Talk:Wedding Cake Rock

Another fall
Almost added this, but the level of injuries seems to be reducing, hence wp:RECENTISM:
 * In November 2015 two men fell from the rock, one suffering spinal injuries.

Originally "severe..." it's now "suspected spinal injuries". 220  of  Borg 09:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Images
The original images used, File:Wedding Cake Rock, December 2014.JPG and File:Wedding Cake Rock + View of the Cliffs, December 2014.JPG, give the reader a comprehensive view of the subject. It, in all, supports many of the things discussed in the article - it's appearance, geological elements, and even its popularity as hinted at with people sitting on the rock. Granted, I only have images with people on it, because on the day I took the photos, I didn't have any other shots without people. sought to remove both photos and replace it with one - a crop of the photo that only shows a part of the structure. He claims it to be offensive, citing WP:OV, that people are shown sitting on the rock, simply because public interaction with the rock has been suspended as of 2015. How this could be construed as "offensive" is beyond me.

WP:OV is most certainly not referring to this kind of material, and instead refers to much, much, much more sensitive material. Case in point, if most of the images on Antisemitism can be protected by guidelines such as WP:OV, surely people sitting on a rock can pass too. It says in the lead of the guideline that it concerns "material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers". An average Wikipedia reader would most likely not be offended by people sitting on a rock. It also says that such material should not be removed "if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." That's almost certainly the case here. These shots were used to give the reader a good idea of what the rock is, and an adjacent view across to the White cliffs to allow the reader to better discern its geological context. I guess what I'm trying to say here is, WP:OV is not applicable here because the images do not depict anything that would be considered offensive by average readers. Images of sexual positions, corpses, and Ku Klux Klan flyers, maybe. Images of people sitting on rocks? Nah. Philip Terry Graham 05:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Images with people standing on the edge of cliff where the sandstone is unsound and at least one person has died while trying to take photos. I don't see how showing a photo with your friends there is adding any encyclopedic value to this article. Wedding cake rock is famous for its white geometric sandstone (as per the cropped photo). While I agree it is now also famous for dangerous behaviour. This doesn't mean showing dangerous behaviour is adding any encyclopedic value to this article.CamV8 (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You've chosen to ignore my point that you do indeed remove a lot of encyclopedic value. I've already explained that the adjacent view of the White cliffs add an important geologic context to Wedding Cake Rock, as described within the article itself as part of running series of limestone formations along the Bundeena coast. The broader view of the rock is much more informative than its cropped version, which only shows a part of the rock that sticks out. There's hardly anything to convey from the crop other than a basic profile. There's no sense of scale or size, nor anything to convey its whereabouts other than its close to the sea. With both the images, you have humans for scale to resolve that first issue, and broader views to tell the viewer that its a large outcrop, rather than just a simple rock that sticks out over an ocean. This, in turn, leads to another point - the image also communicates to the viewer that it is (or at least was) an interactive landmark; people could walk up to it and sit on it, ect. It was only two years ago that it was barred off, after all. Other than that, people have been interacting with it for a century or so. While it's definitely not the most important thing the images convey, it is definitely a valuable part of the images that also gets lost with the removal of an entire image and the crop of another. The encyclopedic value of the images are there, and the information I've laid bare in this paragraph alone can all be understood from looking at the images. This is how I've been taught to compose encyclopedic images - to collect as much information as you can in one frame. In this case, as a previously mentioned, its appearance, size and scale, geological context, and its popularity and interactivity. Only its appearance can be made out from the single cropped image. Hopefully you see it more than just a "a photo with [my] friends".


 * In addition, it seems you don't know a lot about the subject itself. A little bit of research would've given you the insight that the southern face of the rock, the face on which the people are sitting on in the images, has a landing only a meter down. You should've also understood from the sources cited in the article that the person who died wasn't on the rock, rather on a more dangerous outcropping immediately south of the rock that was not part of the Royal National Park Coast Trail. It isn't "dangerous" to sit or stand on the rock. As I've said, people have been doing it for over a century. What is dangerous, and what prompted the NSWPWS to initially close off the landmark, was a spike of actually dangerous activities, such as people hanging over the rock's baseless edges, or backflipping, or any of the other kinds of stunts that have been documented by people on sites such as Instagram during its 2014-15 spike in popularity. This is sourced in the article itself. The people in the images I took and used for Wikipedia are doing none of the aforementioned things, so the image isn't depicting anything near as dangerous on the level that the article describes and cites. Might want to stop putting words into my mouth and assuming bad faith in that I was trying to depict "dangerous behaviour" as an illustration of it being "famous for dangerous behaviour". Not only should you re-study WP:OV, you should also read WP:GF. I never said I wanted to depict dangerous behaviour; you can't just assume motives, especially bad ones, about people unless explicitly stated. Your only argument is tied with an obsession with the people in the image, when you should be looking at the broader pictures, both and figuratively and literally speaking. The people in the photo are not doing anything that has been discouraged by the NSWPWS, nor are they the only element of the photo, and nor is it a sound rationale to remove most of the encyclopedic value of the article's images by removing one and cropping another. Philip Terry Graham 04:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, As mentioned earlier. Offensive material I have copied the opening paragraph. Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that may offend. Wikipedia is not censored. However, offensive words and offensive images should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. The images of people hanging over a cliff edge at a location renown for the dangers this behaviour. (cited in the article with a fatality at this location.) The alternative cropped image is a suitable alternative without the "dangerous behaviour". WP:OM. I have removed this content as it is in breach of this WP policy.


 * You have basically restated your original argument, so I'll restate mine. This isn't offensive material. It does not show dangerous behaviour, but instead shows the normal practice of vistors interacting with Wedding Cake Rock. The images are encyclopedia as it shows the the full area of the landmark, its geological context, and how visitors interact with the rock. There's more to the images than just people on a rock. Your crop of one of the images removed much encyclopedic value to the article. Please stop removing content that you don't personally like behind the guise of a policy that doesn't apply to this situation and please reach a consensus before making controversial changes. Reach out to people at certain WikiProjects, if you'd like. Edit warring is not productive. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · [//xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/?username=PhilipTerryGraham&project=en.wikipedia.org count]) 04:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

