The colorized Wright Flyer image is really nice, thanks for sharing an interesting work of art. It makes the scene real and communicates well to the viewer. It should stay on both articles, but not as lead image (that's stretching the concept of using colorizations a bit too much). Good work! Randy Kryn (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
THANKS Randy. This is the greatest award I have received in my entire life.
If I were to win the lottery, on my death bed I will think of this. Not a care at all about material things which have slipped through my fingers. --Wright Stuf (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well deserved and accurate. Can't think of any other black and white photo which, if finely colored, would give such an interesting and "you are there" presentation of a major historical event. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have something to give to you, Randy. Knowing the historical significance of this photo, I wanted to document how the restoration was accomplished. The fun way to do that was to turn it into a music video. I didn't want to clutter the visuals, so text narration is packaged in the subtitles .srt file:
If you like it and want to keep it accessible, please save as a dnld. This link will only be temporarily accessible.
Only the b&w steps are shown. I don't show any of the colorization steps. That part was straightforward and did not do anything irreversible, unlike the b&w part. --Wright Stuf (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Watched, and enjoyed the close ups and the filmed portions. Were those two dark rocks near the bottom that were edited out or anomalies in the photo? A couple of years ago I saw many of the Wright Brothers sites in Dayton, Ohio, and liked how they or someone cut up the Wright Flyer's fabric to serve as museum pieces and mementos (one piece went to the Moon with Neil Armstrong). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes. If those were rocks down there, then I totally botched the restoration. And that was the main purpose of the video, to make sure I didn't do anything improper, according to the standards of professional archivists. I am certain that those black spots are irretrievable damage done to the original image. I don't see any reason why anyone would purposely edit those out, but yes, a possibility.
I brought my own family to tour the Dayton sites, try our hand at flying their Wright Flyer simulator, peruse the Air Force Museum and such. Two other vacations complete the Wright Brothers experience: Kitty Hawk, of course. And Dearborn, Michigan of all places. Nothing like being there in person. To do that color restoration, I've touched the sand myself and returned with loads of color photos. It takes more than a century for the color of sand to noticeably change. While at the original bicycle shop outside Detroit, the man working there had been there many years. I doubt he gets asked this often, but I thought it would make for good conversation to ask if he'd seen any ghosts. He said yes. He then went into stories of sounds he would hear when he was there working alone. Wow.
There are other curiosities about the event which surround the First Flight. Like how their first attempt happened on the 121st anniversary of the Montgolfier Brothers' first balloon test flight. And how the guy who clicked the shutter of this iconic photo, John Daniels, died the day after Orville died. Orv & Will aren't even the only famous 'Wright Brothers' from Ohio. But no one thinks of these other two when you say Wright Brothers. These two sets of brothers were even contemporaries, with decades of their lives overlapping, doing their famous things just 50 miles apart from each other. Curious.
In my own conversations with Neil Armstrong, I never talked to him about the Wright Brothers. But I did check to see whether he was open to recognizing deeper meaning behind curious coincidences. He gave the response you would expect from any good scientist. Nothing more than random chance. --Wright Stuf (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Randy, in case you prefer a more vintage look, I added the border back onto the colorized image:
This has several detail refinements which I also updated in the borderless version. Ok, I probably should sit on my hands now, before I go too far like a middle aged model addicted to plastic surgery procedures. --Wright Stuf (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good travel and interview stories above. Didn't know about the 121st anniversary connection, a nice coincidence. Glad you got to talk to Armstrong, a great way to square the circle of the Wrights. I spoke with him once for just seconds, but did make that contact (Aldrin a bit more, and attended one of his book-signing talks). Nice work on the border-image. Noticed in the page history that you haven't edited the template {{Wright aircraft}}, so please take a look at it to see if you can spot any improvements or missing pieces. I've had some pretty good edit runs on that one (template construction one of my "things" on Wikipedia). Curious, who are the two other Ohio Wright brothers, they don't show up at the disamb. page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how much interest you'll have in the rest I have to offer. Short answer: Harry & George. Now I'll recommend you buckle up if you want my long answer...
The Cincinnati Reds, Boston Red Sox and Atlanta Braves have a unique claim. All three clubs can trace roots which go back to the very first professional baseball team, the Cincinnati Red Stockings. The founder of this team was Harry Wright, and also starred his younger brother George. A strong argument can be made that the Baseball Hall of Fame needs to be uprooted from Cooperstown and moved to Cincinnati as its rightful home. Cooperstown was based on A LIE.
