User talk:Richard.reive

Welcome!
Hello, Richard.reive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! PeteJGray (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Prem Rewat
If requested to discuss disputed content before restoring it to an article, it is always good practice to do so. Particularly for controversial subjects. The Prem Rewat article has been the subject of considerable debate, resulting in the above 'discretionary sanctions' being applied. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Concerning sourcing for the Tutu Foundation/TPRF forum, I am attempting to respect the following Wikipedia guideline: 8/7/2021	Sources	NOR-Primary, secondary and tertiary sources	Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one. I hope this meets my colleagues' approval.

Unspecified source/license for File:South-Africa-MOU-2-prem-rawat.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:South-Africa-MOU-2-prem-rawat.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like (to release all rights),  (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 00:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Me, too; see #Complexities of copyright and license below. &#8212;&#160;CJDOS,&#160;Sheridan,&#160;OR&#160;(talk) 18:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I came here to say the same thing as the bot message does - we need evidence that a photo is public domain/licensed under CC BY-SA or GFDL etc to use it, per COPYOTHERS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I am contacting TPRF for authorization; the Weekly Echo would send me to TPRF for permission in any event. Richard.reive (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Me again. Is there some special form permission must take. I find Wikipedia's directives difficult to follow. Thanks, Richard.reiveRichard.reive (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:South-Africa-MOU-2-prem-rawat.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:South-Africa-MOU-2-prem-rawat.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 08:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Complexities of copyright and license
Hello. I've previously run into issues regarding Wikipedia's image copyright policy, and having done so, took extra steps when creating userboxes, to make sure I was using existing images that are:
 * Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 (Unported) (CC-BY-SA 3.0) (see WP:CC BY-SA)
 * Public Domain Mark 1.0 (PDM) (see WP:PD)
 * GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.1 (LGPL-2.1-or-later) (LGPL)

Regarding Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC-BY-SA 4.0) (see WP:CC-BY-SA 4.0), there is a little disconnect between Wikimedia Commons (a media storage) and Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia for which the servers are located in the U.S., and so prefers a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license when the image is not in the public domain. Wikimedia Commons hosts images from all over the globe, a lot from the European Union, and the E.U. has some extra regulations regarding the hosting of image galleries. To oversimplify, there is a difference between hosting the full size image, versus hosting a thumbnail for demonstration. There is also specification on how access to the hosting server may be charged without running afoul. In short, if the image is hosted at Commons, 4.0 is preferred, if it is hosted only at Wikipedia (not simply mirrored from Commons), 3.0 is preferred. Many images that are listed as PDM may have been trawled from other sites in which the author has released the image as public domain, but the copyright status is sometimes ambiguous, so LGPL-2.1-or-later is recommended, but not required over PDM. Copyleft (see Copyleft) has some overlap, but may not be suitable for Wikipedia-hosted images. It all seems unnecessarily complicated, but it is to make clear the allowed usage of a piece of media, and to avoid lawsuits. I mentioned at the beginning that I had run into an issue previously. I wanted to add a musician's logo to his Wikipedia article, and had personally obtained through email his explicit permission to use the image on Wikipedia for that purpose. However, this gave it a non-free image tag, which requires more specification as to the rationale of its use. Some non-free images are permitted as fair use in accordance with the copyright law of the United States, and a bot will often reduce an image size to ensure the image is regarded as fair use. In my particular case, the image was regarded as non-free copyrighted, and simply permitting its use for a Wikipedia article is not enough. There is exception for images which consist of simple geometric shapes and/or fonts, or the image cannot be copyrighted due to other limitations, but the image as a whole may still be considered trademarked in its jurisdiction of origin (as an example, the logo for NHK World-Japan, or BBC World News). There is a process for when the copyright owner of an image/logo has released it under an acceptable license, for the uploader (separate from the owner) to log that permission into Wikipedia for the record, but I haven't learned how to do that yet. This is just a condensed summary, but I hope you will find this information helpful. If I've made a mistake somewhere, please let me know. &mdash;&#160;CJDOS,&#160;Sheridan,&#160;OR&#160;(talk) 18:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC) (highlighted 19:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC))


