Talk:Pari Mahal

I had found this on the Webpage.

I had found the following written at the page from where I retrieved the content. Don't know if I misinterpreted it or what : Proprietary Rights

A Member posting material represents that such material is owned by the Member or used with permission of the copyright holder. ArchNet acknowledges that each Member owns the material he or she creates and posts on ArchNet. Each Member grants to ArchNet a royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive license to reproduce, transmit, modify, authorize the downloading of, and otherwise publish such material (in whole or part) in any form, medium, or technology now known or as may be later developed.

If any special permissions are required, ping me again. VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  13:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not ArchNet, and is therefore not the licensee. Even if it were, though, this license is not compatible with the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licenses used by Wikipedia. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Remove copyroghted content

I have removed the copy righted content and remaining can be seen here.VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  03:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like all of the photos on that page are still copyright infringements of commercial photos from other webpages. They are all tagged as such and awaiting deletion. It would be best to not use copyrighted photos, as it has previously been explained to you a few times. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.jsp?site_id=15041. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Theleftorium ^(talk) 09:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information

I do not understand why someone should remove this information, which appears to be sourced. Please explain. - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall now that what led me remove that content, I was mistaken. Thanks for making these improvements but do you think that source has been interpreted correctly? It mentions "home to many of Srinagar's most powerful bureaucrats"[1] while article says "base for high-level bureaucrats".  MehrajMir (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)