![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Which photo should used in the Infobox? The Left One or the Right One?
I have contacted the editors from previous comics creator photo discussions, specifically the ones we had on the talk pages of Larry Hama, Scott Allie and Bryan Talbot. In keeping with WP:CANVAS, I contacted every editor, regardless of how they "voted" in those discussions. I also left a message on the WikiProject Comics talk page. Nightscream ( talk) 19:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Canoe1967: "I think we can probably all agree to C." I'm not sure what your basis is for this statement, but we do not all agree to C. Three people here have indicated that they favor C, five have indicated B, and twelve have indicated A. (One of those for A was Anna, who has since uploaded a new photo, so it's possible that her favored pic has changed, in which case it would be eleven for A and four for C, but she has not explicitly stated this either way.)
In addition, changing the photo in the article when a discussion is still ongoing is inappropriate. If you'd like to test how it looks, it would be better to use the Sandbox. Nightscream ( talk) 21:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you think we could now replace the image with one of the C-D-Es? It's clear that A isn't going to be it. Then we can tweak the decision about which of those is best. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 03:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I am here because I got a request on my talk page to review these photos. I haven't read the entire discussion thoroughly. Of the ABCDE set, I prefer the CDEs. Of those, I would probably pick C or E. However, from a quality of portrait perspective, none of these images are good. Remender's face is well lit in the CDEs, but like all the images I'm seeing here (including the ones in the birthday discussion), they suffer from poor composition. A portrait subject shouldn't have background clutter, or extraneous objects in the background level with their ears to such a conspicuous degree. I understand that it's often difficult to compose properly on the fly during a convention, but Remender seems to be communicating with editors enough to send a better portrait. That said, with no other portraits to choose from, I'd go with or E. Cheers, AstroCog ( talk) 19:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Canoe1967: "A. was voted on earlier before we had the newer images." One more time: You cannot automatically assume that this means those editors would have chosen one of the newer images. One editor chimed in to make it clear that he saw the newer images, and did not change his position. All the others were also contacted to indicate whether their positions have changed, and none (thus far) have indicated a change. I already said this above, so why are you repeating the original fallacy?
Canoe1967: "Selecting 2010 over 2013 is not the way to go so A. should def be out..." In your opinion. Not in the opinion of others. The fact that you hold this opinion does not mean that A is disqualified if a consensus of editors feel otherwise.
There are many editors, myself included, who correctly feel that recentism is not a relevant criteria when the subject's appearance has not changed in any significant way. You can tell that a 1986 photo of George Burns is obviously more recent than a 1955 photo of him, because of the obvious changes in appearance. This does not apply when the typical, casual reader can only discern which of two photos is more recent by looking at their upload information or captions.
I have left notices on the talk pages of Wikipedia:Featured pictures, WikiProject Photography, and on the Commons Picture of the day and Commons Village Pump. That should hopefully yield a consensus. We are not assuming consensus by virtue of the mere arguments that one editor uses for his position. Nightscream ( talk) 01:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
The above became a bit of a mess then stalled. New images came along mid-way. Can we start over? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 09:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
redundant gallery
|
---|
|
I just put C. in the aricle. A. was there but it was 2010 so it is not recent enough. C. or E. are the best two. B. has lighting/glare/other issues and D. is a lame and quick one I did. C. looks closest to natural lighting to my eye but others may disagree.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 09:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
And I just put A. back. I don't like A. but Nightscream already reverted when you tried to change it before consensus is reached. I think it's fair to wait. Lets be patient, please. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 09:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Whether or not a discussion is going on is no reason to not update an article.I have to disagree. The update you made was unilaterally selecting the photo you thought best while around 20 editors were discussing exactly that. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 11:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Canoe1967: "Whether or not a discussion is going on is no reason to not update an article."
Wrong. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Editing the disputed aspect of the article before consensus is reached is called
edit warring, and it's a blockable offense. Is that a good enough "reason" for you? Whether you think 2010 is "too old" is irrelevant. That is an argument you may cite for your position. It is not, however, a rationale for unilaterally deciding for everyone when consensus has not been reached.