 * Hello CJDOS,
 * Thanks very much for your reply. To say no more, the process seems bewildering!
 * That said, I contacted TPRF and received a reply from Jake Frankel, Director of Communications. I am inserting the relevant part here:
 * Hi Richard, thanks for your letter.
 * We would be happy to authorize the use of images as you request.
 * What exactly are the next steps for us to take?
 * So, what is a straightforward step-by-step method to obtain authorized message, prove that they are authorized, and upload them?
 * I truly appreciate your patience and help. I am a slow learner!
 * If you wish, we could talk directly. I a WhatsApp.
 * Richard.reiveRichard.reive (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You are at the point at which I became stuck previously. If Director Mr. Frankel has their own Wiki account (see WP:SUL), he could release the image under the appropriate license. Otherwise you would have to add attribution to indicate that the owner has granted permission; I am very keen to learn this part of the process myself. As mentioned, permissioning an image for "exclusive" use on Wikipedia is generally not an acceptable license. I will tag this section to request assistance and will follow along so we can both learn. Unrelated, I assume that mobile number is publicly posted as part of Mr. Frankel's job as Director. I would be very careful about posting personal information on Wikipedia per WP:PRIVACY. &#8212;&#160;CJDOS,&#160;Sheridan,&#160;OR&#160;(talk) 19:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Your input is most helpful. I am attempting to undertake an update and move past the 70s. Not all of my fellow editors are in agreement, to no surprise.
 * Mr. Frankel is Director of Communications, TPRF. I will attempt to remove his number; it was an oversight. Richard.reive (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That number is actually mine; I take the hint. RR
 * (I guess I may receive even more calls. Some tell me I am to be arrested for illegal packages or failing to pay my taxes. Others offer a range of services. I am learning to block them within seconds.)  Richard.reive (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Done! Richard.reive (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:DONATEIMAGE for more information about releasing images for use on Wikipedia. If you want more help, change the help me-helped back into a help me, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Primefac!
 * I will study your suggestions and follow up on them ASAP.
 * Keep well,
 * Richard.reive (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail
— Viewed. &mdash;&#160;CJDOS,&#160;Sheridan,&#160;OR&#160;(talk) 20:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Prem Rawat
As I have noted at Talk:Prem Rawat, I have serious concerns with your recent edits to the biography, and would appreciate a reply to my comments there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Me again Andy,
 * On reflection, I see your point. May I suggest the following: Instead of "His arrival in the United States was met with skepticism", the sentence be rephrased to read: "His arrival in the United States drew a mixed reaction. The teen-aged Rawat was seen as too immature .... " The text following would would remain as is, to indicate both negative and positive reactions at the time. Richard.reive (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Andy,
 * I have read the editing tutorial and find myself frankly bewildered. If you wish to revert the recent editing that you object to, I would not take issue. I would ask that you respect the effort made to state information in a neutral manner. (We have spoken about this already, as you know.)
 * Best,
 * Richard Richard.reive (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Andy,
 * Hope you are doing well. I have taken note of your comment and offer the following sources for your feedback. The first one, from The Daily Echo, would seem to answer your concerns best.
 * I look forward to hearing from you.
 * Best regards,
 * Richard.reive
 * https://www.weekly-echo.com/peace-education-day-conference-takes-off/
 * https://pronewsreport.com/2021/09/23/prepare-for-peace-global-group-calls-on-un-to-declare-global-peace-education-day/ Richard.reive (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Good day, Below is a proposed update for the Prem Rawat article in the section 1976-present. The first source from the Indian Star would be keyed after the date; the second at the end of the insert. Both are third party references. RR

On June 17, 2022, 51 years after he first spoke at the Glastonbury Music Festival in June 1971, Prem Rawat received the first “Key of Avalon” award from the Council of Glastonbury, United Kingdom, in recognition of fifty years of working for peace across the world and his services to humanity.

https://www.indianstar.news/prem-rawat-gets-glastonbury-council-honour-for-humanitarian-service/ Prem Rawat becomes first recipient of Keys of Avalon from Glastonbury City Council | Weekly-EchoRichard.reive (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

13 August 22: A brief entry in the Media section mentions a Google Talks conversation with Prem Rawat about his latest book Hear Yourself. The link is to a third-party source on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k845byCwFWg. RR

18 August 22: Below is a proposed update in the Prem Rawat article in the Media section: On 30 May 2022, Talks at Google published the talk "Prem Rawat | Hear Yourself: How to Find Peace in a Noisy world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k845byCwFWg

