Talk:Rajinder Singh (spiritual master)

Neutrality
This article reads like an advertisement or an ultra high praise of Sant Rajinder Singh rather than an article stating facts. I strongly urge this article to be rewritten in a more neutral way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.224.51 (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The persona described is also known to have claimed Sat-guru status without being given the authority to do so. His family claims to be given the authority, but the authority to initiate was legally given to another persona. 72.174.160.10 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

COI editing and self promotion
This article continues to be the target of WP:COI editing and WP:PUFF and self promotion. The most recent edits by User:SOSWikiEditor (SOS is the name of Rajinder Singh's organization). Wikipedia unfortunately is often used by individuals to promote themselves or their caused therefore we have strict guidelines about Conflicts of Interest. Furthermore when it comes to the "Awards and Honors" section, this is again an area typically used by individuals to make claims such as having a Doctorate degree or prestigious honors that in fact never happened. Therefore we have high requirements for sources to confirm the claims - the claims can't be self-published or originate with the person. They should be 3rd party independent press, preferably press known for fact checking. Nearly every entry added by User:SOSWikiEditor fails this requirement and I am restoring the previous section which at least had some independent sourcing. -- Green  C  13:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

How to challenge non-free images...
A non-free image was removed with the edit summary "nonfree image in BLP infobox". This particular contributor,, has removed other images from BLP articles, using this exact same edit summary, including this excision, and this excision from Florin Fodor.

I gave them the benefit of the doubt, at the time, and assumed there was some clause, somewhere, that did in fact proscribe using non-free images in infoboxen. An administrator made a ruling that Image:Florin Fodor in Grise Fiord - October 2006.jpg was non-replaceable, and so complied with NFCC. They replaced the image, into the infobox.

So, I now strongly doubt that there is any justification for excising non-free images simply because they were used in a BLP infobox.

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz devotes a considerable share of their energy to challenging non-free images. I personally think they are too extreme in their efforts. And I personally think they make a mistake in HOW they challenge these images. Of course, there are obvious instance where an image with a nonfree justification should be removed, on sight. But, when a good faith contributor has made a good faith attempt to draft what they think is a policy compliant rationale, then excision seems to me to be a breach of civility.

Every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment We want to show good faith new contributors a meaningful explanation for why their non-free rationale is mistaken. A challenger can contact the uploader on their user talk page. If they had done so for Image:Florin Fodor in Grise Fiord - October 2006.jpg there is a good chance we could have spare hours of pointless drama. Alternatively there is a forum for reaching a consensus as to whether a nonfree image has a valid rationale.

I've looked into the history of WP:NFCC. It is heartbreaking. Near as I can tell the wikipedia's WP:NFCC didn't start out being so much more restrictive than the US law on fair use. Near as I can tell you can't find a discussion where the pros and cons of making NFCC as restrictive as it is today.

The Wikimedia Foundation is cash rich, as not-for-profits go. It occasionally gets skilled legal experts to offer legal opinions for us. When we learned that Afghanistan was working towards joining Berne-world we sought a skilled legal opinion. We started treating images from Afghanistan as if they were protected by copyright about half a decade before those images were legally protected by copyright. I am going to paraphrase from memory here. That lawyer explained that the Afghan images remained in the public domain, and would remain in the public domain, until the Afghan legislature passed some particular laws. But, nothing prevented the Wikimedia Foundation from having more restrictive rules. However, our more restrictive rules had no legal basis.

Similarly, I think that lawyer would tell us that nothing prevents us from having a more restrictive set of rules than US fair use, however, that set of rules should make sense.

I think it is long past the time when those who take a narrow view of when we should follow a narrow interpretation of when we should use a non-free image should make sure the rest of us can trust that our de facto policy actually makes sense.

Why do nation states offer copyright protection, and offer a fair use exception to copyright protection?

Copyright protection, and patents too, are extended to creators of new ideas, because we believe in "progress". New ideas, new inventions, new forms of expression, and expressions of old ideas, in new forms, are seen as good things, that somehow benefit the general public. Copyright protection is broad. The same nation-states that offer broad copyright protection offer a narrow fair use exemption. When an copyrighted image meets the narrow criteria to be considered usable under fair use, the fair use rights over-ride the rights of the copyright holder.

Can that be tough on the copyright holder? Sure, sometimes. But that is tough. The law requires them to live with it. Why, because copyright is extended to them to benefit the general public. When fair use benefits the general public more than protecting the interests of the copyright holder it over-rides the rights of the copyright holder.

Is this what NFCC says? Far too often NFCC is interpreted such that a non-free image that meets all of our other non-free usage criteria, where once could claim the copyright holder might take a financial hit from our usage should not be used.

A lot of the images on the wikimedia commons are in the public domain. I put all my images in the public domain. But a lot of them are licensed under a "free" license, like cc-by-sa or GFDL. We routinely use those cc-by-sa images, and assume that if our readers re-use that cc-by-sa license they will respect the terms of the cc-by-sa license. We have no way of policing whether our readers do or don't respect the terms of a cc-by-sa license. If we comply with a valid cc-by-sa license when we re-use a flickr image, and one of our readers re-uses it, without honoring the cc-by-sa license, any legal battle is between the original copyright holder and our reader. Legally we are in the clear.