Canoe1967: "When articles in AfD they still get edited and updated."
We're not talking about AfD. Editing an article listed at AfD does not have the effect implementing a decision that must be reached by the deletion discussion in question, a significant distinction that you should be aware of. But if an editor tried to delete an article before the deletion discussion was closed, then you can be assured that he would be similarly admonished.
Canoe1967: "Reverting a normal image update is just childish on your part and Nightscream's."
Um, no, you're getting it backwards. Trying to decide for the entire group when the group has not yielded consensus is childish. And more to the point, it's edit-warring. By contrast, keeping calm, remaining patient, and refraining from such unilateral actions, because Wikipedia policy requires it, as everyone else here seems to be doing, is the far more mature and collaboration-friendly thing to do. Why someone like you, who has accumulated close to 8,700 edits since July 2011 doesn't know this, I have no idea. But you will not decide for the entire group. If you continue to edit-war, then the article will be protected from further edits until the discussion is over, and you risk being blocked from editing. Please do not make that necessary.
Nightscream (
talk)
16:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe this will help us narrow it down.
redundant gallery without captions
|
---|
|
A statement to agree with or not:
"Go ahead and use one of the images that is not A. or B. and I won't kick up a fuss if it's not the most pefect one because it will at least move us forward."
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 02:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I gather that the community doesn't think this thread is helpful. No worries. I was just trying to split things in two. I guess it wasn't so brilliant. All this E. or C. business made me think that it will be impossible to figure out which is best. Okay, well, I'm over budget on energy spent on this one. I'll leave it to others to decide. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 20:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
redundant gallery lacking captions
|
---|
|
I boldly swapped it in. Rick says that they spent an hour on this and would like everyone to know that they went to a lot of trouble to accommodate Wikipedia. I hope everyone approves of the new image. Personally, I like it very much. Thank you, Rick!!! Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 13:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay. The image was removed per "poorly lit/colored, and poorly cropped". I give up, and I think I can speak for Rick in saying that he gives up too. The current image seems to be the worst of all. The community got tired of this and left. The talk posts above seem to overwhelmingly agree that A. is the worst choice. The better images remain unused. I don't understand how this can be the result. I tried. I failed. I'm sorry to everyone. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 14:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Anna Frodesiak: "My basis is that nary an A is to be found since the other images arrived..." Again, we are not going to disregard those who selected A before the more recent images arrived, nor are we going to assume that they would have picked one of the others. Those who selected A were contacted about the newer images, and most did not respond to indicate that they changed their selection, and the one who did respond indicated that he did not. We are not chucking those editor's stated feelings out the window just because some think that newer images makes those opinions irrelevant. In surveying those who spoke here, the feelings appear roughly half between A or C-E. If you want, I'll contact more editors to offer their opinions. If C-E are so likely to draw more favored opinions, then newer editors contacted will presumably favor those latter pics, and a consensus for them will emerge, correct?
Canoe1967: "C is the best choice in my opinion of the consensus." One more time: It is the best choice in your opinion. It is not the best choice according to any consensus, because about half of the people who have spoken here have preferred one, and the other half have preferred others.
Canoe1967: "Counting any votes before we had the newer image should not be done." Wrong. Disregarding them should not be done. While it would be nice if they could explicitly clarify if their votes had changed or not, we're not disregarding the earlier ones, just because you want to strong-arm the discussion by arguing for a consensus that does not exist.
In any event, if this were true, then we'd have to discount all those who chimed in here before I added the newest photo, F, which Anna has brought to our attention, since they did see that one.
Canoe1967: "A is older and should not be included while we discuss it..." Non sequitur. The age of the photo is an arbitrary criterion that you cite for your opinion. It is not a criterion for removing a photo during a discussion, nor have you cited a single policy, guideline, aspect of MOS or principle of logic or reasoning to support this idea. You're trying to fabricate reasons to push your selection through, and it's not working. There is no reason why your favored photo should be left in the article by default during a discussion, as opposed to the current one. And if it were, then we'd have to place F in there, since it's the most recent photo.