The Media section is devoted to media coverage of Prem Rawat. Google is a major participant in global media, according to the website FirstSiteGuide.com https://firstsiteguide.com/google-search-stats/#:~:text=Google%20has%20over%201%20billion,has%20the%20biggest%20customer%20ba, with over 1 billion users of its products and services. Google Sites, which features this talk, has a user base of 250 million users, according to the same source. According to Google, its talks feature "The world's most influential thinkers, creators, makers and doers all in one place." https://talksat.withgoogle.com/ The talk in question is in the "Authors at Google" category, which Google describes as featuring "the world's leading authors as they share their insights, ideas and inspiration." https://talksat.withgoogle.com/explore/categories/authors Here is a third party source that describes the significance of "Talks at Google.  https://lifehacker.com/top-10-smart-alternatives-to-ted-talks-1787158741

I do not cite the Wikipedia entry for Talks at Google, but it is instructive nonetheless: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talks_at_Google

I welcome suggestions as to the proper wording of this post.

[11:55 a.m., 2022-08-28] Good day Andy, With respect, I placed this proposed revision in Talk on August 13. In Wikipedia's spirit of collaboration, your objections should have been raised in Talk, as you have asked me to do. Simply reverting the post could be construed as "edit warring." I see no evidence for your statement that Google has published a Hear Yourself ebook. According to its website, Google makes these talks available freely, first as a benefit to its employees, and then to the general public. The invitation to this author by this global media outlet, with 250 million users, is significant; it therefore merits inclusion in the portion of this Wikipedia article's paragraph on media coverage. In the Wikipedia spirit of consensus, I would appreciate your feedback on an appropriate way to mention this item. RR Richard.reive (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

31 August 22 The proposed entry mentioned above on 13 August 22 was posted ony Friday 2 September 22 in the absence of others' feedback. RR

27 September 22

Good day Andy, Hope you're doing well. I notice that you continue to revert inserts without discussing them previously in Talk, although you asked me to do so. You tend to make abrupt reversions and dismissive comments, without suggestions for improvement. That approach could be construed as "edit warring". The record shows that I have responded positively to your comments and made appropriate changes. For example:

2 September 22 urprev 17:03, 2 September 2022‎ AndyTheGrump talk contribs‎ 88,700 bytes −162‎  Undid revision 1108112266 by Richard.reive (talk) Wikipedia is not a platform for Google/YouTube to promote their own products - and please don't claim that you are responding to comments you are ignoring undothank Tag: Undo 16:15, 2 September 2022 diff hist −7‎  m User talk:Richard.reive ‎ →‎Prem Rawat: The entry in question was made on Friday 2 September 22, as announced, and the talk entry updated accordingly. current Tag: 2017 wikitext editor 16:13, 2 September 2022 diff hist +162‎  m Prem Rawat ‎ →‎Media: This is an update to Media section in response to previous comments by AndytheGrump. Tags: Reverted Visual edit 1 September 2022 01:41, 1 September 2022 diff hist +148‎  m User talk:Richard.reive ‎ →‎Prem Rawat: This latest change indicates an intention to publish the insert on Friday 2 September 22 in the absence of any dialogue on the matter. Tag: 2017 wikitext editor curprev 16:13, 2 September 2022‎ Richard.reive talk contribs‎ m 88,862 bytes +162‎  →‎Media: This is an update to Media section in response to previous comments by AndytheGrump. undo Tags: Reverted Visual edit 28 August 2022 curprev 01:45, 28 August 2022‎ AndyTheGrump talk contribs‎ 88,700 bytes −163‎  Undid revision 1107079564 by Richard.reive (talk) Google is the publisher of Rawat's work as an ebook. Google owns YouTube. This is advertising. undothank Tag: Undo curprev 01:30, 28 August 2022‎ Richard.reive talk contribs‎ m 88,863 bytes +163‎  The text was inserted to update the article on Prem Rawat's activities. Google Talks is a major global forum. Details as to its significance are noted in Talk. undo Tags: Reverted Visual edit 13 August 2022 curprev 22:20, 13 August 2022‎ AndyTheGrump talk contribs‎ 88,524 bytes −176‎  Undid revision 1104270380 by Richard.reive (talk) find an independent source indicating that this YouTube video is of any significance undothank Tag: Undo I have been given to understand that Talk seeks to enable editors to reach agreement on content. This implies a respectful exchange of views, a mutual effort to reach consensus, and perhaps compromise. In that spirit, I invite your input on how this insert could be made in order to keep the article current. If you prefer, we could submit the matter for arbitration. Respectfully, Richard.reiveRichard.reive (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)