So Orv & Wil were the second set of Ohio Wright Brothers, doing their thing 50 miles north of the first set of Ohio Wright Brothers, Harry & George. Totally eclipsed to the point where no one today remembers them. This is not where the curious coincidences end. Younger brother George had a lifespan 30 years longer than Harry. Younger brother Orv, 31 years longer than Wil. Comparing dates of birth & death of both younger brothers, George's are offset from Orville's by a pair of days, Jan 28/30 & Aug 21/19. The first World Series was held a pair of months offset from the First Flight, Oct/Dec 1903. The Red Stockings had left Cincinnati in 1870 with Harry re-establishing the team in Boston, and bringing George with him to form the Boston Red Stockings. Who played in this 1st WS 33 years later? Boston vs Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh is where Gustave Whitehead made what has been claimed to be the first piloted powered flight in 1899, using steam. Three years earlier, in 1896, he started a series of glider flights, similar to the 3-year offset of Orv&Wil between gliding & powered. Where did Gustave_do his gliding tests? In Boston. In 2013, the State of Connecticut formally recognized Whitehead as the first person to achieve powered flight, in 1901, a pair of years offset from Orv&Wil's 1903.
So Doubleday your pleasure with these odd sets of Doublemint Gum aviation & baseball facts related to these pairs of brothers & pairs of cities, Dayton/Cincinnati & Pittsburgh/Boston, etc. If someone wanted to go further down this rabbit hole, they'd note how both Buzz Aldrin and Abner Doubleday are West Point graduates, a school located double the distance from Cooperstown as Dayton is from Cincinnati, 100 vs 50 miles. And all this only scratches the surface. It says nothing of the coincidences I bounced off of Neil Armstrong. Those go MUCH DEEPER.
You mention Squaring the Circle. And you may be familiar with an entirely different set of astounding facts related to Earth-Moon-Sun / Great Pyramid geometry. Actually, both sets of facts are intimately connected. Apollo astronauts, baseball, aviation PIoneers, E-M-S geometry... and the ratio Pi. The captions in my Learn To Fly video highlights the milestones which happened 21/44/66 years after Kitty Hawk, being the first round-the-world flight, Yeager busting Mach 1, and Neil & Buzz's 1st landing. We could have picked Goddard's 1st liquid-fueled rocket launch on Mar 16, 1926, which would make for milestones at 22/44/66 years. So 3 intervals across 1 timespan between 4 milestones. Pi is approximated as 3.14. In Apollo, the commanders of the first mission to Circle the Moon and the last, Frank Borman & Gene Cernan were both born on March 14th, 3/14, Pi Day. A twist on the old jingle "Baseball, NASA, apple Pi & Chevrolet." Full on Da Vinci Code with squaring the circle. Vitruvian men flying to the Moon.
Goddard's milestone happened a pair of days apart from Pi Day, 40 miles east of the Basketball Hall of Fame. Basketball's relation to Apollo and Earth-Moon-Sun geometry is another slew of correlations. Scale the Earth down to the size of a basketball, and the Moon scales to a tennis ball. Put this basketball-Earth directly under the hoop, and the orbit of the tennis ball-Moon is found at the 3-point line. Exactly.
Well, I've probably gone way beyond the interest level of most reasonable people on this. But I did see that you had built templates for Richard Bach, Ram Dass, People who have traveled to the Moon, Honor Rolls of Baseball, etc. Also US Founding Fathers. Like how John Adams and Thomas Jefferson died on the same day within hours of each other. Not just any day, but the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. So these things I've been hammering here are like a bad Richard Alpert / Bach LSD trip. Perfectly in line with the theme of Illusions. As I indicated earlier, these synchronicities aren't even the deep ones I laid on Neil A. Armstrong, curiously given the name 'Alien' spelled backwards, with his father being a Freemason, along with his Eagle copilot and 2 other moonwalkers. I got to attend Buzz's Lodge in Clear Lake. And one of my conversations with him was about what the Freemasons asked him to do. He refused to do it. And he refused to so much as tell me what they requested. But I think I know. I think they wanted him to proclaim Tranquility Base as a Masonic Lodge, complete with a masonic flag. My best guess.
No follow up necessary. I mainly put that out there as things that make you go hmm. Me, at least. But if you do, I'll be very interested to hear your thoughts. Btw, my question to Neil was about SL9. --Wright Stuf (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting factoids and structural comparisons. The basketball/tennisball/three-point-line is quite the coincidence, and the Neil A. (never noticed or heard about that). Nice you had such good talks with Aldrin and Armstrong. Knew about the Wright's, (Harry and George), didn't connect them with Ohio. Thanks for a good read. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With every curious coincidence, the very first angle I seek is the perfectly rational explanation. With the 3-pt line, it's quite possible that the person who picked that distance was an astronomy fan, being quite deliberate. With John Daniels, quite possible he was told the news "Btw, it says here Orv just died." With Adams & Jefferson, the 50th ann of the DoI was extremely significant to both, so fully logical that they'd relax their grip on their mortal coil that day. So with these, I see it to be improper to unequivocally label them as "synchronicities". Even with the 121st anniversary of the Montgolfiers. Wil & Orv knew quite well what they had done and when. And were inspired by them.
