User talk:Oden: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:33, 16 January 2007 editJeff G. (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers116,583 edits →Lena images: Signed.← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:55, 17 January 2007 edit undoWerdnabot (talk \| contribs)60,702 editsm Automated archival of 5 sections to User talk:Oden/Archive 3 Next edit →
Line 17:		Line 17:
	\|}		\|}
	<!--Archive ends-->		<!--Archive ends-->

	== unblock ==
	See . --] 04:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	:I have no conflict of interest here. I happen to disagree with Oden's position but that is not impairing my ability to recognize his edit warring. If it was PAR or Dicklyon edit warring I'd block them too but they aren't. Oden assumes bad faith on their part (see above) and is assuming bad faith/conflict of interest on my part. ] 04:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	::I will also note that the first diff he links above is a neutral removal to make the table correct syntactically. I neither removed nor added the content in dispute. Removing an extra cell does not count as a conflict of interest. ] 04:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	However ] is clear: this type of material should not be used in this manner. Removing inappropriate content used in violation of policy on the use of copyrighted material is excluded from (]). --] 04:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	:Your request for unblocking is that I have a conflict of interest. Fixing a syntactical error does not make a conflict of interest. Are you changing your reason from conflict of interest? ] 04:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	Yes, you did not remove the material which apparently violates policy, instead you improved it and blocked me for removing it. I could of course chalk it up to ignorance of our policies rather than malice (]). I removed it from my reason to place more emphasis on the copyright violation. --] 04:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	:Now that you've changed your reason, I will point out to any other admin reviewing my block that the fair use images are in dispute. If they were such blatant policy violations then IFD wouldn't be necessary, would they? And, in my judgment, the only violated issue here is Oden's edit warring not image use policy. Oden has claimed montage in several locations and that is disputed. What makes his interpretation right? IFD is supposed to settle the differences not his edit warring. ] 04:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	::I listed them at ] in order to allow for a thorough examination. I could also have tagged them with {{tl\|db-i7}}. --] 04:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	::I am also a table fiend (see my talk page and my contributions). I didn't remove the images '''because it was being solved by the IFD.''' I never added the images nor have I ever removed them; nor will I touch them until the IFD is done. The why is the lesson you need to learn. ] 04:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	So you are teaching me a lesson? Where is that listed in ]? --] 04:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	:Edit warring disrupts wikipedia. That is what you need to learn and you clearly haven't yet. ] 04:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	It's not an edit war (]). --] 04:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	:What you link says "proven". If other others disagree with your interpretation and no author of said images has complained then I hardly consider this proven. I am tired of repeating myself and this will be my last post if I have to keep repeating myself regarding this. ] 05:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	:I disagree with your interpretation. -- ] 06:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	:I disagree with your view, as well. This is ''not'' clear-cut. - ] 17:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	Anyone can have an opinion, one should weigh the arguments for and against. I listed these images as a courtesy at ] in order to allow the article to be improved, I could simply have tagged them as {{tl\|db-i7}}. I also made suggestions on improvement on the talk page, including a suggested merge and I rewrote large sections on the article which I suggested to be merged. That does not sound like a series of bad-faith edits, does it? --] 05:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	:''']''' - The edits I made to the article in question and for which I was blocked are similar to a previous incident: ]. --] 05:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	::This is in response to your previous comment made before I started writing this.

	::I haven't confused anything and fully understand your argument. In a nutshell, you're saying that your opinion supersedes the IFD and TFD. To which you will note that the only support for deleting the template or the images, at this time, is yourself. Such strong opposition would indicate to me that your interpretation is wrong, ergo you were not removing "copyright violations" but enforcing your opinion despite being the minority in both the IFD & TFD. ] 05:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	I agree with Cburnett: there is no simple vandalism here (IMHO, no vandalism at all, the copyright status of the standard images are unclear and should be discussed on IfD but a huge number of quite responsible organizations use them as PD). Vague relation with the FU policy is not a justification of violation of the ] and disruption. I had disagreements with Oden before, so if somebody true neutral will review the matter it would help. I would unblock Oden if he would promise not to edit war over this image ] 05:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	:Heck, I'd unblock him myself (or support an unblock) if he seemed to understand that by removing the images he's asserting his opinion over the IFD he started which clearly contradicts his interpretation of FUC. I'm just not seeing that he understands this. ] 05:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	I will not edit the article ] until 03:50, 15 January 2007. Is that acceptable? --] 06:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	:That's 3 hours ago. Just not editing is insufficient for me: let the IFD settle the issue. ] 06:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	::I meant 24 hours from 03:50, 15 January 2007. --] 06:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	Sorry, Cburnett. I have already unblocked Oden. Please obey the policies of Misplaced Pages including ]. ] 06:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	:Perhaps I should make it clear that I intend to contribute to ] unless that is also prohibited. --] 06:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	You are very welcome to contribute to the talk pages. ] 06:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	:Very well. No hard feelings on my end toward anyone. ] 07:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	I have started a new thread on this subject at ]. --] 07:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	== Lena images ==		== Lena images ==
Line 90:		Line 31:
	::::::]'s removal of legitimate criticism from ]'s user talk page via both unwarranted reversion and aggressive use of Werdnabot.		::::::]'s removal of legitimate criticism from ]'s user talk page via both unwarranted reversion and aggressive use of Werdnabot.
	:::::-- ] 22:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)		:::::-- ] 22:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

