simply own the physical copies. In order for your father to give you copyright, a formal document conveying copyright must exist in writing. The best bet is to ask your father for a licensing statement to be sent to the Wikimedia Foundation, but only for those images which he took himself...not those images in which your father appears. Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries is the language that he should use. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- If someone else took the photo of my dad using his camera does not make the photographer the copyright owner but the copyright owner is the person to whom the camera originally is owned and belongs to "which is my dad". Anyways, I have asked my dad for the statement as Moonriddengirl has kindly requested me to and he has said to me that he has done so by emailing an attached letter to "permissions-commonswikimedia.org". By the way, the images that dates back to 15 to 19 years 'which I have scanned and where he appears too' back also is owned by my dad (he has provided the links to images in his email).--Varghese Jacob (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, you are wrong! Copyright DOES NOT belong to the owner of the camera. The person who took the photo owns the copyright, NOT the person who owns the camera. And no, the copyright of any image in which your dad appears DOES NOT belong to him unless it has been legally signed over to him in writing. Will you please listen to what you are being told by a copyright expert here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- I talked to my dad again. He says that his assistant has no problems if my dad takes the right of the copyright ownership of the photos that he took from my dads photograph. The assistant is that of a level of clerk usually attached to a senior civil servant. I talked to my dads assistant and he does not care about this as he finds no available time to write emails confirming he took the photographs. Hence, my dad has issued an official government statement stating that all photos are under his ownership and he is the original creator and the sole copyright owner. Take my dads word on it (the statement comes from a Supreme Court lawyer), on regards to media and photographs, my dad is one of the authorities in every department he has been in the Federal Government.-Varghese Jacob (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, you are wrong! Copyright DOES NOT belong to the owner of the camera. The person who took the photo owns the copyright, NOT the person who owns the camera. And no, the copyright of any image in which your dad appears DOES NOT belong to him unless it has been legally signed over to him in writing. Will you please listen to what you are being told by a copyright expert here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- If someone else took the photo of my dad using his camera does not make the photographer the copyright owner but the copyright owner is the person to whom the camera originally is owned and belongs to "which is my dad". Anyways, I have asked my dad for the statement as Moonriddengirl has kindly requested me to and he has said to me that he has done so by emailing an attached letter to "permissions-commonswikimedia.org". By the way, the images that dates back to 15 to 19 years 'which I have scanned and where he appears too' back also is owned by my dad (he has provided the links to images in his email).--Varghese Jacob (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Boing! said Zebedee is correct. If your father's assistant took a photograph, your father's assistant owns the copyright. If your father gave you digital photo paper prints of his own pictures, he still owns copyright; you simply own the physical copies. In order for your father to give you copyright, a formal document conveying copyright must exist in writing. The best bet is to ask your father for a licensing statement to be sent to the Wikimedia Foundation, but only for those images which he took himself...not those images in which your father appears. Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries is the language that he should use. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think you are misunderstanding a few important things here. The photos you took yourself are fine - there's no argument about those. But your dad giving you the prints does not give you the copyright. Also, the photos taken by your dad's assistant may be the assistant's copyright (unless perhaps there was some sort of legal agreement between them). Ownership of the camera has no bearing on copyright - for example, if you took a photo with my camera, you would own the copyright, not me. Copyright can be tricky - I'll ask an expert for some help -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Let me clarify this issue once for all times. Photographs presented by me fall into 2 categories. One is scanned and the other is not scanned. The ones that are not scanned were taken by me personally when I was with my dad by my camera. For the other part, the pictures which are scanned were wither taken by my dad personally firsthand or was taken by my dad's assistant by my dads camera (this would be when my dad is himself posing in the picture or otherwise he couldn't be in it). The camera that is used my dad is his personal camera for his personal record and personal collection (a digital SLR which he owns and other cameras - which I too use when he is not using those). Hence that makes my dad the copyright owner of all scanned images. Usually my dad after a period of time 'like a half year' discards old images and keeps digital prints. The images which I personally scanned from my home computer are those digital prints which my dad discarded from his personal camera but the digital photo paper prints that is now present. However as those images my dad does not need or find use of has been given to me - for my personal collection and storage use. Hence, now I own the copyright of all scanned images.--Varghese Jacob (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- If your dad actually took the photos, then yes, the copyright may be with him. But if someone else actually took them, the copyright will be with them or possibly with whoever they worked for at the time. If the Ministry of Defence has any claim over them, it is not acceptable for you to just say "They said it's OK - call them to check". But any way, the copyright is not yours and they are not your "own work" as you claimed on the uploads. Material needs to be donated using the procedure explained at WP:DCM. (PS: I've reduced the indenting - just one extra ":" is usual, otherwise things get too far to the right too quickly) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- The scanned images that I have uploaded is with the permission of my dad and the Minister of Defence. The copyright owner of the scanned images that I have posted is solely my dad who is the Chief of Staff and the Head of Government of the MOD (however the Defence Secretary is the senior most civil servant and the in-charge all things at MOD). Also I would like to point out that the pictures were taken in personal nature and has nothing to do with official business or other government activities. I have talked with MOD and they have no problem; however if you do - you can clarify the same from them.--Varghese Jacob (talk) 04:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, scanning photos does not give you copyright - the photos given to you by your family members are still the copyright of the original photographer (unless they're so old the copyright has expired) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- I will come back September 2012 and this would be my last text until then. Also for record, all images I have posted/uploaded into Commons are mine (more and other pictures will be posted after I will come back in September and be removed off this block) and own the sole copyright. None images were copied and stolen from anywhere (you may check anywhere in library or the internet). The photos posted were either uploaded via my scanner or were personally taken by me by my camera. I though am not a professional journalist or a photographer, I do own several professional point and shoot, digital and SLR cameras (its a hobby).--Varghese Jacob (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- In considering your unblock request it would help if you could explain a bit more how you have access to 18-year old photos like commons:File:AK_Antony_at_his_office_1994.jpg. Dpmuk (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
As Boing! said Zebedee notes, you are wrong about copyright law as applies to images, at least as relates to United States law, which is the law we must follow. The owner of the camera does not own copyright; the photographer does. If your father's assistant will not verify the image donations, I'm afraid we cannot use them. We have procedures that we are required to follow to protect our project legally in the United States; without following those procedures, the images cannot be retained. This is not intended as a slur against you or your father; several months ago, we had to remove a group of images even though a Puerto Rican politician had declared they were public domain because our attorney said they were not. US law is what we must follow. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- The case should be resolved now. I have talked to the photographer today since he has been attached as my dads assistant since my dads career in the civil service. Most scanned imaged you see are his. His name is "Ram Varma". He has issued an official statement through his email to "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" . --Varghese Jacob (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Block evasion
I can see that you tried to evade your block while editing logged out. Note that continuing to evade your block jeopardizes your chances to be unblock. Elockid (Talk) 21:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
BLock evasion.....
User:106.211.71.71.(Harishrawat11 (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC))