User talk:Regozcan

Gus Poyet Image
Hi, Great image you just loaded on Gus Poyet Page. Don't want to be seen as a killjoy but I can see a obvious problem though as it is not a sole portrait of Poyet but includes a second individual featuring if anything with a slightly more central position which for those not knowing Poyet might be easily confused and will no doubt fall foul of one or more WP policies. I could have just reverted but thought I should at least give you first a chance to review this and see if you can come up with a solution. :-) Tmol42 (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)G

-

''Hi Tmol42

Thank you for the heads up. Not sure how to respond to you so am editing your message to me. I have amended the photo to make it clear which one of us is Gus. I also explain which one of us is Gus in the comments if people click on the photo. I hope this does the trick.

Thanks Reg'' regozcan

-

Hi Reg

I think the purists would probably call for a more drastic edit as they don't like captions or 'posed' photos. I am guessing here that you are the other in the photo so it might be a bit too painful to do this but I have seen photos cropped to somewhat crudely I admit eliminate / slice through other people to make it clear who is who. I'll leave up to you to investigate and take any action as you see fit. You may want to have a look around for any Policy / guidance on the Images or Persons etc sections of Help in WP. There is a Manual of Style for Player Pages so a source of advice could be sought from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Players,

Good luck Tmol42 (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gus Poyet 2.JPG
Hi how did you come to hold the copyright on this pic?Genisock2 (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

- Hi Genisock, - I own the copyright because it is my photo. My wife took it. - Why do you ask? - Reg regozcan

-


 * tnakyou for letting me know.Genisock2 (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Gustavo Poyet
Please read Image before reverting my edit again. It gives an example of "Gloria Steinem looks best as a portrait photograph of herself alone, and not with other individuals.", so in this case Gustavo Poyet looks best as a portrait photograph of herself alone and not with others. Thanks. Jack ?! 15:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

-

I disagree Jack. The cropped photo looks amateurish. It clearly looks like a cropped fragment of a photo. The photo in the example you have given looks fine as it doesn't look like an amateurish cropped photo. I have therefore reverted to the original which looks much better. Thanks, Reg regozcan

-


 * In your opinion, yes, but by Wikipedia rules, no. Read the talk page, all 3 topics are to do with who is the guy with Gus? Please stop reverting, it's obvious you just want to be in the picture with Gus. If you are unhappy with this, please discuss with an admin or remove the picture entirely. Jack ?! 17:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

-

Jack, if you take a look at the IP address of the last two comments made on the talk page, you will see that they were made by the same person. The person that made them is a friend of mine and was simply trying to have a bit of fun.

The first comment was made by someone who was making the point that it would be better to have a proper mouse-over caption, rather than an arrow clarifying who Gus was. That has now been done by another user.

I repeat that the edited photo looks very crudely cropped, completely amateurish and is unencyclopedic. I have therefore reverted to the original.

Thank you Reg regozcan

-


 * Whatever, have your little wiki-fame. Jack ?! 16:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Gustavo Poyet
Hi You appear to be engaged in an edit war with another editor over the image on the page. Both you and the other editor have reverted each others edits for several days. Neither of you appear to have attempted to discuss your views on the matter on the Talk page which is the correct approach. By chance I am familiar with the history of this and can understand where both of you are coming from and would therefore strongly urge you to use the talk Page to calmly put your points of view across and allow others to contribute so consensus can be reached.

 Please take note if one or other or both of you repeat your editing again I will report either of both of you for edit warring and 3RR violations which would likely result in blocking. So please stop your inappropriate style of editing which is disrespectful to other editors as neither of you have' the right to try and restrict the content of this page to reflect your point of view. I have also posted this same message on the other editors Talk Page Tmol42 (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

-

Hi Tmol42

Thank you for your comment. Point taken. As you will see from my previous edits, I have always engaged in dialogue before making any changes. However on this occasion I didn't because the other user simply removed the photo without making any comment (or at least any that I am aware of).

My view is that it is better to have a photo than not have one. Therefore until someone submits a 'better' photo, I think the photo I uploaded should remain. I am, of course, happy to listen to the views of others and to be guided by the consensus. regozcan  —Preceding comment was added at 09:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR Violation - Gus Poyet
Hi Regozcan, Despite requesting that you seek to resolve your difference of opinion regarding the image of Gus Poyet via the talk page both you and User:86.162.69.29 have continued your edit warring. Far from trying to seek consensus both of you have just further inflamed the situation by your comments and have continued to revert each others edits on the article at least 8 times in the last 24 hours. Clearly despite my hope neither of you are capable in conducting an intelligent conversation. This is a final warning that any further edits will result in a report for 3RR Violation which I would expect to result in Edit Block being applied. A similar message will appear on the other editors Talk Page. I will meantime report to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football and see if someone there can provide some clarity as to the best way forward in this truly petty dispute.Tmol42 (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)