Canoe1967: "...as many have said any but A." And the same amount have indeed said A. Emphasizing the views of half of those editors as relevant, as if the those of the other half are not, is dishonest.
Canoe1967: "I am going to put C back in while we discuss it." Wrong. I have reverted the article and protected it. And count yourself lucky that I haven't contacted an uninvolved administrator to have you blocked from editing for edit warring.
Canoe1967: "If you two revert then I will bring it to the drama boards." So much for "then I will just f*** off." But by all means, go ahead. They will see that you reverted repeatedly during a consensus discussion (while simultaneously accusing others of edit-warring), have used deliberately deceptive arguments to conclude a consensus that doesn't exist, and have arbitrarily disregarded the views of other members of the community, just in order to get your way. If you think anyone on those boards will look kindly on that, be my guest, and raise this matter there.
Canoe1967: "C, or variations of it, have the most votes since we got the newer ones." Consensus does not work on "voting", and if you familiarized yourself with WP:CONSENSUS, you'd know that. One or two people stating that they like C-E more than those who prefer A is not a consensus. Again, most of those who selected C or its variants didn't see F.
Canoe1967: "I also think we chased some of the earlier voters away." Again, you do not get to speak for others. It is just as equally possible that many editors, when asked to weigh in on a particular matter, do not like to dwell on it for longer than it takes to voice their opinion. This "chase away" comment by you is just another fabrication. Stop pretending that the made-up states of mind that you attribute to others are a question of fact, let alone that are an excuse for you to conclude that a consensus for your viewpoint has been reached. It hasn't.
I will contact more editors individually to offer their opinions. If C-E are so likely to draw more favored opinions, then newer editors contacted will presumably favor those latter pics, and a consensus for them will emerge, and I will gladly change the Infobox pic to that one myself.
Lexein: "Nightscream, I think you should have asked a non-involved admin to lock the article (and add the lock symbol, please), rather than doing it yourself. Seriously. Come on now. Unlock, and request an uninvolved admin to do it, please." Who protects an article is irrelevant. (The lock symbol is added automatically by the protection mechanism, btw, and no longer requires being added through an edit). As long as the protection is valid--in this case, to bring an end to edit warring--then who does it is moot. Canoe has been repeatedly engaging in edit warring by reverting the article during discussion, and without consensus, while hypocritically complaining that Anna and I have done the same (when in fact, I have merely been reverting edit-war edits, and Anna merely made a bold edit in which she presented a new photo. I disagree with her approach, but I believe her edit was done in good faith). Personally, I think protecting an article and then asking another admin to re-protect it is rather perverse, but if it means that much to you, I'll go to an uninvolved admin and have them protect the article. Nightscream ( talk) 16:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Since it's been a few days since I made the latest round of contacts, and there have been about seven more editors indicating that C is their favored photo, I'm satisfied that consensus is for that photo. Are there any objections? Nightscream ( talk) 16:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm late to this discussion. I just saw the message in my inbox. I think that the image now showing on the page is good; would leave it. Will ( talk) 15:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I vote photo C CaffeinAddict ( talk) 02:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
So, what do you think? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 16:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
As has already been stated, we need a citation of a reliable source to add his date of birth. Wikipedia cannot cite itself, because that is circular sourcing, and the info cannot be added by Remender himself or a proxy with that personal knowledge, for that is original research.
Again, if this issue is that important to him, does he have an official website or blog where he can mention it? Nightscream ( talk) 00:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear:
Well then, what about if Mr. Remender emails an image stating his birthdate to his website guy? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Considering http://rickremender.com/?p=910 and the image, do you think it's reasonable to add the exact day (February 6, 1973) to the infobox? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 19:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Is this debate seriously here? Everyone needs a healthy dose of common sense. Ignore what you think the policies say. Nick claims to have been born on February 6. Unless there is a reason to doubt that, let that be what the article says. Stuff the link to the image into a note. If you want to be pedantic, you can claim that the photograph is the source and WMF is simply a host. Or we can ask Mr. Remender to post his birthday on his website. Do not let rules get in the way of improving Wikipedia. Someguy1221 ( talk) 03:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Canoe1967: "Mr. Remender is following proper COI and using the talk page of his article." There is nothing about WP:COI that indicates that using the talk page of the article about a subject is the proper procedure for subject to add information about themselves.
