This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climbing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climbing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ClimbingWikipedia:WikiProject ClimbingTemplate:WikiProject ClimbingClimbing
This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Backpacking, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BackpackingWikipedia:WikiProject BackpackingTemplate:WikiProject BackpackingBackpacking
Deletion of 2 images re nonnotable recognizable persons and image is not clear enough for use
In the mountaineering article in mid-June, you removed 2 of my images for the above reasons. I have tried several times to find a guideline of said infractions using your verbiage as a search string, so I'm asking for your help, especially re the first one (the second one was meant to convey the vastness and grandeur one experiences during mountaineering so the mountaineers are bound to be small and somewhat indistinct). The 2 pics are attached...
For the first image, the policy is here in this section, where it states "Images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic are not recommended for the main namespace. These images are considered self-promotion and the Wikipedia community has repeatedly reached consensus to delete such images. Using such images on user pages is allowed." The second image is very dated now and unless one points out the very hard to see person(s) at lower right, they are not noticeable. I did not remove the other image you placed in that article with the following caption:"Mt. Forbes' summit lunch; nutrition & hydration are key for mountaineering"Mt. Forbes' summit lunch; nutrition & hydration are key for mountaineering. I cannot see how there is any evidence that lunch or hydration are taking place...so this too really seems a little useless for the article itself. Sorry if I am coming across as rude as that is not intended. I mean, if you insist on readding the images I won't stop you but policy and my personal opinion is that the two I removed were not a benefit to that article. I have thousands of images of mountains and what not and have only added maybe a few to any articles.--MONGO (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hell, I'm not insisting on anything; I'm still learning and just wanted to know where you're coming from since I found zip based on your verbiage... so thanks :-). I even asked my mentor what he thought and he'd not heaard of your complaints as you wrote them up and noted that there are many shots of non-notable but recognizable in the Aircraft articles.
For what it's worth, I thought my two images improved the article. In the first case, it shows how simple the equipment can be and implies that mountaineering can be handled by pretty well anyone (it used to be an elite sport done only or mainly be the rich), while the second one shows how majestic and humongous the mountains are (even in Canada), and how small is man. No other photo in mountaineering shows these aspects of the activity. Also FWIW, your input would be better if you quoted the section so new users like me (and even my mentor) can find the rules or guidelines that you are referencing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrettA343 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Late Edit... Also, as I think of the whole quote from your link (i.e. Images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic are not recommended for the main namespace. These images are considered self-promotion and the Wikipedia community has repeatedly reached consensus to delete such images.", I would challenge you that showing one mountaineer with basic mountaineering gear on a mountaintop 'distracts from the image topic' - it's highlighting the image topic as far as I can see. What distracts in this photo of a mountaineer, in your view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrettA343 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Later Edit... The more I think about these two images in the context of the subject of mountaineering and the images already there and your issues with them, the more I like the idea of including them... for what it's worth. BrettA343 (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Someone I know, but he's not featured in a way that distracts from the image topic; he's an example of the image topic, just like the upper right photo in the ice skating article... though you might complain that they're not skating - they're just standing there and they're likely non-notable but recognisable (they might have even known the photographer!) BrettA343 (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edit 1 - 13 Oct - Summary, since we've had no bites:The first photo, rather than distracting from the subject of mountaineering, highlights the topic with an example of a mountaineer and his gear at the top the highest mountain within the confines of Canada's Banff National Park. How can a photo of a mountaineer in his element with his gear 'distract' from a mountaineering article? The second photo reminds me of what first intrigued me about climbing; a full page image in Life Magazine of a tiny-looking, hard-to-find solo climber half-way up one of El Cap's routes - it looked impossible to me at the time. (I've temporarily put these 2 photos back for context - BA) BrettA343 (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well @MONGO:, I can only discuss what you note (i.e. "policy and my personal opinion"), but if it's policy you're mainly worried about with the top photo, as I said probably more than once, How can a photo of a mountaineer in his element with his gear 'distract' from a mountaineering article? The policy you noted does specify that the concern is someone "prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic", which as I've said I think is not the case at all. His presence supports the policy as he is an example of mountaineering. The other photo supports it too, though in a different way, I think, but it's still about mountaineering (please note that I added their location in the caption to address your point on that).
Your latest note saya you "opposed these two images placement", which makes me wonder if it's the placement you're also objecting to and had I put them in a different location within the article, might that allieviate your concerns, at least to some extent. I don't know if their current place is where it was when this discussion began, a little over a weeke ago. BrettA343 (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. You just want the images here to showcase yourself or people you know. Bluntly if I may, I do not edit war but I find the images to be nothing of the sort you think they are and if I were inclined to edit war they would be removed post haste. I really see no benefit of a poorly shadowed image with some guy with a cheese eating grin taking up 25% of the image where one can't really see much of anything else, as being an image that encapsulates much of anything really. "summit lunch; nutrition & hydration are key for mountaineering" image does what for us? I see two persons with their backs to us, I see zero food or fluids being consumed and even if they were doing what the caption says, how on earth are we supposed to know that from the image?--MONGO (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about moving goalposts - you never answer my questions but always bring up new points - your initial complaints never mentioned the 'nutrition/hydration' photo but this lastest post complains about that shot primarily. If you look at my UserPage, you might note that the vast majority of the 125+ photos are not with recognisable people, so where do get off claiming I "just want the images here to showcase yourself or people you know" And yes, I do think they add to 'Mountaineering'. A pic with a caption needs to be taken together, so you know they're eating and drinking because the caption says so - and it's something that isn't addressed in the rest of the article, IIRC. My photos add in the same way the other photos in the article add to it - you could likely complain about any of the other photos with the same amount of validity, too. And your made up reasons for the initial deletion shows just how far you'll go to get rid of these shots. But 'whatever' works for me if that's your reaction.
P.S. And yes, I do want my images used... after all, I gave away all my rights to Wikimedia commons. I'd guess that any photographer or ex-photographer who donated something that took an effort to get and then gave away all rkights, would want their images shown. BrettA343 (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S.: I also note that while you criticise my top photo as being a ("poorly shadowed image with some guy with a cheese eating grin..." ...Did'ja figure a little adhominem would help your case? Or is this just in line with your quote "This is the talkpage of the notorious MONGO! Leave me a message if you dare!"), you've not criticised the currently 2nd photo ("A climber taking the final few steps..."), which has a face considerably less visible than mine (his face is all but invisible). What is it with you and my photos? You don't like newbies to Wikipedia? Or you object to Canadian content? BrettA343 (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've donated many images I took to Commons too, and some are used in articles and none have images of our pals or ourselves. My case is based on policy and I am about to enforce it and renege on the earlier comment about NOT taking your images out.--MONGO (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MONGO: It seems to me that you're not playing fair when you ask me to compare my rendition to your alternative, because the only reason there is a 'your alternative' is to delete my photos - after all, the article has been there for a while without you adding photos, right?. But, I'll play your game anyway. First, a fair comparison of my revision would be a comparison of no pics in the places that now contain (your) photos, since, IIRC, there were no pics there when I made my revisions (and I tried to use empty whitespace for where I could). Being an ex-photographer, I think photos can add a lot to an article, especially with a subject like mountaineering, where one's background is really quite beautiful in many cases, even in the case of some huts, though it's hardly true with the one in your alternative. It allows one to see new areas of the world that are mountainous and that alone is enough to add photos, IMO. I've looked at much of Wikipedia and IMO the depiction of the mountains of Canada seem sparse indeed. For instance, under mountains, crevasses and mountaineering, there is no Canadian content at all except those added by me and I'd could see adding more, down where there's whitespace (would judicious use of photos be better or worse than whitespace?).
But let's look at your unfair scenario where you cherry picked shots to apparently 'go against' my shots, especially in the light of your question: "Do you see the difference from an encyclopedic standpoint?" My short answer to that is 'No, I don't see the difference from that standpoint', but perhaps you can enlighten me as to the difference. TIA. What I see is 3 shots of mine being replaced by two of yours - a substandard shot (the hut shot) and one with no real benefit over mine and containing examples of things you criticise mine for...
You complain about the small size of the mountaineers in my shot, yet in yours, mountaineers "further up the slope" are noticably smaller.
You deleted my Columbia Icefield / tent shot, yet replaced it with a smaller hut shot that looks like it was taken with a throwaway camera.
I fail to see what benefit a hut shot in Glacier National Park has over a tent shot on the Columbia Icefield... Please do explain. Why not both shots?
You seem to have a problem answering my questions, like: How can a photo of a mountaineer in his element with his gear 'distract' from a mountaineering article? (I think this is my fourth time asking you this). And while you keep on citing 'policy', the one policy you cite isn't relevant as I've said before - the mountaineer's presence supports the policy as he is an example of mountaineering - a sample of the sport not shown elsewhere with rope and prusik, he's simply not a distraction. And please specify why you find my 2 U.S. climbers photo "very dated"... please be specific and take the encyclopedic route to explain it (I thought encyclopedias dealt with a wide variety of dates as this article does.)
And going back to your "image is not clear enough for use as a decriptor", compare any of my shots to the Glacier Hut shot and tell me which is the image that is least clear (I think it's the Glacier Park hut shot). As for the lunch shot with noted nutrition and hydration, it's valid because the caption says what it is. My opinion only.
I will respond to your comments yet again...not sure why I bother...not really in the order you posted them.
"As for the lunch shot with noted nutrition and hydration, it's valid because the caption says what it is."...interesting, even though, as I have repeatedly stated, there is no way to see them eating or drinking! Do you have an image of someone using a camp stove of water filtration device? No? Yes? Nevermind. Since you just gotta use the website to showcase your photographic prowess, yes return the image to its proper place, but how about you use the caption along the lines of maybe "Two mountaineers at rest on the slopes of(whatever mountain)" because the only way anyone is going to know that lunch and hydration are occurring in that image is because you were there and remember that is what happened! Not because we can actually see it happening...........our readers aren't psychic!
"I'll play your game anyway"...really? Ok. My game is not to get caught by any jealous husbands.
"But let's look at your unfair scenario"...yes, I am soooo unfair. MONGO bad, BAD MONGO.
"You deleted my Columbia Icefield / tent shot, yet replaced it with a smaller hut shot that looks like it was taken with a throwaway camera." followed by "I fail to see what benefit a hut shot in Glacier National Park has over a tent shot on the Columbia Icefield" Please do not post images with watermarks...[1] That is Policy. I added an image of a mountain hut to the section titled "Hut"...shocking. There are surely better images afloat...if you find one post it, but please, don't tell us that lunch and hydration are happening inside the hut.
"You complain about the small size of the mountaineers in my shot, yet in yours, mountaineers "further up the slope" are noticably smaller"....yes, further up they are...but the one I added has mountaineers that at least one can actually see without using a microscope.
"You seem to have a problem answering my questions"....no actually I don't have a problem with it but when I have to repeat myself 3-4 times then, well, what can I say.
Lastly....the beloved image of the man staring at that camera with "equipment". The answer is nope, not happening. Here read that "Images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic are not recommended for the main namespace. These images are considered self-promotion and the Wikipedia community has repeatedly reached consensus to delete such images. Using such images on user pages is allowed."--MONGO (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the length of this post, but the majority of it is optional background information which you can feel free to ignore if it's tl;dr. I'm having unproductive talks with user MONGO, who has taken an autocratic/dictatorial approach at deleting and replacing my photos (he could have just added his own, but chose to delete mine, too... I almost never remove others' photos; maybe twice have done so. I want a broader consensus as to what I'm doing, as I gather that's what one should do when there's a difference in opinion as to what should go online. My single question for you is:
Can I keep / have my photos (at the right) in the Mountaineering article or is MONGO's word the be-all and end-all (I don't mind if his AND mine stay up - I think photos improve an article, especially in a topic like Mountaineering where both natural beauty and technical aspects can be shown). For a full understanding, you should read this whole thread, but I hope this summary of what I'm dealing with will do, and I'm suggesting that even that is optional. While I am trying to improve the Mountaineering article by adding relevant photos to what was a fairly barren page photographically; I added 4 photos without deleting any photos - MONGO first deleted 2 of mine and as we talked, he deleted 2 more and added 2 shots of his choice). My photos are on the right and the benefits for the photos are:
1: Shows rope, prusik and more in a summit shot; this was beside text describing ropes in large part (there was nothing about prusiks).
2: Shows a rope team of two on Banff Park's tallest mountain (of peaks wholly within the park - 4 higher ones exist on its borders).
3: Shows two climbers lunching at the summit (lunch is not visible in the shot but is noted in the description).
4: Shows tent camp with snow wall; I can see all these shots being of interest to readers (though this one has a watermark I'm trying to remove).