With many other odd coincidences, I have absolutely no logical explanation for. "Random chance" is a wholly unsatisfying explanation for why a flipped nickel is found to have landed on its edge. All the moreso when one investigates the cointossers to find an entire table having a bunch of nickels on their edge. The logical answer points toward the nickels having been placed there that way. I saw Neil's answer to be him burying his probability-savvy head in the sand.
There are even other strange coincidences with the Apollo 11 Moon landing aside from SL9. The Intel 4004 & 8008 microprocessors which kicked off our computer revolution had the original designations of 1202 & 1201 respectively. Federico Faggin was born on 12/01. I kid you not. Many many others. One of the foundational papers for the internet was Paul Baran's On Distributed Communication, "RM-3420" (Rand Memorandum 3420). The place of the world's first ArpaNet message has been enshrined for being the birth of the internet. It's been restored as a tiny one-room museum. UCLA Boelter Hall, Room 3420, or rm 3420 (page).
Of course there are few who have interest in people like Ram Dass, Richard Bach, Carl Jung... And most would brand me a kook just for highlighting simple facts like 1202/1201. Not exactly things to bring up in a job interview. ...unless you're applying for Palm Reader. --Wright Stuf (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday I found a video by Wikipedia founder Larry Sanger. I expect you're aware of his story of how he walked away from his project in disgust because critical policies were not being followed. This has been my own long time complaint, and I took it to the very top, where I was met with people there who McConnell'd the issue. This week we witnessed yet another Admin who refused to uphold Policy. Now Sanger gets straight to the point in this video, explaining Wikipedia's critical flaws within the first 2 minutes:
Ex-founder Larry Sanger explains the fundamental problem with Wikipedia
But my main reason for sharing this with you here is that at the 4m47s point, Sanger refers to the decentralized/distributed diagram straight out of Paul Baran's landmark paper RM-3420, diagram shown more clearly here (found on pdf pg16of51, as linked in previous post). I stumbled onto this reference to RM-3420 one day after telling you about it, after having gone a bunch of years without so much as thinking about it, let alone seeing it referenced by anyone. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing. I see from the rest of this page you have been busy the last couple of days. As for Larry Sanger, he seems to be engaged in a changing pattern of reinventing the wheel after he had already invented the wheel. None of his projects have really panned out, except for his biggest project (which he should be forever honored for). You seem to have a fine enthusiastic sense of history, which greatly aids Wikipedia editors who have it. Comes in handy in historic times. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday's vote was far from the end. Trump can and should be removed per 14th Amdmt. This action requires simple majority, which has already been demonstrated to exist. The voting can be done this week. The debate and defense has already happened. Even among the 43 who refused to vote Guilty, several are on record agreeing he committed insurrection.
Then the following week, after Trump has been permanently DQ'd, the very next Act of Congress needs to be the 14th Amdt permanent removal of McConnell, Graham, Cruz, Hawley, McCarthy and others for their roles in having "given aid or comfort to the" insurrectionists. These are critical actions which need to be done to save the Republic. Also needed to save the Republican Party, though I'm not convinced it's worth saving. That's coming from a person who has voted for every Republican Potus candidate over many decades prior to Trump.
As for whether Wikipedia is worth saving...
I gave it my best effort. It clearly is the best thing around right now, and has been for the better part of two decades. But I see no desire to fix its fundamental flaws from those within. Those at the top, nor at key layers below them.. I do not post about Sanger because I see any of his projects to be the best answer. I point to him mainly to highlight the problem.
My own vision for how to fix Wikipedia is to implement Checks & Balances on Admin actions. Have a Supreme Court comprised of Users who review Admins who have been accused of failing to uphold policy. "ScotWik" has two decisions: Overturn abusive Admin action, then determine corrective action for the Admin personally, up to and including permanent removal of admin status.
Another recent historic event has happened... in the world of sports. SBLV has got almost everyone calling Tom Brady the GOAT. But the logic is clearly flawed. The word 'greatest' is a superlative. This means no one greater. Well you can't lose TWO Superbowls to the same guy and legitimately claim you're the greatest. What Tom Brady is is the 'GROAT'. The Greatest Rock Of All Time. The game is Rock-Paper-Scissors. Eli Manning, along with Nick Foles are Paper. Defeating Brady in the Big Game every time. Every single time, Tom Brady refused to shake hands with the QB who beat him. He was humiliated. He showed the lowest level of class. And people today see him as "greatest". Greatest loser perhaps. I'm not aware of a worse case study of sportsmanship in the century-long history of the NFL.