Canoe1967: "The contact through email is transparent. I don't think we should ask him to create an account or IP edit the talk page for input."
Fayenatic London: "It seems to me that the image is a good enough source for the date under WP:SELFPUB (the section about self-published sources in our main policy on verification)."
Contact through email is not "transparent". Using email constitutes relying on persona knowledge as a source (both the subject's personal knowledge, and the editor's personal knowledge gleaned from the subject). Relying on personal knowledge is original research, which is strictly prohibited. We need published sources for info. That means published elsewhere. You can't "self-publish" material on Wikipedia.
Canoe1967: "Take a look at Talk:Robert_Silverberg#NPOV where the subject chimed in as an IP." I do not not see an IP or mention of one in that discussion you linked to. Can you clarify? What was the content discussion about?
Regarding OTRS, OTRS is only used regarding emails from the public, in cases such as copyright claims when a subject wants a file uploaded. OTRS cannot be used as a source, nor can any file hosted on Wikipedia because that is circular sourcing.
If Mr. Remender wants to get his exact birthdate sourced, I would imagine that he'd have included the day in the August 1 blog entry he made, which Anna cited when she added that info. I've sent a message to him via his website, asking him if he can add the day of birth to that blog entry if he is interested in having it added to his article. Nightscream ( talk) 14:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
A blog post can indeed be used as a reliable source, if it comes from the editorial staff or webmaster of the site in question, just as a bio would. As for your comment It says only that he can make a blog on the site...not that he is the subject of the site if the site cannot be changed at his request., I don't even understand what you're trying to say there. Nightscream ( talk) 17:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Mark: "Nope. A blog is NOT a reliable source unless it is a newsblog. If you don't know that perhaps you should review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources." I don't know that because it's not true. I'm well familiar with WP:IRS, and it is for this reason that I know that there is no such requirement that a blog be a news blog. You might want to review the part of about self-published material, particularly the part that says, Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field", as long as the five criteria subsequently listed are met. Rick Remender is a notable in the comics industry, and he is more than reliable for his own date of birth, which does not violate any of those five criteria.
Mark: "Just being able to add a "blog" to a site does not prove they are the subject. As you just noted, the blog was not added by editorial staff or webmaster." I "just noted" that the blog was not added by an editorial staff or webmaster? Really? Um, no. It's Rick Remender's site, so he is the owner of that site, and is the only one who can make blog entries, as evidenced by the fact that there is no login link or any other indication that users or visitors can make them. You have not established that a blog entry is not a part of the "proper" website, or even what the phrase "proper website" means.
Mark: "it does seem odd that subject is not following the proper procedure to get this situation settled as has been repeatedly suggested in good faith." It's only "odd" if you're unable to understand that the typical, casual Web user, who is not a user of Wikipedia, doesn't know what "proper procedure" is on Wikipedia.
Mark: "I am afraid both the image and the note to Wikipedia are unduly self-serving." Only if you don't know what the phrase self-serving means. For some reason, there seem to be some people who think self-serving refers to any act or endeavor undertake in service to one's own interests. In fact, that's not what it means at all. According to just about any dictionary (American Heritage, Random House, Merriam-Webster's, Dictionary.com), self-serving refers to a selfish preoccupation with one's own interests that goes to such extremes that it disregards the truth or the interests or well-being of others. If Remender went out of his way to ensure that his Wikipedia article listed a bunch of awards, by listing on his website obscure awards that are not held in high-regard in the industry, or in which he was a judge--that would be self-serving. Making a blog entry on your site in order to establish a source for your date of birth is not. Nightscream ( talk) 03:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
(moved from image caption) February 6, 1973 – Or is it June 2? Ack! -- Lexein ( talk) 10:06, 10 August 2013
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Which photo should used in the Infobox? The Left One or the Right One?
