User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2021/March

Corporate Logos and Images Shiji

Thank you for your help in understanding best practices re:drafts and images. I still need your lifesaving assistance. Seriously, I've created the draft article Draft:Shiji Group without creating an infobox with a logo, but I feel like I forgot how to swim. Please, when you have a moment, could you give me some advice on creating a nice infobox etc? Thank you very much. Philbutler (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Philbutler: You don’t really need to create an MOS:INFOBOX yourself since there are plenty of varieties that already exist. You can find them in Category:Infobox templates or Wikipedia:List of infoboxes. — Marchjuly (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

helllo marchjuly

hi i changed some point in meghna patel account but now i again delete that article which is not require and i dont have knowledgeim new hear on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardyisback11188 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

If you unfamiliar with how to edit on Wikipedia, try taking the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure because it's one way to learn some basics about Wikipedia while making actual edits. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

MarchJuly Conspiring & deleting in Bad Faith

Let the record show that this editor is seemingly conspiring with the same 3 or 4 other editors to remove my good faith reasonable edits to the controversy section of Wonder Woman 1984.

I am simply trying to add counter points (with proper citations) that the movie is not flippant about its use of consent AND the movie doesn’t have a sex scene (which the current ‘controversy’ section claims falsely that it does)

It takes 2 to edit war. And this Wiki user —MarchJuly is starting the ‘war’ Dwilliamphilip83 (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The record is there in the form of WP:DIFFs and anyone is free to look at them and make their own assessment of the situation. The advice I provided to you on your user talk page was given in good faith; you're free to ignore it if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Missing Rationale for MeTV Kansas Logo

Remember when I posted a comment about a Bot removing The MeTV Kansas Logo from KLBY, Because it violated something, and you asked me to Provide the missing Rationale, But, how do I provide the missing rationale? What rationale is it? LooneyTraceYT (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Answered this on their talk page and corrected the issue; I've also warned LTYT that they have been overly disruptive in file space as of late. Nate • (chatter) 19:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi LooneyTraceYT. Nate seems to have answered your question, but you can find out more about non-free use rationales in Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. For future reference, when you ask a question at a noticeboard like Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and some one responds, it's OK and generally a good idea to keep discussing things there so that the discussion doesn't become fragmented. Keeping things in one place does tend to make it easier for others to follow along and add additional comments as needed; moreover, it also helps to let others know when the issue being asked about has been resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: George Kisevalter

I never met the man, I never communicated with him, I'm not related to him, but I am researching him and trying to further document my suspicions about him which are mostly based on a couple of hints my hero Tennent H. Bagley dropped in his dense-but-excellent book "Spy Wars," as well as "Mr DC" (as in "Mr. Deputy Chief" of CIA's Soviet Russia Division), in his 1978 HSCA (House Subcommittee on Assassinations) testimony.

... As well as all of the yarns (imho) and Nosenko-supporting falsehoods (imho) his biographer, Clarence Ashley, attributed to him in his book "Spy Master".

Etc, etc.

Here's a 2007 New York Times book review of "Spy Wars":

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/books/review/Thomas-t.html

<signed> Kisevalter ... Was ... Nash Kisevalter Was Nash (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kisevalter Was Nash: It would've been OK to respond to clarify this at the Teahouse where I asked about it. I only asked because of your choice of username. Given what you posted above though about your "suspicions", you may be asked about this by another editor down the road if you continue to heavily edit George Kisevalter. So, maybe it would be a good idea to clarify your choice of username on your user page. One possible problem with your username may be the some consider it a WP:PROMONAME if it turns out there are any books, websites, etc. being used to promote the same suspicions.

Some other stuff, you might want to read Wikipedia:No original research because while your suspicions might be true, Wikipedia is more interested in what can be verified. Any content you add about Kisevalter to any Wikipedia pages should be supported by citations to reliable sources, as defined here. Be careful using primary, scholarly or self-published sources since they can be tricky to use sometimes.

