User talk:Oicumayberight/Archive 2

=Explanation for Revert on Skeletal Animation Page= In that particular context, the original author probably meant "large scale" to mean many movements (like say a walk cycle). Not in that there were many characters. In actual fact, crowd simulation is rarely done by individually modeling, texturing, and rigging (adding a skeleton) each of the characters. Read the article on crowd simulation for more details.--David C 04:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

=Trolling accusations=

I'd like to work with you towards a resolution of your disputes over my behavior separately to our debates about the content of any article. Can you clarify for me which parts of WP:TROLL that you think my edits are in breach of? --Davémon 11:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Bad faith: Particularly on the image development (visual arts) article. Your edit history shows signs of a double standard not only in what you challenge, but also in how you contribute to other articles. Up until recently, you were showing an unwillingness to improve the article even after the AfD vote to keep. You've seem to have used every rule in the book against that article. Even your recent efforts to improve the article are centered on removing most of the content. Now that you have spread your efforts to other articles, signs of bad faith have lessened, but still seem to be weighted against my edits. I don't mind talk page discussions as long as the criticism is constructive. I'd be careful on the graphic design page. There's many more people watching that than the image development page. Maybe you should get buy in on the talk page before you delete whole sections and tag every POV statement.


 * You seem to be saying that because I'm highly critical of your article that this means I'm editing in "bad faith" - it's really the article that I have a problem with, and my intentions are to improve wikipedia, not annoy you. And, well, no, I'll continue to be bold with the GD page, and request sources wherever I think they're needed. --Davémon 18:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have a problem with the article, you should state your problem with the article that is unique to that article other than how well it conforms to rules. If it's only the rules you are concerned with, then you should be equally concerned with every article you edit that doesn't meet your level of expectation in conforming with wikipedia rules. Otherwise, your edit history will show the double standard, which appears as bad faith, particularly with the double standard applied on the corporate image article. Why don't you put citation requests on every unsourced statement of the other articles? Oicumayberight 21:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit warring: Particularly WP:POINT and Rejecting community input. I had to get the page locked twice because of it.


 * You must admit that you could be as guilty of "Edit Warring" as I - not being able to attribute statements, and rejecting community input from 3rd Opinioners, and reverting my edits without discussing them first. I'll try to make sure I get you to discuss and agree to any changes to your article in the future. --Davémon 18:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The majority is still on the side of keeping the article. Some have mentioned ways to improve it. You were the only person who originally wanted to delete it. You've convinced a few others that certain statements should be deleted, but you have yet to convince a majority that your level of scrutiny is warranted.  Until you do, you are rejecting community input more than me. You need to give the article time to develop. If the article was as problematic as you are treating it, you wouldn't have had to even request third opinions. Oicumayberight 21:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Misuse of process: "Remember that "policy" on Wikipedia is not a black and white issue." Rules are made to be flexible. Demanding that general references be put in-line and then framing the debate as if in-line references are meant to quote sources is not only unflexible, but manipulative. The references were meant to be interpretations of term usage in context, not quotes. You offered no contrary interpretations of the context. Rules shouldn't be used just for the sake of rules. Try dealing with the accuracy and neutrality of the content before using the rules as a weapon against it.


 * Requesting sources and verifying sources isn't really a case of misuse of process. If I'd asked for your article to be nominated for Featured Article status, then yes, but I'm not really using the processes of Wikipedia to make attacks on you or your article, but rather saying that a lot of the statements seem wrong to me, and that policy is guiding my response to that sense of wrongness. I understand your point about examples of word usage in context and that they aren't references for the actual statements being made - this should be made clear in the article (currently it isn't). --Davémon 18:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is made clear when references are actually checked. If someone checks the references looking for quotes, they may have the same problem you have. If someone checks the references looking for context, they will not have that problem. This is not a science related article. Everyone knows that art, art criticism, and art analysis is subjective. Therefore any references to art (quotes or contextual) will be subjective. Try to find quotes for all the statements in the art or the visual arts article and you will see what I mean. The only reason why your misuse of process isn't obvious is because you haven't tried that level of scrutiny on those more popular articles. I think you are smart enough to know better. Oicumayberight 21:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Pestering: Continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answers. Repeating the same arguments over and over.