I have contacted the editors from previous comics creator photo discussions, specifically the ones we had on the talk pages of Larry Hama, Scott Allie and Bryan Talbot. In keeping with WP:CANVAS, I contacted every editor, regardless of how they "voted" in those discussions. I also left a message on the WikiProject Comics talk page. Nightscream ( talk) 19:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Canoe1967: "I think we can probably all agree to C." I'm not sure what your basis is for this statement, but we do not all agree to C. Three people here have indicated that they favor C, five have indicated B, and twelve have indicated A. (One of those for A was Anna, who has since uploaded a new photo, so it's possible that her favored pic has changed, in which case it would be eleven for A and four for C, but she has not explicitly stated this either way.)
In addition, changing the photo in the article when a discussion is still ongoing is inappropriate. If you'd like to test how it looks, it would be better to use the Sandbox. Nightscream ( talk) 21:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you think we could now replace the image with one of the C-D-Es? It's clear that A isn't going to be it. Then we can tweak the decision about which of those is best. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 03:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I am here because I got a request on my talk page to review these photos. I haven't read the entire discussion thoroughly. Of the ABCDE set, I prefer the CDEs. Of those, I would probably pick C or E. However, from a quality of portrait perspective, none of these images are good. Remender's face is well lit in the CDEs, but like all the images I'm seeing here (including the ones in the birthday discussion), they suffer from poor composition. A portrait subject shouldn't have background clutter, or extraneous objects in the background level with their ears to such a conspicuous degree. I understand that it's often difficult to compose properly on the fly during a convention, but Remender seems to be communicating with editors enough to send a better portrait. That said, with no other portraits to choose from, I'd go with or E. Cheers, AstroCog ( talk) 19:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Canoe1967: "A. was voted on earlier before we had the newer images." One more time: You cannot automatically assume that this means those editors would have chosen one of the newer images. One editor chimed in to make it clear that he saw the newer images, and did not change his position. All the others were also contacted to indicate whether their positions have changed, and none (thus far) have indicated a change. I already said this above, so why are you repeating the original fallacy?
Canoe1967: "Selecting 2010 over 2013 is not the way to go so A. should def be out..." In your opinion. Not in the opinion of others. The fact that you hold this opinion does not mean that A is disqualified if a consensus of editors feel otherwise.
There are many editors, myself included, who correctly feel that recentism is not a relevant criteria when the subject's appearance has not changed in any significant way. You can tell that a 1986 photo of George Burns is obviously more recent than a 1955 photo of him, because of the obvious changes in appearance. This does not apply when the typical, casual reader can only discern which of two photos is more recent by looking at their upload information or captions.
I have left notices on the talk pages of Wikipedia:Featured pictures, WikiProject Photography, and on the Commons Picture of the day and Commons Village Pump. That should hopefully yield a consensus. We are not assuming consensus by virtue of the mere arguments that one editor uses for his position. Nightscream ( talk) 01:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
The above became a bit of a mess then stalled. New images came along mid-way. Can we start over? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 09:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
redundant gallery
|
---|
|
I just put C. in the aricle. A. was there but it was 2010 so it is not recent enough. C. or E. are the best two. B. has lighting/glare/other issues and D. is a lame and quick one I did. C. looks closest to natural lighting to my eye but others may disagree.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 09:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
And I just put A. back. I don't like A. but Nightscream already reverted when you tried to change it before consensus is reached. I think it's fair to wait. Lets be patient, please. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 09:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Whether or not a discussion is going on is no reason to not update an article.I have to disagree. The update you made was unilaterally selecting the photo you thought best while around 20 editors were discussing exactly that. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 11:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Canoe1967: "Whether or not a discussion is going on is no reason to not update an article."
Wrong. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Editing the disputed aspect of the article before consensus is reached is called
edit warring, and it's a blockable offense. Is that a good enough "reason" for you? Whether you think 2010 is "too old" is irrelevant. That is an argument you may cite for your position. It is not, however, a rationale for unilaterally deciding for everyone when consensus has not been reached.
