Your change to the page "Sir james Wylie"

In regard to your removal of a problematic entry in the "Table of contents" paragraph, I have re-instated that paragraph as it had completely disappeared. In doing so, I probably amended the problematic sub heading, but I would like to know if everything is now OK in order to avoid further troubling both you and me. JDWylie (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@JDWylie: I think you're confusing me with another editor named Nthep. I didn't remove the "table of contents" paragraph from Sir James Wylie, 1st Baronet. Nthep removed it once with this edit and then removed it again a second time (after you re-added it) with this edit. For reference, you don't need to manually add a "table of contents" to a Wikipedia article because a default one will automatically be created by the Wikipedia software when mutliple sections are added to an article as explained in WP:TOC, unless the software is specifically told not to do so. If you feel there's some reason why your version is better that the default Wikipedia one or somehow otherwise needed, I suggest you discuss this with Nthep at Talk:Sir James Wylie, 1st Baronet. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Sincere apologies for messaging you rather than Nthep. JDWylie (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

File upload suggestion

Thanks for the tip. I updated that file and will use the template on future uploads. DMarkFL (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@DMarkFL: The {{Information}} template is generally OK for any files uploaded under a public domain or acceptable Creative Commons license (i.e., free files), but it alone isn't enough for anything uploaded under a non-free content license because it's not really intended to be used as a non-free use rationale. In such cases, it's probably better to just use one of the Category:Non-free use rationale templates instead.

In addition, you can upload files which you believe are OK licensed as {{PD-FLGov}} directly to Commons instead of Wikipedia. Files uploaded to Commons are easier to use by all Wikimedia Foundation projects (i.e., their global files), while files uploaded to (English) Wikipedia can only be used on Wikipedia (i.e., they're local files). -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Your removal of my freshly uploaded image of the portrait.

I'm not sure this is the appropriate means of contacting you, so my apologies if it's not.

The portrait that a bot removed yesterday was my own photograph of my own copy of an engaving based on a painting done in oils around 1816. Many years ago I had purchased mine online from an antique shop in Scotland. Many copies appear to have been produced, as is usually the case. Wylie's grand neice is on record as stating that "most of his friends had one".

I uploaded the fresh image tbecause the bot had left it alone while completely removing from Wikimedia Commons my photograph, my thought process being that it must be OK.

I'm happy to accept removal of the photograph, but I want to check that your removal took into account the above comments about its provenance and the fact that the engraving would likelybe 200+ years old. (This morning I spent an unsuccessful hour attempting to negotiate the 'Apply for Re-instatement' process.) JDWylie (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@JDWylie: I posted about images and "own work" at Talk: Sir James Wylie, 1st Baronet#Images and "own work" explaining why I removed the latest file you added to the article. If you haven't read it, please do so. I'd be happy to answer any questions about you have there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Your edit of 14 May referred to “removing this since it no longer appears to be an issue and the editor in questions understands what they can and can't do.” I’m unsure what this refers to. Can you let me what you revoved. JDWylie (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Question from MaskedHarbinger (20:26, 13 May 2026)

Hey, how can I get help editing a specific article? As in, getting more eyes on it? --MaskedHarbinger (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi MaskedHarbinger. There's really not one single way to do such a thing, and what you can do often depends on the reason why you want more eyes on it.

If you're looking for just some general feedback or a general assessment, you can try to seek input from those Wikiprojects whose purview the article might fall under. The names of WikiProjects relevant to a particular article of often listed at the top of its corresponding talk page. So, if you want to propose a major change to an article and think it's best to be more WP:CAUTIOUS than WP:BOLD, you can explain what you want to do on the article's talk and then use a template like {{Please see}} to let the members of relevant WikiProject know.

On the other hand, if the reason you want more eyes on an article is a bit more serious (e.g. vandalism), you could first try to resolve things on the article's talk page in good-faith per WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION. If that gets you nowhere, you can seek assistance from others (including administrators) by posting on one of Wikipedia's various noticeboards. Since these noticeboards tend to be topic-specific, you should pick the one that seems to cover the issue. For behavioral problems, you can try in good-faith to expalin the issue to the other side first using user talk page posts and maybe user warnings, but you can also seek assistance at one of the administrator noticeboards if things don't show any improvement. What you want to try and avoid is back and forth reverting (except in some very limited cases) or only discussing things via edit summaries because such approaches often only makes things worse and might not be viewed favorably by a Wikipedia administrator, if one is asked to get involved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, this is really helpful. I've been working on copyediting and reformatting Punjabi Cinema. I saw that if an article is getting lengthy, it should be moved into different ones. If that's the case, what should be removed from a page if there's a page that covers that topic? More specifically, the History section past the 2000's in Punjabi Cinema has a bunch of links to other articles and it's hard to parse but I don't know how I make it more encyclopedic and clean. MaskedHarbinger (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't really know anything about the subject matter per se, but there's some general guidance about what can be done when articles get to be found in WP:MERGE or WP:SPLIT. In general, Wikipedia articles are written in summary style, where more general articles cover the basics and include links to more specific articles where the details can be fouond; some people, though, mistakenly assume that adding as much detail as possible to an article is always a good thing. This kind of thing is probably something that the members of a WikiProject like WP:FILM/INDIA could better help sort out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2026 (UTC)