One last thing, posting random requests on your user talk page asking that others do things for you like create an article about someone almost never get responded to unless for some reason you've got a lot of talk page watchers. You can try asking someone here, but your best bet might be to find a WikiProject which might cover the topic matter and ask there. You could also of course try and create the article yourself, but I suggest doing so as a draft and submitting it for review. Good luck to you. Marchjuly (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the feedback.

FWIW, all of the edits I'm making to the articles on Kisevalter and Nosenko, et al., are supported by Tennent H. Bagley's works, as well as by his 1978 House Subcommittee on Assassinations testimony, and by other reputable works like historian Mark Riebling's "Wedge: The Secret War Between The FBI and CIA" (Alfred A. Knoph, New York, 1994), but I don't know quite yet how to insert them as references into those articles. I am working on it, however. Questions: Should I post this at the Tea House? Did you see my request elsewhere today that someone, anyone, create an article on Tennent H. Bagley? Was Kisevalter Nash? (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers that article content be supported to citations to reliable secondary sources. Books published by reputable publishing houses tend to be OK since they typically have fairly rigorous editorial control procedures in place; self-published books are, however, generally not considered reliable per WP:SPS, and even ones self-published by established writers or experts in the field might be considered WP:UNDUE. Official testimony given at governmental hearings, etc. is almost certainly going to be considered to be a WP:PRIMARY source which means it may be of limited value; moreover, any interpretations or assessments of the testimony would need to come from reliable secondary sources. In other words, we as editors cannot add our own interpretations of article content or what we think a reliable source is saying to an article (no matter how obvious it might seem to us) because doing so would be considered original research. If you're not sure how to add references to articles, take a look at Help:Referencing for beginners.

You can ask questions about editing of Wikipedia in general at the Teahouse, but you should check to see whether you've received any responses when do. Repeating the same question over and over again either because you didn't realize someone answered it or because you didn't like the answer is not going to make people want to help you and may lead to a mild warning from one of the hosts.

I saw your post asking for someone to create an article about Bagley because I just happened to look at your talk page by chance after you posted on mine. If you feel that Bagley meets WP:BIO and want to create an article about him, then you can. I suggest starting with a draft and then submitting it to WP:AFC for review when you think it's ready. You can find some suggestions about how to create an article in Help:Your first article. If you think Bagley should have an article written about him but aren't sure about whether would be considered Wikipedia notable, then it might better for you to query editors who might be more familiar with the subject matter than asking for detailed advice at the Teahouse. Perhaps one of the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography or Wikipedia:WikiProject Espionage could help sort that out for you? If someone even feels Bagley is Wikipedia notable for an article to be written about him, they might even help write it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for helping with the Surf Etiquette article

Hi Marchjuly, Thank you for your comments and suggestions on the Surfing Etiquette article and the related imagery. I am revewing all comments, and gathering additional references (specifically talking with surf icons, historical figures (still alive), gathering printed material). I would prefer this topic be a sole article, as it would not be stand alone material and overlooked, even though it is important information. I am researching how to still use the Surf etiquette imagery for use on Wikimedia Commons. Thank you for that reminder. I may just have to draw my own content. Thank you again, Navymom9194 (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC).

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but it kinda sounds like you might be misundestanding some important things about Wikipedia. So, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:No original research since I think those pages will probably help understand a bit more about Wikipedia.

As for the files you uploaded to Commons, Wikipedia and Commons are sister projects with there own specific policies and guidelines. For more information on Commons, you might want to take a look at c:Commons:Licensing; for more information on Wikipedia, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files and Wikipedia:Image use policy.

Just for reference, whether the draft you're working is ultimately accepted has nothing to do with the images you add to it, but rather whether the subject matter is deemed to be Wikipedia notable for a stand-alone article to be written about it. Wikipedia's notability guidelines, however, don't apply to adding content to existing article as explanined here; so, it might be easier to incoporate content related to "surfing ettiquete" into an existing article like Surfing than it would be to create a complete new article. Before try such a thing, however, it probably would be wise for you to discuss the changes you want to make on the relevant article's talk page (e.g. Talk:Surfing) to give others a chance to provide input.