Canoe1967: "When articles in AfD they still get edited and updated."
We're not talking about AfD. Editing an article listed at AfD does not have the effect implementing a decision that must be reached by the deletion discussion in question, a significant distinction that you should be aware of. But if an editor tried to delete an article before the deletion discussion was closed, then you can be assured that he would be similarly admonished.
Canoe1967: "Reverting a normal image update is just childish on your part and Nightscream's."
Um, no, you're getting it backwards. Trying to decide for the entire group when the group has not yielded consensus is childish. And more to the point, it's edit-warring. By contrast, keeping calm, remaining patient, and refraining from such unilateral actions, because Wikipedia policy requires it, as everyone else here seems to be doing, is the far more mature and collaboration-friendly thing to do. Why someone like you, who has accumulated close to 8,700 edits since July 2011 doesn't know this, I have no idea. But you will not decide for the entire group. If you continue to edit-war, then the article will be protected from further edits until the discussion is over, and you risk being blocked from editing. Please do not make that necessary.
Nightscream (
talk)
16:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe this will help us narrow it down.
redundant gallery without captions
|
---|
|
A statement to agree with or not:
"Go ahead and use one of the images that is not A. or B. and I won't kick up a fuss if it's not the most pefect one because it will at least move us forward."
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 02:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I gather that the community doesn't think this thread is helpful. No worries. I was just trying to split things in two. I guess it wasn't so brilliant. All this E. or C. business made me think that it will be impossible to figure out which is best. Okay, well, I'm over budget on energy spent on this one. I'll leave it to others to decide. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 20:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
redundant gallery lacking captions
|
---|
|
I boldly swapped it in. Rick says that they spent an hour on this and would like everyone to know that they went to a lot of trouble to accommodate Wikipedia. I hope everyone approves of the new image. Personally, I like it very much. Thank you, Rick!!! Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 13:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay. The image was removed per "poorly lit/colored, and poorly cropped". I give up, and I think I can speak for Rick in saying that he gives up too. The current image seems to be the worst of all. The community got tired of this and left. The talk posts above seem to overwhelmingly agree that A. is the worst choice. The better images remain unused. I don't understand how this can be the result. I tried. I failed. I'm sorry to everyone. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 14:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Anna Frodesiak: "My basis is that nary an A is to be found since the other images arrived..." Again, we are not going to disregard those who selected A before the more recent images arrived, nor are we going to assume that they would have picked one of the others. Those who selected A were contacted about the newer images, and most did not respond to indicate that they changed their selection, and the one who did respond indicated that he did not. We are not chucking those editor's stated feelings out the window just because some think that newer images makes those opinions irrelevant. In surveying those who spoke here, the feelings appear roughly half between A or C-E. If you want, I'll contact more editors to offer their opinions. If C-E are so likely to draw more favored opinions, then newer editors contacted will presumably favor those latter pics, and a consensus for them will emerge, correct?
Canoe1967: "C is the best choice in my opinion of the consensus." One more time: It is the best choice in your opinion. It is not the best choice according to any consensus, because about half of the people who have spoken here have preferred one, and the other half have preferred others.
Canoe1967: "Counting any votes before we had the newer image should not be done." Wrong. Disregarding them should not be done. While it would be nice if they could explicitly clarify if their votes had changed or not, we're not disregarding the earlier ones, just because you want to strong-arm the discussion by arguing for a consensus that does not exist.
In any event, if this were true, then we'd have to discount all those who chimed in here before I added the newest photo, F, which Anna has brought to our attention, since they did see that one.
Canoe1967: "A is older and should not be included while we discuss it..." Non sequitur. The age of the photo is an arbitrary criterion that you cite for your opinion. It is not a criterion for removing a photo during a discussion, nor have you cited a single policy, guideline, aspect of MOS or principle of logic or reasoning to support this idea. You're trying to fabricate reasons to push your selection through, and it's not working. There is no reason why your favored photo should be left in the article by default during a discussion, as opposed to the current one. And if it were, then we'd have to place F in there, since it's the most recent photo.
