Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Photos
Regarding your message on Daniel's page, what did you mean about using the image of my own house? I haven't put any images of my own house in any articles, and in fact I don't own a house.
Hello DarkFalls,
I noticed your comments on the Potts Point article and would like you to have another look at this article in your capacity as a wikipedia admin.
I don't want to enter an edit war with the anonymous editor and was only trying to do as you suggested in your comment: reach a compromise between two editors who made changes to that article recently. I have been editing articles on Sydney suburbs for years and keep track of all the vandalism that takes place and revert it as soon as possible. I don't want to get into an edit war with editors and that's why I didn't pursue this one further. This new editor is deleting photos even though the photos are relevant and are referenced in the article. He is also threatening to go through other articles and make extensive deletions which I don't believe will be beneficial to those articles and are just threats as revenge for having his deletions reverted.
I would appreciate your independent view on the editor's deletions and whether his deletions should be reverted.J Bar (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
J, before I begin I would like to point out that the editor's actions were in good will, and therefore can not be classified as vandalism. Now for the images. Images on Wikipedia are meant to be encyclopedic and relevant, and seek to improve the understanding of the audience to the particular subject. Therefore these images, in the case of Potts Point, must be mentioned in the article before adding it. That being said, I do not see any problems with incorporating an image referring to architectural designs of the suburb, provided that these designs are suggested in the article. However, I must protest the use of excessive images (and image galleries) as they can possibly detract from the content of the article. In short, the article should not be flooded with images and the images must be relevant. —Darktalk 08:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dark Falls. I also noticed your comments on the PP article and I must assure you that I was only trying to improve the article. After editing this article and then viewing some of the other Sydney Sub articles I was shocked at how cluttered with photo's these articles really are, infact they actually make the Potts Point article look like a featured article. Some of the images are quite silly in content. I have noticed that some pages have galleries full of non notable houses and show nothing of the surrounding area. At present I am holding off on editing some of the other Sydney Suburban articles to avoid edit waring. But when I do get around to it I plan on cleaning up as many articles as possible. I am not a page blanker or trouble maker I am only trying improve the articles overall look. All these galleries at the bottom of each section cuts though peoples screens. If this issue was raised on the Australian Wikipedians notice board I could already forsee the removal and reformat of a lot of images 206.197.59.9 (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add my say. The vast majority of the photos deleted by Mr Anonymous were mentioned in the text. One that I deleted -- which is a rare event, because I respect the right of everyone to make a contribution -- was in the info box and was not mentioned in the text, but Mr Anon restored it, so where is his argument that photos should be of things in the text? I replaced it with a subject that is mentioned in the text -- Rockwall House -- and Mr Anon deleted it.
I look forward to this subject being discussed at the Australian Wiki noticeboard. I'm sure there will be plenty of people agreeing with me.
And what on earth does "cuts through peoples screens " mean?
Lastly, is there actually a statement of policy that shots have to be mentioned in the text? In my experience, statements of policy are not always enforced at Wiki.
I can understand the anonymous' editor's addition of an image that's not "of things in the text" as the main image. In the info box image, the picture actually presents a broader look of the town than the one of Rockwall House, which is just of one building. To address the question, it is common practice that images should be mentioned in the article. After all, what's the use of an image if it isn't backed up by text? —Darktalk 03:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox image for a suburb, town or city should not be of some house no matter what your argument is you are wrong, if it were, lets say parliament house or Buckingham palace that would be a different story but that is not the case here. The info box image should be an image that gives people a broader look at what part of that suburb may look like and contain certain features relevant to the town. If not a single picture you could make up a collage, please have a look at the infobox for the Melbourne article. Also how more relevant can a picture of Potts Point be in an article about Potts Point, we are also talking about the main picture for the article. Also on another note, if I was to go through all the Sydney Suburban articles and pick out pictures of houses that are not mentioned in the text, well I bet you I could find quite a few/hundred perhaps. These images in the Potts Point article that were removed were just a couple of plain old snap shots of houses taken at random in the suburb of PP. Why not try to compose you photos differently and make them less boring, show some more of the surrounding area or something, take the image on a 45 degree angle and let us see what the rest of the street looks like. Also I found last night the article Putney, New South Wales. Please tell me which of these houses in this article are not mentioned in the text and then be so kind as to remove them. I could probably provide you with an entire list of Sydney articles for you to review and pic out the pictures of houses that are not relevant to text and then remove the offending images. Good luck with the name change 206.197.59.9 (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the solution to this is to pick images which are suitable, and move the rest to a Commons gallery using commonscat from the article to link to the cat. I remember the amount of work I had to do on Waratah, New South Wales about two years ago involving a gallery which contained - I'm not kidding - 49 images in the article. Orderinchaos 22:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As always, order has injected some common sense into this discussion :) Now we have the simplistic task of defining what is "suitable". —Darktalk 06:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a matter of a few photos. It's a matter of one person acting as if he owns the article, being consistently belligerent, refusing to communicate with other editors and stalking one editor (namely me). Sardaka (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's communicating here. —Darktalk 08:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not stalking, the only article I have edited connected to you is the Potts Point article. After the edit war I decided to keep an eye on what was being said about me behind the scenes and then speak in my defence. Please just get over these photos, there is no ownership of the article and I have made a compromise when another editor stepped in and made a change to satisfy both parties. I believe that before that I deleted all the photos. I was thinking about taking the 2 that are in the gallery and putting them into the article to give them more prominence. Get over it there are more important things to worry about 220.245.248.12 (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just browsing through some articles I came across this one 'Randwick, New South Wales'. This article has arround 25 images in it. Once again there are pictures of half of this and half of that and about 15 photos to many. I think that most of these images are already in the commons categories so I would eventually like to reformat this article so that there are only 1 to 2 images per section with images set from left to right with maybe a gallery of 4 at the bottom. I know that when I start to make my changes that the above editor and maybe one other who think that they have ownership over the article will start an edit war. I will look at this when I have more time 206.197.59.9 (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree to the priciple below, that shots should be of things in the article, and not deleted unless for a damn good reason? Do you also agree to stop following me?