I ask if there is any reason why we shouldn't place a similar trust in using image which validly measure up to the US law on fair use?

I suggest that if we re-use an image in a way that validly complies with the US law on fair use, and one of our readers re-uses it, doing so in a way that also complies with fair use, we are in the clear. And, I suggest, that if another one of our readers re-uses that image, but in a way that does not comply with the US law on fair use, any legal battle is between the copyright holder and that non-complying reader, we are still legally in the clear. Geo Swan (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Copyright images of living people are generally not allowed unless there is a compelling reason why you, me, or someone else couldn't simply show up at a conference and snap a picture of him and upload it to Wikipedia under a free license. --  Green  C  23:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ,, routinely removes images from BLP articles, using the edit summary, "nonfree image in BLP infobox".  I am afraid I see this as a serious lapse from WP:BITE and our conventions on civility.  I have urged HW, many times, to make a greater effort to not erode the culture of civility and collegiality a cooperative project like this really needs.  If HW has a good reason for their activities why shouldn't they use clear edit summaries?
 * As to the anyone can show up, at a conference, and snap a picture... This idea is stretched far beyond the bounds of reasonableness by some picture quality control volunteers.  The image of Florin Fodor, on his ancient little runabout being a case in point.  HW went AWOL when asked to explain his or her reasoning there.  A few years ago a series of stunning images were published, from a construction site here in Toronto.  A construction firm had permission to build a high-rise over several lots, one of which contained a heritage building from the 19th Century.  The builder's permission to construct the high-rise was conditional over the preservation of this 19th century house.  The builder ended up (1) drilling a bunch of deep piles; (2) pouring a thick slab; (3) moving the heritage house onto the slab; (4) then excavating the site, to a depth of 4 or 5 storeys, including excavating under the slab.  I uploaded a non-free flickr image of the house, on its slab, standing upon piles going down 4 or 5 storeys.  The upload was challenged.  Those arguing for delete claimed anyone could go to the construction site, and snap a similar picture.  The nominator offered up what they described as a free alternative picture, from China, of all place.  It was a "tooth house", an unexcavated house, owned by the one owner who refused to sell, surrounded by a huge pit.  While the Chinese image was also stunning, the assertion it was a free alternate image was mocked by several people, as the situation of the two houses were simply not comparable.  I see this as another instance where an extreme interpretation of NFCC resulted in straining at gnats, and swallowing camels.  At that discussion several contributors voiced the opinion that the position that I should personally go to the site, and try to capture my own (free) image was unreasonable, since it would require trespassing.  Another instance where HW went AWOL was an image of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM).  KSM is very hairy.  A CIA image of a very disheveled, and hairy, KSM was re-used by a firm that sells depilatory cremes, in Turkey.  The Turkish firm's derived images contained text, in Turkish.  Of course, since the underlying image was taken by a CIA employee, it was in the public domain.  Simply adding Turkish text to the image did not pass de minimus, as it would be too simple for them to claim any copyright on their derived image.  All this was pointed out to HW, who went AWOL.  If all you meant by your comment, above, was that arguments to loosen up NFCC belong elsewhere, OK.  But if you meant to suggest it is OK for HW to use inadequate edit summaries, I am going to request you reconsider.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Geo, as I pointed out in response to your post on my talk page, that is an edit summary I've used, in one form or another, close to 2000 times over quite a few years, and you have been, I believe, the only editor to object to it. No one is supporting your little jihad, and it is time for you to take your own advice and recognize that you are wrong. And quite tendentious. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In the case of the Saint he is a very public figure, the opportunity for a CC or PD image is so common as to be ridiculous. I suspect the reason they don't he doesn't look so appealing in old age now so they keep pushing this holy-looking picture used throughout the SoS marketing material. This article has had major COI problems since day 1 and using their iconic marketing image (which is Copyright) is just another round of COI editing. Wikipedia isn't a marketing brochure. Now, if they were to release the image into the PD or CC no problem. But there is no evidence of that other than unsupported claims by uploaders contradicted by the SoS website Copyright tag. --  Green  C  23:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , I see you left a clear, civil explanation of your COI concern. That is terrific! Clear, civil explanations are what errant newbies need.
 * , you, on the other hand, were unclear, in your use of the edit summary "nonfree image in BLP infobox". It is not only not clear, it is not policy-based.  You claimed I was the only person to call you on this, implying this was sufficient to ignore the concerns I voiced.  But when administrator  restored the non-free image of Florin Fodor, on his little fibreglass boat, he restored it to the Florin Fodor article's infobox.  I suggest you recognize this as a sign he did not endorse your position that all non-free images in infoboxen should be removed, without discussion.
 * Should we try to change the wikipedia's policies by trying to make edits based on what we think policy should be, and then, if we think we got away with it, 2000 times, act as if our personal position had been made a policy? Geo Swan (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank You :-) Do note - had File:Florin Fodor in Grise Fiord - October 2006.jpg, just been an image of the person, then it would not have been restored - having the boat as well gives it plenty of "Contextual significance" - it would be much harder to put into words the madness of that journey, and it could not be replaced by a free image. Ron h jones (Talk) 00:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sant Rajinder Singh Ji Maharaj Image.jpg