How about changing the image to one of the more recent shots in wiki commons. Photos of people in a now restricted area is not responsible. This may also encourage people to take similar photos, or give the average reader an expectation that this behaviour is safe. It is clearly an extreme risk to approach the cliff edge. Note dead people at base of cliff. see article. There are other more recent good examples of photos of this spectacular location available in wiki commons that don't have this problem. CamV8 (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You bring up some good examples, and there are more where they came from in the Wikimedia Commons category, but none of the other photographs on Commons I feel are framed as well, or don't show as much as the photographs currently being used. For one, they don't show the entire structure (the closest one to showing the entire structure is both poorly framed and watermarked), and they don't seem to show the cliffs adjacent very well within the photographic context of Wedding Cake Rock. For clarity, these are the cliffs I'm talking about, also photographed by me. With the photographs in this category, either the edge of the image cuts off the cliffs next to it, such as your first two examples, or the context is poor, such as your third example that is shot way too close into the edge of Wedding Cake Rock. This panoramic is actually the best example, though the saturation and colour in general is poor and would mislead readers into believing it's a true colour photograph. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · [//xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/?username=PhilipTerryGraham&project=en.wikipedia.org count]) 20:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I find it a little perplexing that my comments were deleted, after being accused of not discussing the issues. Let me summarise my comments. I apologise for putting words in your mouth. Your photos have people in them. People are no longer allowed in this area due to safety concerns. It is illegal (yes, breaking the law) to be in this area. I understand your photos were taken before this was banned. The average readers expectations may not be consistent with the images. 'Perhaps in good faith you could remove these images until this is resolved.' Regards CamV8 (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Anyone treating Wikipedia as a hiking guide is doing so at their own peril. Add a note to the photos' captions ("note this area is off limits since...") and get it over with. François Robere (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Your edit to this talk page was reverted because you rendered the talk page mostly unreadable with a mass of copy+pasted paragraphs which made it hard for a third party to distinguish between your comments and my comments. It also didn’t help that you left my signatures on them. If you need help on talk pages and how to format your arguments, there’s notes at Wikipedia’s talk pages and talk page guidelines pages. Once again, you’re restating one of your arguments, and I’ll restate my rebuttal to that argument, for what is now the third time; these pictures uniquely depict how visitors interacted with Wedding Cake Rock. For the second time I’ll reiterate that these pictures are the best framed out of those available on Wikimedia Commons to give the reader a clear view of the entire structure and it’s geological context with a clear frame of reference (the majority of the rock structure visible in the shot in the foreground). – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · [//xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/?username=PhilipTerryGraham&project=en.wikipedia.org count]) 00:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you feedback it's good to see you have been able to change the description in the photos. Just one small thing. Since when was the landmark closed? The park is open the track is open, you can still take photos of the cliff top from behind the fence. Making a statement that the landmark is closed is misleading to the average reader. 'Perhaps using one of the other excellent photos available in wiki commons would correct this.' I see François has suggested the photos need to be qualified as some people may be mislead. Also there are other improvements required to correct some factual errors on this page eg. the Limestone cliffs, just because it was published in the Sun Herald doesn't mean it is correct. I would change it myself but I would risk another revert. Try looking up the Nation Parks web page about this area. Its pretty clear on that page. BTW it even mentions the cliff is in danger of collapse. Maybe the Sun Herald is a better source. CamV8 (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It's cited numerous times in the prose that the landmark is closed. The entire "Closure and aftermath" section talks about this; there have been fences at the rock preventing people from interacting with it. You have twice reverted edits that made made use of another image to illustrate the rock's closure using the rock's erosion damage as context to its closure, with a descriptive image caption, even though this goes back on your wish for an image caption that explicitly states that the landmark is closed and off limits. Your edits also removed the first image's caption that stated "...prior to the landmark’s closure to the public." I'm also bewildered at the fact that in one sentence you say The Sun-Herald is not a reliable source, but two sentences later suggest that it is. Nonetheless, your recent edits had nothing to do with captions or sources, but went straight back to the two lead images. We had already lined out here, with a third opinion from, that there is no problem with depicting people in the photograph, and that WP:OM does not apply here. I've already personally outlined a need to have photographs that are well-framed with natural colour and contrast to depict the landmark with complete accuracy and to illustrate as much of the monolithic structure as possible without losing detail. I've already personally outlined that none of the photographs in the Wedding Cake Rock achieve these, as they're either too close in, framed poorly, or have poor colour and/or contrast. You also insisted on including an image that is watermarked, which is clearly against image use policy on Wikipedia; something I had made note of in of your bold edit. As aforementioned, the inclusion of a cropped and enhanced version of this image I used to explicitly illustrate the rock's closure, as you wanted it to be specifically noted, was reverted by you with no explanation other than "" in your edit summary. The images I took had the added bonus of illustrating to the reader how interactive the landmark was, in addition to depicting as much of the rock as possible from a human standpoint in detail with natural colour and contrast, which I had also made clear previously on this talk page along with everything else I've said so far in my recap. Honestly, I'd think most editors would value images that add more encyclopedic value than ones that violate the image use policy.