I think that it already has been decided that these pictures of non notable houses should not be in the article and that the info box image should be of the main part of town or at least give a broader look of the area. If I was to agree on the principal below then does that mean I can search through the Sydney Suburban articles and delete images of houses that are not mentioned in the text. This includes poor images of houses that only have the address as text. I have already asked you kindly to remove the images not related to text in the Putney article and a few others but you have not done so. Also as I have explained before that you are not being followed. I have edited one article and have removed what I though to be 2 shitty images. If you are going to talk about me on other peoples user pages, well you can expect me to join in, this is not stalking but speaking up in my defense 206.197.59.9 (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a few minor changes to the Putney article. I may have removed one image that was mentioned in the text, the picture of the school. Just because something is mentioned in the text doesn't mean that we have to take photos of everything that is mentioned in the article and then try and cram it all into a gallery into that article. Anyways the photo wasn't worth looking at. I also left some irrelevant images of houses in that article that probably should be removed later on but I have left them there for the time being 206.197.59.9 (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My home
"Home, Sydney", means "a home", not "my home". I wish I could afford to buy Tusculum.
So, as a general principle, for the sake of trying to get some sanity into this situation, can we say that photos should be of subjects mentioned in the article, and therefore such photos should not be deleted without a damn good reason? I want to clear this up for the benefit of all editors involved in this dispute, including the one who seems to like following me around.
Seems to be a reasonable proposition to me. However, you'll need to get consensus for that from the editors involved in this dispute. —Darktalk 06:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments on WP:AIV regarding why this user should be blocked. Thanks. -danngarcia (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI
Just for your information: the PROD on Smokey (Friday) was removed. For what it's worth, I agreed. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article you deleted via G4 was very much expanded over the one that was deleted in the AfD. Kindly restore it and , since you probably think it should be deleted none the less, send for AfD. I know I have the ability to do it myself, but I like to ask. DGG (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly agree that a greatly expanded plot summary could be considered expansion that might alter consensus for deletion but if you insist... —Darktalk 08:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
206 etc
Our friend 206 now seems to be replaced by User:PoorPhotoremovalist, who was on an anti-photo rampage in February, and is doing it again with Annandale, New South Wales. Is it possible to tell if the two people are the same? I've confronted him/her with the question, but I don't expect him/her to tell the truth.
It's not really a dispute. It's a case of one person making a unilateral decision to delete things en masse, without bothering to talk to anyone else about it.
FYI yes this is my ip. I hadn't edited WP for quite some time and decided to use my ip address. I never though that I was doing any thing wrong because when I hit the edit button there was a message that said 'you do not have to log in to edit'. I apologise if I have done the wrong thing and will log in from now on. If I was editing in the wrong manner then I would have expected to receive a warning but never did so I am assuming that I have done nothing wrong. PoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to state that the above editor is basically seeking favour in an edit war. I would also like to state that I am willing to compromise and negotiate but it seems that the two editors involved want everything there way and are trying to seek favour in an edit war. The below comments are in response to comments made on my talk page PoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No this is not the case. The article has to many images, this is not a mass deletion but a minor clean up. This article contains a total of 13 images, isn't that enough for you. I am discussing this and trying to reason with you but my comments are falling on deaf ears because you are the author of these images and you are biased. You should also take into consideration the fact that Wikipedia is not an image gallery. How many times do I need to repeat, just because a suburb or street has many historical buildings doesn't mean that we need to have a picture of every single house in that street. I know that I may have edit warred with the Annandale article a bit but now it seems as though we may have come to an agreement with the current status of the article and I am willing to leave it as is until the proposed commons link is instilled PoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask if that comment was meant to be sarcastic or serious? I'm having problems reading it either way. In any event I don't think it was helpful, but take that for what it's worth... Hobit (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How was saying Neuro "calling them as he sees it" sarcastic in any way, shape or form? —Dark 04:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The conflict between WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL on one hand and "Call it like he sees it" is fairly large. I may see someone as a (cuss word of the day) but I think we'd agree it would be a violation of WP:CIVIL and maybe AGF to actually call them that here. Claiming it was clearly "retaliation" was probably off the mark as it wouldn't be shocking that after being attacked for what I think the user meant in good faith he might feel the attacker shouldn't be an admin. Ah well. Given what that user went through, I think piling on was in bad form... But that's just my opinion (and I call em like I see em :-) ) Best of luck and sorry to intrude. Hobit (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was not endorsing Neurolysis' view on this. I was simply explaining that his views were not a personal attack. I am confused as to why you think that was "piling on". 07:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
IMO saying someone is retaliating (which implies a motive) is a personal attack. If you don't think that's the case then I see why my view wouldn't make sense. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, DarkFalls! Regarding this change: The image was unlikely to be the details of an actual person at all, since it was a sample certificate produced by the Taiwan Immigration Agency (as the image description page shows). The same image is used in other websites such as this. ≈ Chamaltalk¤ 13:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The certificate looks authentic, rather than a sample. Regardless, I'm not willing to take the chance that an actual person's identification may be shown on Wikipedia's main page. —Dark 23:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
