I enjoy reading your commentsEdit
- Or a Pastor too --The Photographer 14:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
It is sad that you miss the difference between projects like DMOZ and Commons. In short, DMOZ is about the Web, whereas Commons is about images uploaded to Commons.
World Wide Web is decentralized. The unit of classification in DMOZ is one site (usually http://some domain example/). The unit of consumption is one page. It would be pointless for any directory service to aspire to track pages due to the way WWW is arranged; even for purposes other than directories the rate of link rot is awful. And a directory of sites is too coarse to be really useful for finding pages.
- I do appreciate they are not the same. All analogies are imperfect: the key is to appreciate the point of the analogy rather than pick holes in it. There are reasons DMOZ failed (compared to just using Google) similar to the reasons Commons category system is junk. Sure, we don't get link-rot, but we also have a lot of content that really isn't worth finding. It is just too much hard work and most of the effort seems to be involved in making images harder to find. Many images on Commons are awful and deeply nested categories makes wading through that awfulness a dispiriting experience. I do appreciate that some people like doing pointless tasks as a hobby, but once those pointless tasks start fights and arguments (which is where this discussion started), one really must question why on earth one does it. -- Colin (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry we have a disagreement over the PumpkinSky situation, and I'd like to offer a small truce. I apologize about hatting your boldface headings; I guess Commons doesn't have the same rules on "incivility" that en.wiki does, so please know my intent was merely to tame down the situation; I was involved in the Grace Sherwood issue and the subsequent CCI, which was being mischaracterized here. I had forgotten about the mentoring thing until you reminded me -- back in 2012, the issue I was addressing was a concern about close paraphrasing and I was reviewing his work for that, which I did for several months... and the truth is that PumpkinSky didn't edit on en.wiki much after that from about 2013 until maybe last summer or thereabouts (probably got a little more active on en.wiki about the time he started putting forward the featured picture candidates here). So, I really wish you'd strike that "you failed" comment at the discussion. I was mentoring his writing, I wasn't his babysitter. If he is socking now, well, he's a grownup and I have no dog in that fight. Plus, I like your ravens and you gave me good feedback on some of my photos. Montanabw (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Montanabw thanks for the apology. And I apologise for the "failed" comment on your mentorship. I had conflated the sockpuppeting misbehaviour with the ignorance of plagiarism failings, and if you were only mentoring his writing, that's unfair of me. I'll fix that shortly. As I noted, I find it strange both you and Olive Oil offer entirely defensive comments at the VP and remain silent on the cheating. As such, your comments had a polarising effect, rather than drawing us towards mutual understanding. And I simply don't agree that his creation of PumpkinSky was a declared alternative account of Rlevse (though the declaration was later added as part of his unblock). I mentioned I was active on Wikipedia then. I knew Sandy Georgia, Graham and Awadewit at Featured Articles and was very aware how hurt everyone was when he started the "Wehwalt for FA director" campaign and was discovered to be Rlevse pretending to be a newbie. Also thought his attacks on Bencherlite were terrible. It is during this phase that the HalfGig account was created, and I suspect was done as a means to continue to participate at FAC without the toxic reputation that PumpkinSky had developed.
- You know, it wasn't easy with that history to be civil to PumpkinSky at FPC. But I offered him advice and help as I have to many others, and as I have received myself. I'm a critical reviewer and not afraid to oppose. I could see him improving and he made an effort to get out and photograph regularly, and also to invest in some rather expensive equipment. So like every one else at FP I am hurt to discover he's been cheating since August last year. Some of his review comments I read on Sunday, as I fixed the >90 nominations, were painful to read. I can't get my head round how someone can decide to deceive and spin lies to one's wiki colleagues in order to gain a couple more gold stars.
- We clearly have different experiences of Rlevse/PumpkinSky on Wikipedia. I don't know why he did a RTV after Grace Sherwood. It seems an over reaction and would have been entirely possible to come back with a declared account. But he chose to pretend to be a newbie and return to the same areas of conflict. I think sockpuppetry is one of the worst things you can do on a wiki. It's like having an affair. You deceive your friends for selfish reasons. You might think this was a "gray area" wrt policy, but I don't see it as grey morally. Unless there are privacy or personal safety issues, I don't think there is any excuse for deception. So my views on this are why I would like to keep the "Consistently deceiving the community since 2011" text. There are some people on Commons who think Featured Pictures is a side show and so perhaps they think if someone cheats there it is no big deal. Already we see some questioning the indef block or saying he's welcome back. From my point of view, I think therefore it is important to highlight that Rlevse/PumkinSky/HalfGig has been dishonest with us all for many years.
- I would be happy to "agree to disagree" with you on this matter. Thanks for your comment about the ravens. They are a most unexpected success, and let's be honest, just pure luck. See you around. -- Colin (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
|Hello, Colin. Check your email—you've got mail!
The image File:Super moon over City of London from Tate Modern 2018-01-31 4.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Super moon over City of London from Tate Modern 2018-01-31 4.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.
- User:Juliancolton, it was your comment and action here. Very similar misjudgement by a 'crat wrt INC led to this ability being removed from all 'crats. I think Rlevse's adminship was gained on very slim grounds (7 votes and hardly any participation at the time), his retiral on WP was due to self-admitted copyright ignorance, which was what his adminship on Commons was claimed to be about. And rather than return as Rlevse he chose to deceive the community and pretend to be a newbie in order to remove the baggage his old account had accumulated. Same as with INC/Daphne. The comment that there was no "local controversy" is I think a wrongthinking attitude by some on Commons, that somehow we should put blinkers on and only consider a person's behaviour on Commons rather than on the Wikimedia projects. -- Colin (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oh... in that case, I don't necessarily disagree with you. That was quite a few years ago and my views have surely evolved a bit regarding adminship since then. I'd completely forgotten I had anything to do with it, to be completely honest. Thank you for explaining and I regret to see that my confidence was misplaced. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
The image File:Super moon over City of London from Tate Modern 2018-01-31 6.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Super moon over City of London from Tate Modern 2018-01-31 6.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.