User talk:SpaceMusk

Photo additions

You may not be aware of the usual WP method of resolving conflicts about whether or not something is to be included in an article. We do NOT just ping back-and-forth with reverts; once an addition has been reverted, a discussion is started about the issue - you do not respond with just re-reverting, particularly if your reasons are just "you are being subjective".

I am not going to kick off half a dozen separate discussions on the individual article talk pages, because the issue is the same on all of them. Instead, I am going to place notices redirecting people here, so that comments can be centralized.

To restate my assessment: the majority of these additions (i.e., the ones that I reverted - Gorilla‎‎, Western lowland gorilla, Eastern lowland gorilla, Sea lion‎‎, California sea lion, Komodo dragon, Meerkat) are

of comparatively low quality; with a large selection of images for these species being available, we don't need low quality examples in the articles
redundant; they demonstrate no new facets that have not yet been illustrated, and as the articles are all very well provided with pictures already, they are not needed

I therefore believe that none of these should be added to the article. Counterarguments? --Elmidae (talk · contribs)

I concur with this assessment. The days when a visit to the zoo was likely to yield a photo that merited inclusion in a Wikipedia article are long behind us. Adding your own photos, then questioning other editors' objectivity is disingenuous. William Avery (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Elmidae. The photo of the meerkat for example is not great. Unsharp subject, harsh light, blown highlights and poor composition. If you have really good pictures, you can try to nominate them in Commons:Quality images candidates, then it will be easier after promotion to include them in the related articles -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

so you got your own little fan club of bullies here i see, i have put a lot of pictures on wikipedia, its the first time i hear of this so called procedure, and it is nonsense, its subjective, you bullies can claim to be proffesional photographers, that is your right, but i do not agree, and second wikipedia is made by volunteers not by national geographic photographers, so your comments make no sense at all, i do see what this is, you see those pages as your personal domain/property to protect/control, im not gona play that silly game with you, im gona revert them all, if you dont like it get one of the admins to solve it.

this one is ok according to you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_lowland_gorilla#/media/File:Gorilla_beringei_graueri01.jpg

but this one is not.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_lowland_gorilla#/media/File:Eastern_Lowland_Gorilla_ZOO_Antwerp_2.jpg

what a joke.... SpaceMusk (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceMusk, do not attack or comment on other contributors. You will notice that the other participants in the discussion are talking about the content, the photos in question. Please do the same; if you can show why any of the photos you prefer is better than the ones that were previously in the article, do so without making any claims about other editors' motivations. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 10:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

oh ok another bullie from the fan club, this time it is telling me not to talk about the behaviour or motivations of other people, but yet it is telling me about mine.... right, and secondly it has no idea what this discussion is about because i did not delete any pictures, i just added a few, and they where removed for no reason.. but ok... i think wikipedia should introduce friend lists to see how people are connected here, then maybe we would find out how objective this website really is ;-) SpaceMusk (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Bonadea. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your interactions with other editors

Please stop attacking other editors - they are entitled to disagree with you on photo changes, and to tell you why they disagree. You're being disagreed with, not bullied. Acroterion (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

so someone can give comments on my speech but i can not give a comment back, how is that a conversation? SpaceMusk (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The other editors have given you feedback on the pictures. You've responded with accusations and edit-warring. Please stick to polite discussion of why you think your pictures are more appropriate, and please slow down. Acroterion (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Calling people "bullies" for disagreeing with you is a personal attack. Pointing that out is not a personal attack. That's the difference.

Find a different way to contribute for now, because you're clearly getting emotionally invested over your pictures being removed. See WP:OWN for why that's a bad way to go about things. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok tell me why this picture is technically better https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_lowland_gorilla#/media/File:Gorilla_beringei_graueri01.jpg

than this one? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eastern_Lowland_Gorilla_ZOO_Antwerp_2.jpg

if you give me an objective reasonable answer, i will stop...

im still not getting an answer, you have only comented on my speech, but yet no answer SpaceMusk (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've not commented on the photos at all. Everyone else has and you've ignored them, which is disruptive. Repeatedly asking every new person who comes along to explain the same things over and over to you is disruptive as well. Knock it off, get over yourself, drop it, and find something better to do. If you can't or won't, you're only going to make yourself unwelcome very fast. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no one has answerd that question, and again, you are talking about my speech, and again not answering my question... i rest my case! SpaceMusk (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm commenting on your conduct, as an administrator. Your behavior toward other editors is becoming disruptive, and other editors have explained in some detail why your changes aren't satisfactory. Editors are expected to gain the consensus of other editors for changes, and you're providing a textbook example of how not to do that. Ignoring clear feedback is disruptive, and you've received detailed responses. You don't get to set the terms for stopping your accusations or edit-warring. Please reconsider your approach to editing Wikipedia. The burden is on you to find consensus for your proposed changes, not on other editors to justify themselves to you for not agreeing to your changes or to put up with inappropriate accusations. Acroterion (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the editor at the top of the page: "You may not be aware of the usual WP method of resolving conflicts about whether or not something is to be included in an article. We do NOT just ping back-and-forth with reverts; once an addition has been reverted, a discussion is started about the issue - you do not respond with just re-reverting, particularly if your reasons are just "you are being subjective". Please take that advice to heart. Acroterion (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK AGAIN