Please indicate whether you think these photos have a future (i.e. can be added) in the Mountaineering article, Yes or No. Or if only some of the photos should go up in your opinion, please identify which ones, by number. TIA. - Brett
BACKGROUD FOR THIS POST (Very Much Optional Reading, Summarizing the Whole Thread...)
Again, I want a broader consensus from editors and other experienced Wikipedians as to the applicability of these 4 shots, which to my mind improve the article with information largely not covered elsewhere. Right now, I have MONGO unilaterally saying 'No way' to my photos and even when I say I want then up temporarily, he deletes them. I added 4 photos without deleting any other photos - he first deleted 2 of mine and as we talked, he deleted 2 more and added 2 of his choice). MONGO bitches that my photos don't adhere to policy, but then he makes up "policy" with what seems to be fake rules, such as:
"avoid images of nonnotable recognizable persons"... (no such rule exists, as far as I can tell and I did look for it), and
"image is not clear enough for use as a descriptive"... (I think mine are as clear as other photos, and clearer than one MONGO used).
Mongo, after deleting my shots and adding ones of his choice, even had the guts to ask:
"Do you see the difference from an encyclopedic standpoint?", to which I replied:
"No, I don't see the difference from that standpoint, but perhaps you can enlighten me as to the difference.",
and, as is typical, MONGO ignored. I'm still waiting for an answer.
MONGO said of my first two photos that he deleted: "policy and my personal opinion is that the two I removed were not a benefit to that article", (later adding that it was mainly policy, but the photos he used to replace mine are of the same ilk, only less directed to the article text to their left, and one of his photos features even smaller climbers visually (a complaint MONGO had about mine). The article text talks about a lot about ropes and my photo features rope, prusik and other gear that the article notes, or sometimes doesn't note, like eyewear. MONGO also complains that my second photo is "very dated now", but as an encyclopedia I would think images that were dated by a couple of decades would be OK (and one really has to look at the 'date' field to know that it's dated to the mid-1980s). I say my first 2 photos are a benefit as thay overview climbing-related topics like glacier goggles, prusiks and rope.
MONGO seems to take pride in being ornery as his TalkPage boasts: "This is the talkpage of the notorious MONGO! Leave me a message if you dare!" I don't know many people - or really, anyone - who would be proud of being notorious and then follow it up with notoriously bad and off-topic text. He's anything but helpful and makes that known with his language, lack of friendliness and high degree of snark. My experience is that the longer one deals with him, the more he stretches the rules and ignores the other person's (valid) questions, even on comments that he initially raises questions on.
MONGO also constantly brings up the policy "Images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic are not recommended for the main namespace. These images are considered self-promotion and the Wikipedia community has repeatedly reached consensus to delete such images." And as I've noted each time he posts that, my photo realistically CANNOT "distract from the image topic" because it's an example of the image topic - it highlights the image topic - a mountaineer on the summit of a mountain. Since MONGO always ignores that point, I've even asked MONGO just what distracts him in my photo (no response to that either, though he did ridicule the mountaineer's smile), and I asked multiple times "How can a photo of a mountaineer in his element with his gear 'distract' from a mountaineering article?" That question either got more silence from MONGO, or a repeat of the initial question, like I didn't answer it multiple times already.
At one point, MONGO even informed me that readers were not psychic (like there is such a thing), and of course I wasn't suggesting that readers are psychic (this response from MONGO was as silly and off-topic as some of his other replies); I'm only suggesting that readers can actually read the caption and therefore determine that the photo is, in fact, a summit lunch and that lunch and drink are being consumed. This seems simple to me and I'm not sure why he has a big problem with it. It's the only place in the article that nutrition and hydration are noted and based on that, I think it's worthwhile keeping in the article, but if the consensus agrees with MONGO, I'll gladly keep it down.
Another MONGO post citing 'policy' was when he deleted a shot of mine with a watermark. Searching using a variety of seach criteria centred on "Watermark", I came across Watermark-related text that stated: "This page is a proposed Commons guideline, policy, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy"." So if MONGO's "Policy" includes that text, I don't want my work deleted because of it - it's not Policy when it says it's not policy. I know I'm stretching here, so am willing to back off this image or see if my watermark can be removed (the website was shut down 8 or 9 years ago).