Finally, one last important thing about Wikipedia has to do with Wikipedia:Ownership of content, we reliquish any claim of ownership over content we create or edit on Wikipedia as soon as well click on the "Publish changes" button (please read the small print above the button the next time you edit anything); so, once something is added to Wikipedia, it's pretty much there for anyone to improve upon, remove, redirect, merge, split or even nominate/tag for deletion at anytime. In other words, what we might prefer as individual editors and what the Wikipedia community feels is best for Wikipedia might not always be one and the same. Any disagreements about such things (except when there are clearly major Wikipedia policy or guideline issues) are generally resolved per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution involving the establishment of a Wikipedia:Consensus. So, if you're looking for complete control over the content you're trying to create and ensure that it stays true to your vision so to speak, then there are perhaps Wikipedia:Alternative outlets that might be better suited to achieving such things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Bhupinder Singh Mahal

Trying to upload image "Queen's Golden Jubilee Award". The photo in question is the photo taken at award ceremony at behest of the recipient Bhupinder who made it available from his personal album. The photo has no copyright. Help me to upload it. S Tallim S Tallim (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi S Tallim. All photos taken pretty much have copyright protection or had copyright protection at one time, and this copyright is held by the person who takes/took the photo. Physically owning a copy of the photo is not the same as owning the copyright on the photo. I'm surprised you wouldn't know something as this as a publisher, especially if you use photos in the books, etc. you publish. So, if Bhupinder took this photo himself (which seems unlikely), then he would be the copyright holder; the person who took the photo would be the copyright holder. If, however, Bhupinder didn't take the photo himself, but gave his camera to someone else and asked them to take the photo, then he might be the copyright holder as explained at meta:Wikilegal/Authorship and Copyright Ownership#Who Owns the Copyright to the Photo If a Friend or Stranger Takes a Picture of You?. The only other way Bhupinder would be considered the copyright holder would be if there was a copyright transfer agreement between him and whomemever took the photo.

Regardless of who the copyright holder is, it doesn't appear to be you which means you cannot upload the file under any of the free licenses that Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons accepts without the consent of the person who is the copyright holder. Furthermore, you can't simply state that the photo is not protected by copyright just because it came from his personal album or because Bhupinder (or someone representing him) said it was OK for you to upload and use. What you're going to need to do is to ask the person who took the photo to send a c:COM:CONSENT email to Wikimedia OTRS for verification as explained here. If you think Bhupinder is the copyright holder than ask him (or someone representing him) to send the email. The person who sends in the email should include as much information about the provenance of the photo (e.g. who took it, when it was taken and where it was taken) as well as any other significant information related to the photo. The photo seems rather old and looks like a scan, which means there's probably no Exif data available for it to aid in the license verification; so, the more other information you can provide about the photo, the better chance there is of an OTRS volunteer being able to sort things out.

As I pointed out on your user talk page, how many images the draft you're working on contains won't affect whether it's ultimately accepted as an article; so, it might be better to focus on improving the textual content of the draft, and worry about the images later on. Even if a file is deleted, it's not good forever and can be restored once any issues associated with it are sorted out. If, however, you keep uploading images of questionable licensing to Wikipedia or Commons, someone is going to notice and an administrator might be asked to step in and block your account to stop you from continuing to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The photo was taken by Bhupinder's wife, Suneeta Mahal. Please advise next steps. S Tallim S Tallim (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