MY PICTURES WHERE DELETED BECAUSE OF I QUOTE

"of comparatively low quality; with a large selection of images for these species being available, we don't need low quality examples in the articles" "redundant; they demonstrate no new facets that have not yet been illustrated, and as the articles are all very well provided with pictures already, they are not needed" "I therefore believe that none of these should be added to the article. Counterarguments?" "I concur with this assessment. The days when a visit to the zoo was likely to yield a photo that merited inclusion in a Wikipedia article are long behind us." "is not great. Unsharp subject, harsh light, blown highlights and poor composition."

IF THAT IS THE REASON WHY MY PICTURES ARE REMOVED, THEN WHY ARE THERE PICTURES ON THAT PAGE THAT ARE IN A WORSE SHAPE THEN MINE ARE, WHAT MAKES THOSE PICTURES BETTER? THAT IS MY COUNTER ARGUMENT

NOW I HAVE HAD 50 MESSAGES ON HOW I AM BEING DISRUPTIVE AND SO ON, BUT AGAIAAAAN YOU OR SOMEONE ELS HAVE NOT ANSWERD THAT QUESTION, THAT GIVES ME THE INPRESSION, THAT THERE IS NOT A GOOD ANSWER, THAT THIS IS NOT SEEN OBJECTIVE, AND THAT IT MAYBE HAS ANOTHER REASON WHY THOSE PICTURES ARE BEING REMOVED

AND I FEEL I AM NEVER GONA GET AN ANSWER, ONLY THAT YOU WILL SEND ME A MESSAGE AGAIN? WITH YET ANOTHER RULE IN SUBSECTION PARAGTRAPH; 25684AVF2544 THAT HAS BEEN VIOLATED BY ME, HOW CAN ONE GET CONSENCUS? IF ONE CAN NOT MAKE COUNTER ARGUMENTS

Yes im sorry and i will remember that for next time Acroterion SpaceMusk (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

but if this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_lowland_gorilla#/media/File:Gorilla_beringei_graueri01.jpg is better then this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eastern_Lowland_Gorilla_ZOO_Antwerp_2.jpg then sadly that is ssubjective, and not objective SpaceMusk (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are serious in your assessment about other pictures, bring it up on the relevant article talk pages to explain why they should be removed instead. Other problems don't justify new ones.

Take these insights into account to improve your work instead of fighting for your past work. The latter approach will only waste your time, get you more worked up, only annoy people who are trying to help, and (if you keep being disruptive and uncooperative about it) eventually get you the boot. "This is a cooperative project" means you need to learn to cooperate with others like a sane adult. Temper tantrums are not going to get you your way. Disruptive behavior only leads to blocks, not concessions.

I strongly recommend you back off now, wait until you have calmed down, and come back to find a different area to work on to better learn how the site works. You've got two admins and a lot of experienced users asking you to slow down and calm down. If all the traffic is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane.

And if you so desperately want a more detailed breakdown of what's wrong (because you don't feel that you've been given a proper explanation), here's a couple of examples:

In this case, the photo would be a good demonstration of the Komodo dragon's natural camouflage -- which is a problem if you're trying to clearly show what a Komodo dragon is.
In this case, your photo shows the backside of a gorilla in an artificial habitat that does not contrast with them, while the consensus photo shows the front of two gorillas in their natural habitat (which does contrast with them quite a bit). Additionally, your photo was lower resolution.

Ian.thomson (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've gotten several responses, which you've quoted, in between the all-caps. Remember that we have to work with whatever free images we've got, and your opinion that your changes are better hasn't gained traction. It's as simple as that. All-caps won't make it any different, and it may just have to wait until a 50mp featured picture in a natural habitat becomes available for them all. Get everybody to agree that your images are better by suggesting images that are clearly better, not ones that you like better. Argument and bluster won't accomplish that. Acroterion (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you why File:Gorilla_beringei_graueri01.jpg is better than the image you uploaded to Commons: it's an uncluttered image that shows the very characteristic shape of the head of a male lowland gorilla, while the image you uploaded is cluttered with a lot of other things (including a female gorilla centered in the picture), and shows very little of the male. So yes, the pre-existing image is an infinitely better illustration of a male lowland gorilla than the image you uploaded. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, "infinitely better illustration" yeah if you are looking with a magnifying glass maybe, i see the head an animal that looks like a gorilla and a car tire, with a concrete wall in the back, and btw i thaught it was about quality? (not great. Unsharp subject, harsh light, blown highlights and poor composition.) now it is illustration suddenly...right...... the captions say nothing about the head, it justs says Male eastern lowland gorilla, it does not say iconic head of Male eastern lowland gorilla SpaceMusk (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

very objective, very fair, its not about the pictures anymore, its about me,, Very sad.... SpaceMusk (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]