Canoe1967: "...as many have said any but A." And the same amount have indeed said A. Emphasizing the views of half of those editors as relevant, as if the those of the other half are not, is dishonest.
Canoe1967: "I am going to put C back in while we discuss it." Wrong. I have reverted the article and protected it. And count yourself lucky that I haven't contacted an uninvolved administrator to have you blocked from editing for edit warring.
Canoe1967: "If you two revert then I will bring it to the drama boards." So much for "then I will just f*** off." But by all means, go ahead. They will see that you reverted repeatedly during a consensus discussion (while simultaneously accusing others of edit-warring), have used deliberately deceptive arguments to conclude a consensus that doesn't exist, and have arbitrarily disregarded the views of other members of the community, just in order to get your way. If you think anyone on those boards will look kindly on that, be my guest, and raise this matter there.
Canoe1967: "C, or variations of it, have the most votes since we got the newer ones." Consensus does not work on "voting", and if you familiarized yourself with WP:CONSENSUS, you'd know that. One or two people stating that they like C-E more than those who prefer A is not a consensus. Again, most of those who selected C or its variants didn't see F.
Canoe1967: "I also think we chased some of the earlier voters away." Again, you do not get to speak for others. It is just as equally possible that many editors, when asked to weigh in on a particular matter, do not like to dwell on it for longer than it takes to voice their opinion. This "chase away" comment by you is just another fabrication. Stop pretending that the made-up states of mind that you attribute to others are a question of fact, let alone that are an excuse for you to conclude that a consensus for your viewpoint has been reached. It hasn't.
I will contact more editors individually to offer their opinions. If C-E are so likely to draw more favored opinions, then newer editors contacted will presumably favor those latter pics, and a consensus for them will emerge, and I will gladly change the Infobox pic to that one myself.
Lexein: "Nightscream, I think you should have asked a non-involved admin to lock the article (and add the lock symbol, please), rather than doing it yourself. Seriously. Come on now. Unlock, and request an uninvolved admin to do it, please." Who protects an article is irrelevant. (The lock symbol is added automatically by the protection mechanism, btw, and no longer requires being added through an edit). As long as the protection is valid--in this case, to bring an end to edit warring--then who does it is moot. Canoe has been repeatedly engaging in edit warring by reverting the article during discussion, and without consensus, while hypocritically complaining that Anna and I have done the same (when in fact, I have merely been reverting edit-war edits, and Anna merely made a bold edit in which she presented a new photo. I disagree with her approach, but I believe her edit was done in good faith). Personally, I think protecting an article and then asking another admin to re-protect it is rather perverse, but if it means that much to you, I'll go to an uninvolved admin and have them protect the article. Nightscream ( talk) 16:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Since it's been a few days since I made the latest round of contacts, and there have been about seven more editors indicating that C is their favored photo, I'm satisfied that consensus is for that photo. Are there any objections? Nightscream ( talk) 16:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm late to this discussion. I just saw the message in my inbox. I think that the image now showing on the page is good; would leave it. Will ( talk) 15:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I vote photo C CaffeinAddict ( talk) 02:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
So, what do you think? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 16:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
As has already been stated, we need a citation of a reliable source to add his date of birth. Wikipedia cannot cite itself, because that is circular sourcing, and the info cannot be added by Remender himself or a proxy with that personal knowledge, for that is original research.
Again, if this issue is that important to him, does he have an official website or blog where he can mention it? Nightscream ( talk) 00:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear:
Well then, what about if Mr. Remender emails an image stating his birthdate to his website guy? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Considering http://rickremender.com/?p=910 and the image, do you think it's reasonable to add the exact day (February 6, 1973) to the infobox? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 19:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Is this debate seriously here? Everyone needs a healthy dose of common sense. Ignore what you think the policies say. Nick claims to have been born on February 6. Unless there is a reason to doubt that, let that be what the article says. Stuff the link to the image into a note. If you want to be pedantic, you can claim that the photograph is the source and WMF is simply a host. Or we can ask Mr. Remender to post his birthday on his website. Do not let rules get in the way of improving Wikipedia. Someguy1221 ( talk) 03:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Canoe1967: "Mr. Remender is following proper COI and using the talk page of his article." There is nothing about WP:COI that indicates that using the talk page of the article about a subject is the proper procedure for subject to add information about themselves.