If the photo c:File:Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal award 2003.jpeg was taken by Bhupinder's wife, then all that is needed is for Wikimedia OTRS to verify that she has agreed to allow a version of the photo to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under an acceptable license. You can find out more about this at c:Commons:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. Please ask her (or her official representative) to send an email like the one shown in c:Commons:Email templates/Consent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. It's important for her to understand that by doing this, she's basically agreeing to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the photo at anytime and then re-use for it any purpose (including commercial and derivative use); moreover, once she does this, she can't change her mind at a later date. Please understand that for this reason, Wikimedia OTRS needs to receive a consent email directly from her (or her official representative) to verify that she understands what it means to upload her work to Commons. Once an email has been sent in, it will be verified by an OTRS volunteer. If there are no problems, the OTRS volunteer will make a note on the file's page that everything is in order and that the consent of the copyright holder has been received. If there is a problem, the OTRS volunteer will most likely email her and explain what it is and what needs to be done. Please don't upload any more versions of the file while all of this is being sorted out because it only makes things more confusing. Currently, you've uploaded two versions of this photo: one to Commons as c:File:Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal award 2003.jpeg and one to Wikipedia as File:Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal award 2003.jpeg. One of these versions (most likely the Wikipedia one) is going to need to be deleted; so, please don't panic if you see that happening. As long as his wife took the photo and sends an email to Wikimedia OTRS, things should be sorted out. It might take a little time, but it will eventually be sorted out one way or another. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Subject: Bhupinder Singh Mahal/Conflict of interest

I am a publisher. I met Bhupinder Singh Mahal while collaborating on publication of his book "The Making of the Sikh Empire" (ISBN 9780968673614). I have no close relationship with him. S Tallim S Tallim (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

If you worked with Bhupinder on one of his books as his publisher, then almost certainly most members of the Wikipedia community would consider you to have at least an WP:APPARENTCOI and maybe even possibly a financial sort of COI, especially since you've seem to have only started editing Wikipedia to create content about him. Having a COI doesn't mean you cannot try and create an article about Bhupinder or add content about him to other Wikipedia pages, but it does mean that you'll be expected to follow the guidance given in WP:COI. If you would like further clarification of this you can try asking for assistance at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I was a founding member of a Sikh discussion group on Yahoo-Groups, now shut down. I was approached by Bhupinder in 2012 to help publish his book - about a Sikh emperor - as it could then be disseminated widely among the 1200 Sikh members of the group. No fees were asked nor paid. My son and I helped Bhupinder on the publication on Kindle Direct Publishing. S Tallim S Tallim (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

​It sounds like you just helped Bhupinder self-publish a book; so, even if you're considered to have a COI as a friend, you're probably not going to be considered to have a financial one. It probably would still be a good idea for you to post something about this on your user page at User:S Tallim as explained in WP:DECLARECOI so that other editors don't mistakenly assume you have a financial interest in creating content about Bhupinder on Wikipedia. However, because you do have a friendly relationship to Bhupinder, it might be hard for you write a neutrally worded article about him. You, therefore, might want to try and ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject India or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography for assistance. Perhaps someone from either of those WikiProjects would look over the draft and provide you with some feedback. You don't need to do this, but it might be a good idea.

Finally, you don't need to start a new discussion thread whenever you post something new on a talk page. If you just want to add a new comment to a currently ongoing discussion, just add your comment to the bottom of the relevant discussion thread. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not have friendly relationship with Bhupinder. As our members bought his book and wrote favorably about it, and as I came across his recently published book "Origin of Jat Race", I was impressed with his works and decided to explore his life and activities. As I delved into his life I got persuaded to write his bio. To write the bio I contacted Bhupinder. S Tallim S Tallim (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC) S Tallim S Tallim (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying things. If you want to create an Wikipedia article about Bhunpinder, then you'll need to understand that it will sort of be like an unauthorized biography about him in the sense that it should only reflect what existing reliable sources have already published about him. It should not be something which you base upon information you receive from Bhupindor himself or which you base upon your own original research. You and Bhupindor both need to understand that neither of you will have an final editorial control over such an article as explained in Wikipedia:Ownership of content. If the draft you're working on is someday approved as an article, then anyone will be able to edit it and this might mean that content unfavorable to Bhupindor might end up in the article at some point or that the article may take a direction that you or he may not approve. If this happens and there's a disagreement over what's best for the article, then things are going to be expected to be resolved per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Of course, any edits made to article by anyone are going to be expected to be in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines (particularly Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons), but neither you nor he will be able to prevent others from editing the article.