If you want to further discuss, feel free to do so here on this talk page. But keep in mind that edit warring is not welcome. You made a bold edit and it was reverted, and you should keep the status quo and discuss it here. I stated in my previous edit summary that it would be time to refer you to administrator if you continued what is now a year-and-a-half long campaign of disruptive editing, but I'm willing to give you one more chance. I'm going to once again seek a third opinion on this issue, on the topic of which arrangement of images would be best for the article. If you make another blanket revert and continue edit warring as you did in the past day and over the past year-and-a-half, then I will have to go to an administrator. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 23:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Please don't wait for another edit. I welcome a review from wikipedia administrators. Clearly there is an issue here that needs to be resolved. I also welcome a review of all my editing in wikipedia. I am not a rogue editor. I am a man with a view to present facts in ways that improves knowledge. Your insistence to use your own photos here is not achieving all the objectives wikipedia is here to deliver. Status quo doesn't improve anything. CamV8 (talk) 09:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with wanting to use the photographs I believe would best illustrate the article, regardless of who took them? Your vague statement that they don't "[achieve] all the objectives wikipedia is here to deliver" doesn't make any case for the images you want to be put up in the article, one of which violates the image use policy. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 09:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi PhilipTerryGraham, just to be clear, this isn't a problem with the quality of the photography or the photographer, this is a content of the photo problem. Your photos show people sitting on the edge of a cliff, my suggested replacement images don't. There are several alternate images available in wiki commons (where I found the other photos) that don't show people is this potentially dangerous position. Since your photos were taken, NSW Police and NSW National Parks also think this behaviour is not in the interest of the public or they wouldn't have fenced the site and imposed fines for exactly what is depicted in your photos. May I suggest an edited version of one of your photos without people (as I suggested earlier). Problem solved. If you don't agree I will support an official review from administrators and respect there decision. Good evening.CamV8 (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Once again... both François Robere and I have made it clear that the people in the photograph aren't a problem, and don't qualify as offensive material. They depict how visitors interacted with Wedding Cake Rock prior to its closure to the public. Wedding Cake Rock's history spans way, way before 2015. The edited version of the photo unnecessarily cuts off a majority of the landmark, decreasing its encyclopedic value. When the original version of the photo that has more encyclopedic value is completely fine, there's no need for an edited version with less value. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 12:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment this discussion was listed at Third opinion but User:François Robere has already given definitive guidance. If you wish broader opinion, you may consult Requests for comment. I would also caution editors that edit-warring and other disruptive editing may be pursued at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring which can lead to an account block. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input; I didn't realise there was a one-use limit on third opinions. I'll take your advice and attempt to start an RfC should my next attempt at a compromise fail and another edit war ensues again. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 23:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I felt there was enough overlap in the dispute from the last third-opinion request. Asking again would really be a fourth opinion, and if a third opinion didn't help resolve the issue then a fourth is also unlikely to do so.  Thus it's generally better to go to other dispute resolution processes like an RfC.  Third opinions are intended to be quick, while an RfC may take a month to run its course.  If it was a totally new dispute at the same article, then it'd be okay to request a third opinion on that different subject (in a new talk page section). – Reidgreg (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * After playing around in GIMP for an hour or so I managed to make File:Royal National Park Coast Track - panoramio (6).jpg, one of the images you insisted on using, to have lifelike quality. I dialed down the brightness, contrast, and saturation and played around with exposure and lighting to get this result: File:Wedding Cake Rock panorama, September 2013.jpg, which I believe can now adequately replace File:Wedding Cake Rock and the White Cliffs, December 2014.jpg. Since the lead image (File:Travellers at Wedding Cake Rock, December 2014.jpg) already adequately illustrates how visitors interacted with the rock, a second image of such wouldn't be needed now that there's an adequate panoramic to replace it. I hope this makes you somewhat happy and finally serves as a satisfactory compromise for us so we can finally put this to bed. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 23:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your image editing, good job, this image looks great. Leaving the lead image in the article is not a compromise and not showing good faith. Your inability to appreciate the problem here and by continuing to present your unedited photos with people sitting on the edge of a cliff, in this article is not welcome. The solution is easy. Remove the photo with people. If you think my request is unreasonable perhaps asking wikipedia administrators for assistance and guidance will resolve this. As I said before I will respect their call on this. Good evening.CamV8 (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)