User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2022/April

Dodgy date
I assume the access date on the Palisades reference should be 2022? (Not 2020, which is before the publication date.) --Verbarson talkedits 13:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was a mistake. Thank you for catching it . — Marchjuly (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Question from Paul sandworm on Laal Singh Chaddha (10:39, 6 April 2022)
? --Paul sandworm (talk) 10:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't no how to respond to "?". Do you have a question about an edit you made to the article Laal Singh Chadda? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Teahouse Discussion - Kind of Veering Away from the Issue
I didn't reply to your response, not because I don't respect your answer, but that thread was getting long and it was veering away from the original focus. As you replied, I didn't entirely agree with what you said, but the basic premise that you presented, that freedom of speech is limited to the context in which that speech is issued, it does make lots of sense, and anyone with common sense will see the merit of what you say when you write:

I agree that the right to speak freely does not actually disappear when a person enters a home, or business, or Wikipedia. I agree that the context matters, and effectively I agree with the pragmatic effects of your position, I do not agree that rights can "evaporate" in certain circumstances. I would say that there are rights of individuals that can sometimes conflict with each other, and that the weight of those rights can be ascertained as to which rights overrule each other. Is the right to life more prevalent than the right to liberty, for example? Or the first person's right to speak more prevalent than another, second person's right to speak? Can a person's right to the pursuit of happiness, prevail over a second person's right to freedom of expression? All those can go one way or the other, in terms of how they are contextualised; in what context are we focusing on here?

In Wikipedia, we're in the context of an online website. In your example, we're in the context of a private domain, a person's house. Do the rights of Wikipedia prevail over a user's right to express himself? Do the rights of the homeowner prevail over a guest's right to express himself? Those rights don't disappear. There are simply rights that can prevail over other rights.

That would have been my response. But, again, I didn't see much profit in extending that Teahouse thread any longer than it had already gotten. You had a very good reply, and I thought I should give you the respect of my take on that reply. I basically agree with you. Please forgive me, if it seemed that I didn't pay attention to your position! 69.112.128.218 (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t feel disrespected when others don’t respond to a post I made on a Wikipedia because there’s no obligation for them to do so, but “yes” the rights of Wikipedia (and the Wikipedia Community) do prevail over a user’s right to express themselves. We are guests in Wikipedia’s “house” so much so that even our user pages aren’t really ours per se. We have to be willing to abide by Wikipedia’s “rules” in Wikipedia’s “house” if we want to be allowed to stay. If we don’t want to do that, then we can find someone else’s “house” to visit. That is the extent of my interest in what was posted at the Teahouse and what was posted above. If you want to have a broader discussion/debate about individual rights and the Internet (including a website’s right to restrict content) or individual rights vs. group rights, then that’s cool. I’m sure there are plenty of other places for you to do so and plenty of other people to do so with. If you really want to seriously do such things on Wikipedia, try Wikipedia talk:Free speech or one of the Wikipedia:Village pumps and perhaps you'll have better luck and find others to be more receptive. PBWY. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That hadn't occurred to me, before. I'm glad I decided to put this extra remark on this talk page. Thanks so very much for shedding light on this. It's insight like this that I am appreciative of. 69.112.128.218 (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Your help desk response
Regarding the longer of two responses to this question, you seem to have left out a word. I didn't see the question until after it was archived, but to help anyone reading your response, it would be helpful if you went ahead and edited. I don't believe a "copyright" is a person, but maybe you meant "copyright expert"? — Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank for catching that. The missing word was "lawyer". -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

New message from Stifle
Stifle (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Deleted file improvement
Hello sir/mam, I recently come to know that you are going to delete my one file which I had uploaded a while ago, stating that it is invalid.

But is there any way to stop the deletion progress/process as I want this image to use on Wikipedia.

Please, any advice. Thank you.

File name: File:Anubhav Sinha (Indian director).jpg File link:

Bobe8q8661 (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . Wikipedia pretty much never allows non-free content like the file you uploaded to be used for primary identification purposes in articles about living people per non-free content use criterion #1 as explained here and in item 1 of the examples of unacceptable types of non-free images. So, there’s really no way that this file can be kept absent you somehow being able to figure out who the copyright holder is and then being able to convince that person to give their explicit and verifiable consent for the file to be released under a free license that Wikipedia accepts. Most images of Sinha that you find online are going to likely be copyrighted images that Wikipedia will be unable to use without the copyright holder’s consent. In some cases, you might try contacting the copyright holder of such an image as explained here and asking for their consent, but you’ll need to first find out who the copyright holder really is. Many famous film directors like Sinha have their photos taken all the time by all kinds of people, but it’s the person taking the photo (not the subject of the photo) who is almost always considered to be the copyright holder of a photo, and it’s the consent of that person that Wikipedia typically needs to verify. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to add that there might be another possibility of finding a "free" image that you can upload and use that has to do with the website Bollywood Hungama. There are many images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons taken by Bollywood Hungama photographers that are licensed as c:Template:BollywoodHungama. This is because the Bollywood Hungama has agreed to release certain images taken by its photographers under a free license that Commons accepts. So, if you can find a photo of Sinha taken by a Bollywood Hungama photographer which satisfies all of the condition of said license, then it should be OK to upload to Commons. I do suggest, though, that you ask about the image you want to upload at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright first before uploading it to given some others a chance to assess whether it's OK to upload. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