	== Thanks! ==

	Thanks for the barnstar! Why are you leaving? —] ] 18:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	==Infobox removal and comment==
	Per a request on ] I've removed your infobox above. ] considers it a ] and while I'm not sure I see it as such, it is not really helping the situation much and I am simply asking that you please don't add it back; at this point it is probably best just to let the whole thing go. On an unrelated note (or maybe it is related), I hope that after you have some time away you will reconsider your retirement. I don't think we've ever crossed paths here, but from reviewing your edit history you do the (what I consider to be) horrible, tedious, image tagging gruntwork that not alot of editors are willing to do and Misplaced Pages is better for your contributions.--] 21:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	== Stalking of ] ==

	{{block\|stalking}} I have to block you per . Me and many other people (see ]) asked you many time not to use the copyright as a weapon of a personal conflict. Cburnett blocked you for the 3RR and then you started to "examine his upload logs". Sorry but I have to upheld the ] policy ] 21:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	==Interaction with other users==
	Planting npa templates on experienced users, or referring such users to ], ], and ]--policies that they're highly likely, or in the case of admins certain, to be already familiar with--never cooled the recipient down yet. I see you got a bull's eye, but not in a good way, by posting all three policies '''and''' a template on CBurnett . Please don't interact with other users in such a fashion. Speak in a human voice to established users. The templates are intended for anonymous vandals. And avoid aggravating users by informing them of our best-known policies. P. S. The so-called Personal Attack you refer to looks extremely harmless to me. P.P.S. Yes, I do see that you announce your imminent departure, but that doesn't malke me think this advice redundant. Most people who make such announcements, in my experience, tend to retract them pretty soon. ] \| ] 21:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Revision as of 15:55, 17 January 2007

Retired This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 1 day are automatically archived to User talk:Oden/Archive 3. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives

1, 2, 3

Lena images

Thanks for the comments on my talk page about some Lena images. Is your belief that the image is only appropriate on the Lenna page and not on other pages? I agree it is not necessary on lossy data compression, but its use as a de-facto standard for image processing techniques does make it nice to use on those kinds of pages. - grubber 17:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed that the article on Lenna be merged into Standard test image. --Oden 22:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That merger is totally inappropriate - and it looks like comments from contributors on Talk:Standard test image back that up 100% - a similar result is happening on the Template deletion request you put in for the standard test image template. Oden - I'm curious as to why you seem to have taken to diving in to all of these image processing articles. It's pretty clear from your comments and actions that you don't understand the nature of test images or of the image processing world. I've been working in computer graphics for 35+ years and these images are very familiar to me. I'd be very happy to answer any questions you have about them - but it would be much more productive for everyone if you talked first and reverted/fired off TfD's/etc only after we've had a chance to carefully explain the things you so clearly don't understand. These test images are reproduced in literally thousands of articles and books on the subject of image processing - and they are rarely if ever credited. In many cases (such as the Lenna image), we know that the photo has always been a copyright violation. It's pretty clear that copyright belongs to some original photographer - who in most cases is lost to the sands of time. Nobody knows where they came from. But their status as 'fair use' images is clear - that's why so many books and professional journals publish them. The discussion is always about the images - because their value as art or as test images is not being abused, we aren't subtracting commercial value - and because only that PRECISE image will do the job, there is 100% certainty that no free alternative (or alternative of any kind) could ever be possible. Heck, even another scan of the original photo at HIGHER resolution would be utterly useless. Test images are a truly special case - quite utterly different from any other use of images in Misplaced Pages. SteveBaker 05:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's fair use criteria does not make any exceptions for this case. Images are divided into two categories: free images and fair use images. It's that simple. --Oden 05:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What? This is (of course) a fair use image. No debate about that - the debate is whether there is a reasonable way to make a substitute (there isn't) whether we are causing an economic impact to the copyright owners (there isn't) and whether these images are being discussed in the articles they are referred to (the Lenna image most certainly is). These are all sufficient grounds for using them under fair use. End of story - please stop annoying the heck out of people who are trying to write some decent articles here. SteveBaker 12:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The previous comment (revision 100859879) was removed by Oden at 12:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC) with the explanation "Personal attack". I do not agree that it was a personal attack. It was a request for a user, Oden, to stop doing something. I am annoyed by:

Oden's aggressive campaign to rid Misplaced Pages of images that are (in the opinion of all voters but him on the IfD) legitimate fair use.

Oden's edit warring

Oden's removal of legitimate criticism from Oden's user talk page via both unwarranted reversion and aggressive use of Werdnabot.

-- Jeff G. 22:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)