Canoe1967: "The contact through email is transparent. I don't think we should ask him to create an account or IP edit the talk page for input."
Fayenatic London: "It seems to me that the image is a good enough source for the date under WP:SELFPUB (the section about self-published sources in our main policy on verification)."
Contact through email is not "transparent". Using email constitutes relying on persona knowledge as a source (both the subject's personal knowledge, and the editor's personal knowledge gleaned from the subject). Relying on personal knowledge is original research, which is strictly prohibited. We need published sources for info. That means published elsewhere. You can't "self-publish" material on Wikipedia.
Canoe1967: "Take a look at Talk:Robert_Silverberg#NPOV where the subject chimed in as an IP." I do not not see an IP or mention of one in that discussion you linked to. Can you clarify? What was the content discussion about?
Regarding OTRS, OTRS is only used regarding emails from the public, in cases such as copyright claims when a subject wants a file uploaded. OTRS cannot be used as a source, nor can any file hosted on Wikipedia because that is circular sourcing.
If Mr. Remender wants to get his exact birthdate sourced, I would imagine that he'd have included the day in the August 1 blog entry he made, which Anna cited when she added that info. I've sent a message to him via his website, asking him if he can add the day of birth to that blog entry if he is interested in having it added to his article. Nightscream ( talk) 14:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
A blog post can indeed be used as a reliable source, if it comes from the editorial staff or webmaster of the site in question, just as a bio would. As for your comment It says only that he can make a blog on the site...not that he is the subject of the site if the site cannot be changed at his request., I don't even understand what you're trying to say there. Nightscream ( talk) 17:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Mark: "Nope. A blog is NOT a reliable source unless it is a newsblog. If you don't know that perhaps you should review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources." I don't know that because it's not true. I'm well familiar with WP:IRS, and it is for this reason that I know that there is no such requirement that a blog be a news blog. You might want to review the part of about self-published material, particularly the part that says, Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field", as long as the five criteria subsequently listed are met. Rick Remender is a notable in the comics industry, and he is more than reliable for his own date of birth, which does not violate any of those five criteria.
Mark: "Just being able to add a "blog" to a site does not prove they are the subject. As you just noted, the blog was not added by editorial staff or webmaster." I "just noted" that the blog was not added by an editorial staff or webmaster? Really? Um, no. It's Rick Remender's site, so he is the owner of that site, and is the only one who can make blog entries, as evidenced by the fact that there is no login link or any other indication that users or visitors can make them. You have not established that a blog entry is not a part of the "proper" website, or even what the phrase "proper website" means.
Mark: "it does seem odd that subject is not following the proper procedure to get this situation settled as has been repeatedly suggested in good faith." It's only "odd" if you're unable to understand that the typical, casual Web user, who is not a user of Wikipedia, doesn't know what "proper procedure" is on Wikipedia.
Mark: "I am afraid both the image and the note to Wikipedia are unduly self-serving." Only if you don't know what the phrase self-serving means. For some reason, there seem to be some people who think self-serving refers to any act or endeavor undertake in service to one's own interests. In fact, that's not what it means at all. According to just about any dictionary (American Heritage, Random House, Merriam-Webster's, Dictionary.com), self-serving refers to a selfish preoccupation with one's own interests that goes to such extremes that it disregards the truth or the interests or well-being of others. If Remender went out of his way to ensure that his Wikipedia article listed a bunch of awards, by listing on his website obscure awards that are not held in high-regard in the industry, or in which he was a judge--that would be self-serving. Making a blog entry on your site in order to establish a source for your date of birth is not. Nightscream ( talk) 03:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
(moved from image caption) February 6, 1973 – Or is it June 2? Ack! -- Lexein ( talk) 10:06, 10 August 2013