American university of Malta
Hello my friend, I need your help to edit offensive information or delete a negative page and work on a new correct page. the topic is very important. Ahmad alajlani (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . When you have concerns about an article, the best place to discuss them is generally on its corresponding talk page, which in this case would be Talk:American University of Malta. Moreover, existing articles are very rarely deleted just to subsequent recreation of another different version that one party may like better. If there's offensive or otherwise erroneous information currently in the article, then a better approach may be to try and fix things instead of deleting things. Be advised, though, that as long as the content you feel is inappropriate meets relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, a consensus may need to be established to remove it outright. Be also advised that if you're somehow connected to university in a personal or professional way, you may be subject to Wikipedia’s guidelines on conflict-of-interesting editing. This is particularly the case if you "work" for the university or otherwise have been asked by the university to change the article in some way. Finally, there actually does appear to have been some discussion in 2020 about issues the university had with the article on the article's talk page. If your concerns are the same, then you can start a new discussion to bring them to the attention of the editors who worked together to resolve things the last time. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep removing the section heading for this discussion? It doesn't seem offensive to me and it's the title heading you chose when you posted a random question on my user talk page seeking assistance. Your editing here is starting to become a little disruptive and if you continue to make such edits, an administrator will eventually be asked to step in and take action to prevent any further disruption. If there's some problem with the section heading, please clarify what it is and perhaps a different heading can be used instead? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Reversion of one your edits on the Tianwen-1 page
Dear Marchjuly, I reverted one of your two recent edits on the Tianwen-1 Wiki page; specifically, your edit changed the image display option to "thumbnail" size. The affected images is that of an illustrative figure from a scientific journal; its presence is intended to show the parameters that the Tianwen-1 landing team calculated in order to distinguish between possible landing ellipses, and as such, it is meant to be read by the journal reader (or in this case, the Wiki article reader). The thumbnail version of the figure's image however, is so small that it is basically unredable and defeats the purpose of placing it on the Wiki page. For this reason, I reverted that particular edit. Playing with the sizing of the image on the page is OK so long as the text in the figure remains redable, and I may try to do this, but a thumbnail is just too small in my opinion. Let me know if you have any concerns. Spotty&#39;s Friend (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't set the image to thumbnail markup; it was already set to thumbnail markup but also had a fixed pixel size which is not really allowed as explained in WP:THUMBSIZE and MOS:UPRIGHT. If you want to resize the image and use the thumnail markup, you should do so using the upright parameter like is being done for the other images in the article. This will tell the software to automatically scale the image according to the device the reader is using or according to their user preferences. However, you need to make sure the image is not too big as explained in WP:IMAGESIZE. You need to remember that Wikipedia reader's tend to use all kind of different devices and thus not everyone might not be seeing the images the same way as you do with whatever device your using; so, you need to size the images in way that will make them accessible for the average reader and not just in a manner that looks good to you. 660px images may look fine on a laptop or PC with a pretty large monitor, but maybe not so good on other types of devices. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip on the upright image parameter Marchjuly; learned something new. Cheers, Spotty&#39;s Friend (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. You still need to be aware of the impact using the upright parameter can have on other users though. Images should, as much as possible, be sized to provide the best clarity for the majority of readers using the most common types of devices. I understand the temptation to make images that contain lots of detail as big as possible, but this can really mess things up for readers using devices with small screens, which many may be using these days. The images in the Tianwen-1 article already seem a bitlarge for most computers with average-sized screens, but their large size is probably causing some real problems for hand-held devices with much smaller screens; so, what those users are likely seeing is a large image with bits and pieces of text surrounding it. This can make articles really hard to read for certain users, which is something we should be trying to avoid. If there's lots of detail in an image, it's often better to try and use other ways to provide readers with the detail such as is explained in MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. Tablular data associated with images can often be incorporated as simple text within the article body with the image then be provided to support the text. Bigger is not always better when it comes to images in Wikipedia articles because it can unintentionally create MOS:ACCESS issues for others. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft categories
I didn't know this was a thing. Template:Draft categories seems quite useful. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . Mainspace categories also aren’t supposed to be used on user pages per WP:USERNOCAT. Either way, this is pretty minor as things go and mostly happens when an article is draftified or copied-and-pasted into a user sandbox for some reason. You can also disable categories in such cases using WP:COLON, but that might seem confusing if you’ve never seen it done before. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've always done colon thing on categories (etc.), but it seems like a better option for drafts that get userfied (especially since most students wouldn't know how to fix one of those when they moved it back to mainspace. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess it could depend on the edit summary you leave and whether you think it’s going to be understood or even read at all. You could try WP:HIDDEN to explain things in the editing window, but that might be confusing. Perhaps in the case of newer editors (like student editors), using the template works best since it’s basically an in-article edit summary. It also might add the page to some category for maintenance purposes. On the other hand, the actual category itself probably won’t show up in the “What links here” section on its page. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)