MONGO complains about the small size of the mountaineers in my shot, yet in a replacement shot of his, mountaineers "further up the slope" are noticably smaller... This seems a clear case of Do as MONGO says, not as MONGO does. I dismiss MONGO's argument as an unfair one. And please stop posting images that are worse in the way you complain about with my photos, while you delete mine (if my mountaineers are too tiny to see, MONGO's smaller ones are too).
Two of MONGOs other off-topic and useless response posts are:
"My game is not to get caught by any jealous husbands." and
"yes, I am soooo unfair. MONGO bad, BAD MONGO."...
... both of which failed to even attempt an answer to my points. Interestingly to me, I read the documentation for the upcoming Zoom Conference / Wishlist last might detailing Behaviours that would not be Tolerated and it seems to me that MONGO is a good example of people who exhibit such behaviour. Specifically, these points are from Wikipedia:
Posts content that has nothing to do with the current topic (as per the previous point).
Belittles others (or tries to, like proclaiming user's photos 'ridiculous' and not explaining why).
Conscious Intimidation (read every post in this thread from MONGO).
MONGO deleted my Columbia Icefield / tent shot, yet replaced it with a much smaller hut shot that looks like it was taken with a disposable camera.
Mongo again cites 'Policy' as a reason but I've seen plenty of watermarks on WP and I can't find his 'findable' text with his "Please do not post images with watermarks" (I got 3 hits when searching with that text plus "wiki" - none being Wikipedia.) I have found text banning watermarks on text that states "References or links to this page should 'not' describe it as "policy"." you're referencing, so I (or someone else), can easily find the correct text. You've wasted my time by having me search for text that just doesn't exist. With all of MONGO's text (some made up, some unfairly cherry-picked), I find him not trustworthy (I end up searching for his complaints and invariably find that what he claims isn't true. And MONG has muddy the water rather than clarify anything.
MONGO definitely had problems answering my questions, his claims notwithstanding (some of the more blatant example are repeated from above). He repeats himself 3-4 times without addressing my repeated point, which contains the crux of the issue. I've mentioned and highlighted "in a way that distracts from the image topic" several times and have noted that the mountaineer in my shot can hardly be viewed as a distraction - a mountaineer with rope, prusik, etc. visible certainly supports the topic of mountaineering; that is, it's an example of mountaineering. As to other questions you seem to have a problem answering, here are some examples:
My question is 'Where are these rules or guidelines, please?' This question was in response to MONGO's now-seemingly-bogus reasons for deleting 2 of my photos because they violated a policy.
It's highlighting the image topic as far as I can see. What 'distracts' in this photo of a mountaineer, in your view?
MONGO asked me: "Do you see the difference (in MONGO's rendition to my alternative) from an encyclopedic standpoint?" As I said: 'No, I don't see the difference from that standpoint, but perhaps you can enlighten me as to the difference.' (That was a request for information from a newbie - did MONGO find that there was no valid or reasonable answer?)
Did'ja figure a little ad hominem would help your case?
The article has been there for a while without you adding photos, right? Why does he wait for another editor to add his photos?
What is it with you and my photos (Mongo)? You don't like newbies to Wikipedia?
Or does MONGO object to Canadian content?
MONGO writes: "Lastly....the beloved image of the man staring at that camera with "equipment". The answer is nope, not happening..."
Wow. When MONGO changes his tune about an image, he really goes all the way! So now it's your "beloved image", huh, MONGO? Well, whatever turns your crank, I guess. To me, it's just a mountaineering picture (with more descriptive text than I find other users normally using) displaying and explaining rope, prusik, eyewear (and 'biner) in a shot showing Banff area mountains from the highest peak in the confines of Banff National Park. I see nothing "ridiculous" in this image and ask Mongo what he finds rediculous. And maybe MONGO's right and it indeed is "not happening", but with his seeming biased and useless replies and non-replies, I think I'll put it out there to the WP community and see if there's a consensus that can agree with one of us.
So my bottom line is: Can I keep / have my photos in the Mountaineering article or is MONGO's word the end (I don't mind if his AND mine stay up - I think photos improve an article, especially one like Mountaineering). Thanks for your time and consideration. Thanks muchly, Brett
P.S. I hope people can wade through the above without ending in tl;dr :-) or just read the opening paragraph and answer Yes (Use the photos, with or without Mongo's) or No (Don't use the photos). BrettA343 (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
