Talk:Mtanes Shehadeh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

We have a perfectly good image of Shehadeh that keeps being removed from the infobox. Unless the image is a copyvio (which it isn't), there appears to be no good reason to keep removing it. There seems to be some kind of WP:OWN-related issue as the remover is the image's creator, who has also removed it repeatedly from the Hebrew Wiki version and is now attempting to delete it from commons. If this isn't resolved quickly, I believe administrator attention may be required as this is verging on disruptive behaviour IMO. Number 57 17:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mislead the readers. I asked to remove it before it appeared on the English Wikipedia. I never claimed to own it, I said that even as its creator I can't find a reason to keep it. I also presented my reasons:
1) The cropped version emphasizes his ridiculous facial expression since he was caught unprepared. Moreover it shows only half of his face. Therefore, it just not a good option as a main image.
2) I think the original version has more value since it includes all the leaders of the Parliamentary groups who form the "Joint List". The consolidation of the joint list had far-reaching implications for Israeli politics.
Although you already know my explanations, you have completely ignored them. Instead, you decided to attack me personally with strange claims about ownership. But that wasn’t enough for you, so you switched to Hebrew Wikipedia and tried to do the same there, even though you not really speak the language. You don't seem to care about the picture, but you're just looking for more arguments. However, Hoping you will be more purposeful, I asked to freeze my deletion request in oreder to manage better discussion here. Bar (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly you did not ask to remove it before it appeared on English Wikipedia. It was added to English Wikipedia at 01:42 on 27 April. You started the deletion discussion at 02:47 on the same day.
Secondly, the image is not perfect, but it not terrible (the expression on his face is not "ridiculous" and we have a lot worse on other articles). In the absence of any other image, it is clearly good enough to use.
And I don't see why I shouldn't be able to comment on he.wiki (despite my Hebrew not being great) given that the same issue is being played out there – removing my talk page comment was extremely poor conduct. Number 57 11:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You did not come to Hebrew Wikipedia to contribute from your knowledge, because you do not speak Hebrew. You came there to raise a fuss, which is obviously not proper. Your answers are unclear. I said that his expression is ridiculous so you answer it is not. I don't see where this discussion is going. Both of my explanations still stand. Bar (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I speak Hebrew (just about) as I lived in Israel for four years. But I will ask for wider input to this discussion to end your stonewalling. Number 57 19:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well it does not seem so according to your comment on Hebrew Wikipedia, which is clearly written by Google Translate. Bar (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The image is not great, but is better than no image at all. We should use it until something better turns up. I don't think a group photo is better. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comment by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 17:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Number Please note that you are leaning on sockpuppet. Bar (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned elsewhere, the cropped image is superior to the group one, because this is a biographical entry. I don't see how it is that unflattering, in the first place — but even if it were, that is not a valid reason for supplanting it with the group image. El_C 13:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Number 57 and El_C. I don't understand the logic of saying the cropped photo is "unflattering" when you have no objection to the original? Spoiler alert: it's the same photo. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jauerback It's very simple. The expression on his face is ridiculous so the close up on his face is a bad idea. It's much less prominent in the group picture. In addition, the group picture is very valuable because it is the only one in which includes all heads of the parliamentary groups. Bar (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
בר, in light of the comments above, continuing to edit war probably isn't the best idea. Again, this isn't an article about the group, it is a biography of Mtanes Shehadeh, specifically. El_C 16:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El_C I'm not the one who violates the stable version right? The second you said you supported him, he restored my version. This is not a way to have a discussion. It doesn't make sense either - a short time later, "Only in death does duty end" said that it was a bad picture. Bar (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(a) The "stable" version would be one without any image at all, as the group photo was originally only used for 34 minutes. (b) You removed the image as soon as you saw JungerMan Chips Ahoy! was a sock, so you can't really complain about me reinstating it after El_C's comments and (c) you can't paste someone's comments from another page as you did with those of Only in death does duty end – this is falsely making it looked like they commented here. If you want to refer to their comments elsewhere, link to them with a diff like this. Number 57 17:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
בר, but Only in death did not address the fact that both the group and cropped images are one and the same. How is the group image any better? Or relevant to the biography about the person? Jauerback also agree with myself and Number 57 about the cropped image being more suitable. You are still failing to respond to these concerns in a substantive manner, I am finding. El_C 17:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(a) It is acceptable for me that the stable version is without any photo. To this is the version I returned before. Since all agree that the group photo is better than no photo at all - I have added it. If you want to return to the stable version no photo - feel free to do so.