 * I'm not exactly sure what what the "obvious or easy-to-find" answers are. I'll try to cut down on the repetitiveness - but again I think you are as easily guilty of that as me.--Davémon 18:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Creative trolling: Moving unfavorable open discussions of the talk page just before requesting random third opinions. Moving relevant discussions from the talk page to personal pages just because they contain personal advice when a simple comment would suffice. Removing discussions off of your own page without archiving.


 * I was requesting third opinions on very specific subjects, not looking for [WP:MEDIATION|mediation] on the whole of the debate so far, and the talk page was getting too long. I think with the article talk page we should really stick to discussing the content of the article, and not make personal comments, or raise disagreements with policy at all, user talk pages and policy pages are really the best place for that. Removing stuff off my talk page, well, yes, I'll admit that was out of frustration. --Davémon 18:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll try to keep the personal advice off of the page as long as you discuss the content. If you are only discussing rules, I have no choice but to question your motive, especially when you don't apply the same rules at the same level elsewhere. Oicumayberight 21:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Be a little more positive: I think you should get out of police mode for awhile. There are plenty of police on the wikipedia. Try adding more content to the articles rather than being quick to delete content. Your icons on the graphic design page were a good addition. Be more inclusive, not exclusive. The reason why I've contributed so much to the image development article was because I wanted to shorten the opening in the graphic design article with the inclusive umbrella term rather than just delete the less significant forms of graphic design. Oicumayberight 20:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll try to be more positive. But, if you'll allow me to try explain, deletion can be a positive thing. If we remove one piece of information which is dubious or unattributable, then the total percentage of verifiable information increases. Just because somebody has written something, doesn't mean we have to keep it - we're all "editors" not "authors". With that in mind, have you thought about putting on the other hat and requesting some attribution on statements in articles that don't seem quite right, then attempting to verify the sources? Following accurate attributions is a great way of learning about subjects. Incidently the opening of Graphic Design should have 'illustration' and 'photography' put back in alongside typography, it's only two words / links and isn't as ambiguous as 'image development' but I'm sure we can debate that over on the GD page! --Davémon 18:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have attempted to verify sources. In the case of the Edward Tufte article, I requested a source and then showed how a source usage was not accurate from the same source. But I only did that after I had a problem with the content. I saw that the statement was not accurate and found it hard to believe that it was published with such popularity. It turned out that it wasn't a statement from the source, but that wasn't enough proof for me to say that the claim was not the opinion of Tufte. The source provider didn't use pages but instead used the 2 whole chapters as the reference for one statement. How's that for a general reference? But instead of demanding a word-for-word quote, I simply showed a word-for-word quote that was contrary to the statement in the article from the same source. If you were to find contrary statements to the statements in the image development article, preferably from the same source, you may be more convincing. It would at least convince me.


 * I understand your point about attribution. I'm sure wikipedia's goal is to have every statement in every article eventually sourced. For now most of the articles are works in progress. As that 15-year old girl pointed out, articles start off mostly POV and eventually grow to be more accurate and sourced. But without the material to research, there's no article to improve on. We are not authors, but we are editors. Editors take liberties including paraphrasing, adding commentary and POV. If it's too much liberty, then rules come in to play. But an article like this isn't even popular enough for that process to occur as quickly as you expect. You have to give it time. Art-related articles do need special consideration. Unlike natural science, you can't conduct art experiments an come up with the same conclusion regardless of when or where you conduct the experiment. There are very few art facts. What is considered true about art is subjective. You are not going to get universal conclusions like a science conclusion no matter how popular the source. And nobody is going to blow up a laboratory because of an art-related inaccuracy, so there is no need for same the level of scrutiny.