Finally, there's some very important things that you need to keep in mind when trying to create Wikipedia article as explained in Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources, Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Wikipedia articles are expected to be written in our own words; basically, we read about a subject that has received coverage in reliable sources and then we summarize what we've read in our own words and provide citations to the sources we've read to allow verification by others. We are not allowed to verbatim copy-and-paste content found in reliable sources directly into an article (or a draft) or even to too closely paraphrase what we read. A couple of times already an administrator named Diannaa has had to remove copyright violating content from the draft, apparently because it was taken from Amazon or some other website. I cannot stress how important it is for you to avoid doing such a thing again because copyright violations are taken quite seriously by Wikipedia and an administrators can block editors who repeatedly add copyright violating content to Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Information about Bhupinder is verifiable via e.g. (a) Order-in-Council appointment letters for his appointments to public Boards, (b) Awards are documented in photographs. Neither Bhupinder nor I ask for any editorial control. He is fairly well known among Sikh scholars e.g. (1) Pashaura Singh, a leading scholar of Sikh scriptures and literature and is a religious studies scholar and a professor currently at University of California where he holds the Dr. Jasbir Singh Saini Endowed Chair in Sikh and Punjabi Studies, and (2) Dr. Gurinder Singh Mann, professor of Sikh Studies who taught religion at Columbia University from 1988 to 1999 and then held the Kundan Kaur Kapany Chair in Sikh Studies from 1999 to 2015 at the University of California, Santa Barbara (now retired). Also, it needs to be noted that there is no COI nor appearance of one. So, the alert template of COI should be deleted. S Tallim S Tallim (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not assessing whether Bhupindor meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people), but you're going to need to establish that he has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are secondary and independent in nature to convince others that he is Wikipedia notable. Since he's a scholar, you probably only need to establish that he meet WP:NACADEMIC. The other scholars you mention above may be Wikipedia notable, but whatever Wikipedia notablity they possess doesn't transfer to Bhupinder per WP:INHERITED. In addition, the awards and appointments Bhupinder has received are impressive, but they don't necessarily make him Wikipedia notable; furthermore, providing a photograph of an appointment letter or showing him receiving an award is not really an acceptable form of verification for Wikipedia's purposes. Even if they were acceptable as a form of verification, they would be primary sources and such sources aren't consider helpful in establishing a subject's Wikipedia notability.

You can add Template:AfC submission/draft to the top the draft if you think Bhupinder is without a doubt Wikipedia notable and would like to submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review. However, assessing the Wikipedia notability of scholars, researchers and academics can sometimes be tricky so it might be a good idea for you to ask someone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia to take a look at the draft and give it a quick assessment first. An editor who is more experienced in working with articles like this might be able to make suggestions or better explain any areas where the draft might be lacking.

As for the {{COI}} template that was added to the top of the page, that was added by an editor named Jeff G. and you can discuss his reasons for adding the COI template at User talk:Jeff G. If you want to provide a link to what we're discussing here, you can do so by adding a link to this discussion to Jeff G.'s user talk page using Template:Please see. At some point though it might be best to move any further discussion about whether you have a COI to WIkipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard to make it easier for others to participate in the discussion.

Finally, please take a look at Wikipedia:Indentation for some suggestions on how to better format your talk page posts. I don't mind "fixing" things here on my user talk page because right now it's just me and you discussing things. If, however, you're going to start trying to post things on other editors' user talk pages, article talk pages, etc., it probably would be a good idea if you learned how to "indent" your posts so that it's easier for others to participate in the discussion and follow along. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@S Tallim: I added that tag based on this edit, in which you failed to correctly declare your COI.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)