(b) Your comparison is outrageous. I do not have to wait in order to return the stable version - the opposite is true. You know the rules. His last edit was out of place and your disregard is biased. Also, in this case, there is only one participant in the edit war - number 57.
(c) It is important to present his position here, this is the relevant place. I don't know what is the right technical way to do so, in Hebrew Wikipedia there is a special template for this.
(d) This is clear from the context. In any case, there is currently no consensus on the attachment of the cropped image, so it cannot be returned. If that changes, we will change accordingly. Bar (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
בר, Myself, Number 57, Jauerback and now also Cullen328 all agree that the cropped image is more suitable. El_C 17:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you really understand what's ridiculous?
You keep asking me how the group picture is better even though I already answered it. The ridiculous expression on his face is not as prominent in the group image as it is in the cropped image. In addition, the joint list is the most significant thing he has done in his life and so the picture with the four heads of parliamentary groups is important and has added value. This is important for his personal biography. Bar (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find it that ridiculous. And again, I suspect that aside from you, the remaining four of us agree on that. El_C 18:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Only in death does duty end" agreed with me. Don't ignore opinions that don't match yours. From what I understand, it is customary to wait a week from the end of the discussion. If the balance will not change, I will replace the image with no choice. And it is to my dismay that opening false complaints yields profits. Bar (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not. I'm not sure they did. They just said the cropped image was poor. They did not say the group image was more suitable or prefrable. El_C 19:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well you can be sure he opposes your proposal. Bar (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That does not mean he supports yours, either. El_C 19:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that means he agreed with me that this picture is bad. Bar (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't mentioned the group photo — maybe he thinks it's equally bad. I have no idea. The point is to explain your position and engage in discussion. This is not a vote count. El_C 20:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't mentioned it either, as I said: that means he agreed with me that this picture is bad. Bar (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The group photo is obviously your preferred version, but you're citing someone whom you don't know what he thinks about that. Again, he can deem it equally bad. Or worse. It's an odd rhetorical device you're employing. El_C 21:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear why you completely ignore what I wrote. Bar (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like you are projecting, so this will be my last comment in this comment thread. El_C 21:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cropped image. I agree that the image is not ideal, and perhaps a better free image will become available, and then this dispute will be moot. But the image is sufficient to show what he looks like. The group image might be appropriate for Joint List but its current use in this article is bizarre because readers have no way of knowing which man is Shehadeh or who the other three men are. Attacking an editor here on English Wikipedia for not being fluent in Hebrew is also bizarre, and completely irrelevant. A biography of a person ought to have a photo of that person, not a group photo, and if the group photo is of a resolution that allows a decent image to be cropped, then that is the best solution until a better free photo can be obtained. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All we need to do in order to solve your problem is to write "(left)" just right after mentioning his name. Not creating wars in places where you do not speak their language seems like a reasonable demand to me. Maybe where you come from is "Bizarre". This guy complained against me even though he didn't have a majority on the talk page and he was aware that he relied on a sockpuppet. He also complained about "article ownership" issues, did you see me claim something like that at some point? Because where I come from, these claims may be considered as "Bizarre". Bar (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, בר, you are showing ownership behavior in this discussion. Perhaps you are unable to perceive it, but it looks that way to me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328, Do you think you own this article? Bar (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
בר, come on. That response comes across as tendentious, I'm sorry to say. El_C 18:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can't I think of him, what he thinks of me? Anyway, we both don't rely on facts. Because the facts are that none of my explanations, or his, has anything with ownership. Bar (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say? I don't think that is an especially mature approach on your part. El_C 19:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, בר, I do not think I own this article, because I have never edited the article, and all I have done is express an informed opinion about the image. Your comment does not make much sense under the circumstances. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328Now that makes both of us. So I'm suggesting that instead of blaming on each other for imagery ownership arguments which does not make much sense, maybe we should focus on the arguments that were actually written. Bar (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use cropped image (Here from AN/I) It's better to have a picture of him alone (if he's notable enough to have his own article, he deserves a picture of just him), and although I agree the crop is not marvelous, I don't see any problem in principle with a profile image, and I disagree that his expression is "ridiculous". Comparing the crop where someone is visible over his left shoulder with the tighter crop of just his head reproduced above, I'm a bit torn: normally I'd go for removing the extraneous detail, but since he is turned away from the camera and speaking, a bit of visual noise in the background may provide context. I'll prefer the original less tight crop in deference to Bar's view that the facial expression is bad. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mtanes_Shehadeh&oldid=1209478033"