 * Let's work with just the accuracy and neutrality content, and then apply rules when we disagree on either. State your real concern with the article content as if it were sourced properly. If you think the term is not popular enough to be an article, I'd say articles on unpopular subjects is what sets wikipedia apart from other online sources. Who is not using it is not the issue. If you think the term should not be used to describe visual arts, until there is an alternate umbrella term with as much popularity, it will be used, with or without a wikipedia article. I've considered merging it into the visual arts article, but visual arts more often refers to fine art. Maybe you should reword some of the statements you feel are inaccurate. If we can't work together to improve it, maybe we both should back off it for several months and see how it develops. Oicumayberight 21:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

=Debate originated in Image Development=

''This discussion has been moved by Davemon from the article talk page and contains information relevant to the article. Oicumayberight 11:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I know you and your invite have a problem with un-sourced WP:POV. Wikipedia is a little more than free cataloging of other people's printed POV. If un-sourced (or under sourced) POV were not allowed, wikipedia wouldn't have enough volunteer participation to compete with a commercial resource. I know that this isn't a wikipedia "rule" so to speak, but the essay states "At Wikipedia, points of view (POV) are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects. The article should represent the POV of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue. The policy does not mean that all the POV of all the Wikipedia editors have to be represented." Oicumayberight 09:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My Invite? A random WP:3O, who kindly took up the challenge. POV? No, the problem was that you attributed sources to statements that didn't match. --Davémon 11:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't play games here. Do you want to fix this or not? The sources don't stand up to your framing of the debate. Your arguments imply that the sources match the statements. There is a difference between matching and supporting. Sure, you have to understand how the term was used in context to see . Nobody is going to write a book about a term that is understood when used in context. There is no rule against using words defined by context as a source on wikipedia. If words were not defined by context, the author would have to include every term used in every book with a glossary or define them before they were used. Oicumayberight 19:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Or in other words "you have to synthesise the published materials in the same way I have to draw the same conclusions". --Davémon 09:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A collection of information is not synthesis unless it's equated to new information. The meaning of image development is not new. If it were new it would be meaningless in those publications. Oicumayberight 11:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the meaning is given by the context - there is no "phrase" 'image development' - just two commonly used words. They don't have an


 * Eventually articles become better sourced, deleted or merged over time. An article such as this hasn't even been around long enough to see if there are better sources out there. If a statement is harmful, it may be deleted sooner. But there is no reason to delete un-sourced or under sourced statements if they are not controversial.


 * Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor - says nothing about "harmful", or "if not controversial". --Davémon 11:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, don't play games. There is no reason to remove them, even if under sourced unless they are controversial or harmful. Most articles on the wikipedia are work in progress. The only thing you are showing here is that you are not willing to work with people. You are just playing the easy roll of an overly-skeptical critic if you don't work with people. Oicumayberight 19:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * More ad-hominem arguments and person attacks. Brilliant. --Davémon 09:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Note the difference between unsourced material and original research: Un-sourced material is material not yet attributed to a reliable source. Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source. Time will tell if it cannot be sourced. I'll admit, my sources require some interpreting, which do not stand up to scrutiny from casual observers based on short sections of the sources or those expecting word-for-word quotations, and definitely not hidden agendas to suppress the informations, not that it's your goal. But if the article were inaccurate, there would be more people attacking it than defending it. Oicumayberight 09:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but "time will tell if it cannot be sourced". I originally asked for sources on 17 January 2007. Nearly 2 months have passed and no actual sources for any of the opinions have been found. Seriously, how much time do you estimate it will need? Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, otherwise there would be articles about the alien invasion of 2237, and the widespead use of the term "mind-jacking". Surely if this term were as obviously used today in the manner you assume, it would have been a simple task to find citations. That you recognise your sources require interpretation is a positive sign - because the interpretations being provided have not been published elsewhere by reliable sources means that anyone reading the article has to take your word for it. As for more people attacking than defending? Wikipedia isn't a democracy, it's not about counting votes - besides, I imagine most people simply don't care about the article one way or the other. --Davémon 11:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it is more democratic than you give it credit as shown by your AfD. You can either work to improve the article or you can tear it down. It's easier to tear things down than to build them, but it's not admirable to do so just for the sake of tearing things down. There are hundreds of wikipedia articles that last much longer without sources, perhaps because more people have the common sense to know that no sources is not enough of a reason to remove it unless it's harmful. The article had sources in the 2 months. Just because they didn't meet your level of expectation, doesn't mean they were not sources. A source is a source, accurate or not. Besides, I will reword some of the statements to match sources a little closer. If you were editing in good faith, you would help contribute to the rewording, not just scrutinize. Oicumayberight 19:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your idea of "common sense" isn't enough of a reason to keep your unpublished synthesis of published sources. --Davémon 09:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't understand the difference between synthesis and a collection of information. Oicumayberight 11:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's fix this with service-oriented (not legalistic) concern. Art is not science. Subject to interpretation is the nature of art. So there is no need to be as legalistic with it. This is obvious with most art-related wikipedia articles. If the rules were perfect, there wouldn't be so many rules or imperfect articles. I'm willing to remove statements that are harmful or controversial for that reason, not just because they are under-sourced.  Oicumayberight 09:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Legalism vs. service is a false dichotomy. Legalities are there to ensure the service being provided is of a high enough standard, and to support the implementation of those standards. This Wiki is an Encyclopedia, not a work of Art nor Science, and the criteria for inclusion of materials is well established - you might not agree with those criteria, but they are essential in providing a reliable encyclopedia. Subject to being attributable to a reliable source is the nature of encyclopedic content. We're not here to test the rules, or reinvent Wikipedia as WikiBooks, but to ensure the quality of the content within the Encyclopedia. --Davémon 11:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If we are not here to test the rules, I suggest you stop testing them. Legalism vs. service means legalities are to support the service, not the service to support legalism. Not everything ethical is legal; and lord knows not everything legal is ethical. If you want to improve this article, change your tone. If the article or statement in the article is not accurate or accurately sourced, try a little constructive criticism, rather than destructive AfD nomination and deletion of statements. Oicumayberight 19:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And you could try not launching personal attacks and making ad-hominem arguments, and keeping talk page discussions to improving the article, not vague theories about art, science and legal ethics. If you really wanted to help improve the article, you'd let other editors make the edits they thought would improve it, instead of starting edit wars with them then calling for blocks. --Davémon 09:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your idea of improving was WP:POINT. And please stop moving logical discussions off of the article talk page when they don't go your way. If you are going to play games on the article talk page, I'm going to point out the game you are playing. You make yourself the issue and not the article. If you don't want that, then stop playing troll games. Oicumayberight 11:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My idea of improving is removing WP:OR and ensuring the references are WP:CITE. I'm not sure what WP:POINT you think was being made, perhaps if you could clarify that it could help us resolve this dispute. --Davémon 11:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Photoshopping
It's pretty clear now that we have a consensus to redirect this article to either Adobe Photoshop or Image editing] or [[Photo manipulation, but some aggressively "funnypeekture" kiddies keep returning it to the dumb neologism article. I would appreciate it if you could return again to help redirect it. 216.165.158.7 06:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no such clarity of consensus on the talk page of the article in question. Why are you so reluctant to discuss it there?  Why reaching out to other editors for support this way?  Isn't there a rule against that? Dicklyon 04:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC) (apparently one of the aggressively "funnypeekture" kiddies)
 * I'm assuming that this is in reply to the anonymous 216.165.158.7 and not me, since I've made all my discussions on that talk page. Oicumayberight 17:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That is correct. Sorry to mess up your talk page with this dispute. Feel free to clean it up. Dicklyon 19:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

talk:Business process reengineering
Replied to your comment regarding the diagram. Cheers! Kai A. Simon 20:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Template for 3D computer graphics
Thanks for the notification. I hadn't seen it in the other article. I don't think that in itself is a problem, but will wait to see what it is replaced with. I was very impressed when that came through featured pictures, one of the most realistic and complex scenes I've seen. |→ Spaully₪† 21:06, 5 May 2007 (GMT)

Help needed with SEO article
I am leaving this message because I've nominated search engine optimization for featured article status, and you helped edit this article. Could you possibly look at the references on the article and then leave your comments at Featured article candidates/Search engine optimization as to whether you think the blogs and forums cited as references qualify as reliable sources. In order to achieve featured article status we need community consensus that the references are reliable. If you know any other Wikipedians who have expertise in this area, we welcome their comments. Thank you! Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 17:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg
Hello Oicumayberight, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg) was found at the following location: User talk:Oicumayberight. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)