What does Tom Brady have to do with curing Wikipedia? The key is the stability inherent found within the Rock-Paper-Scissors game. No one element rules over another element. If the rule was that rock crushed scissors AND pulverized paper, the rock would be primed for abuse of power. Despotism. What makes America great is not merely a constitution, but the Balance of Power built into its CORE. The US Government was deliberately architected by the Framers to have Rock-Paper-Scissors style stability. The Executive Branch is the Rock, Legislative is Paper, and Judicial is Scissors.
Those who acknowledge spirituality can recognize Rock-Paper-Scissors stability as the very foundation of our universe. This is the Holy Trinity. In Christianity, the Trinity is comprised of Deity-Humanity-Ghost. The distorted interpretation is "God the Father", "Jesus Christ" and the "Holy Spirit". But Deity is not masculine. God transcends gender. And Christ is not Jesus's last name. Those who paid attention to his teachings took note that WE are the light of the world. Every single one of us was created with the equal potential to grow toward becoming Christ ourselves. As George Washington achieved in his apotheosis. As Ben Franklin achieved in his contributions, to include his harnessing the force of Zeus which enables us all today to communicate with each other at the speed of light. As Adams and Jefferson achieved with their contributions as well, along with all of their wives, by way of their supporting roles. All followed the path to becoming Christ themselves. The way which is open to all. If you subscribe to Hinduism, then the stable Trinity is referred to as Brahma~Vishnu~Shiva. Rock-Paper-Scissors Trinity stability/paradox visualized G'enerative, O'perating, D'estroying. The same exact roles. We as humans are operators of the universe. Users, all. And if you subscribe to Atheism, this does not mean you have no deity. It means that you recognize HUMANS AS THE SOURCE OF DEITY. People have invented God, and God invented people. This is the message of MC Escher's Drawing Hands. But we are all afflicted with a blindness which prevents us from seeing the whole elephant at one time. We can only sense a part. We look at Escher's masterpiece, and only see one hand. We see the right, and conclude that God is clearly invented by humans. Or we see only the left, and praise God for inventing humanity. Never both. The dual l∞ps of infinity are beyond the grasp of our finite minds. We see one side of the loop, or the other.
So back to Wikipedia and how to fix it...
Under its current structure, it lacks stability. Lack of Checks & Balances on Admins makes the environment rife for abuse. Despotism. Tyranny. A WHOLLY NEW ARCHITECTURE is needed. Trinity stability is needed where ALL Admins are held accountable to the People. To us Users. Creating a Rock-Paper-Scissors Balance of Power will achieve the needed structure which will keep abuse of power in check.
For Freemasons like Franklin, Washington, Aldrin, Stafford, Grissom, Glenn and the others, that 'G' on their lapel pins did not stand for GOAT. It stands for GAOTU. That's an acronym for Grand Architect Of The Universe. Or you can simply see the G to stand for Geometry. To adapt a phrase, "Gaotu Barada Nikto". Cease and desist with abuse of power, and then take action to restore. Implement stable architecture which has worked for our universe, but is lacking here on Wikipedia. Larry Sanger left here with his warnings against this tyranny which runs rampant. Unchecked power asking to be abused. The ultimate Masonic cry for relief is "Ma-Ha-Bone". But that is a saying which has gotten distorted down the generations to have lost its meaning. As the First Flight photo can be restored, we have enough of this cry remaining intact for it to be restored as well: "Ma and Pa are One". Our realm of gendered Duality is in its essence an unbroken Unity.
And it is not a cry for help. It is a statement of gratiude, recognizing All that Is. In a single word, Shalom. The Star of David, the Seal of Solomom is a symbol of the peace which comes from wholeness. The unification of the upward pointing uplifting triangle representing masculine energy with the downward pointing grounding triangle representing female energy. The fundamental symbols of the Alchemist. Like Wil & Orv succeeding in harmonizing Lift & Gravity, together with Thrust & Drag.
Steelpillow, I see no reason why Collapsing is seen to be necessary or helpful. But if it is, then I collapsed in a way that is not a cover up. It retains the presentation of the most essential points.
Steelpillow, here is yet another example of you misunderstanding and misapplying WIKIPEDIA POLICY. Either that, or you don't know how to count to FOUR.
No editor there has done more than three reverts.
And while we are talking WPolicy...
It has LONG been pointed out that all of you are refusing to conform to long standing WP:Consensus.
Most recently, it has been pointed out that the manner in which Collapsing has been applied constitutes Wikipedia:Vandalism.
I specifically stated:
"If anyone has a problem with the way I've collapsed the section, please explain why collapsing the entire discussion is the better approach. And does not constitute a cover up."
Your last action there, in reverting my ANTI-VANDALISM effort, addressed my severe concerns with this edit summary:
"continued deadhorse disruption"
You have therefore confirmed for me that the three of you have opted to engage in vandalism. To this moment, none of you have supported total collapse as a legitimate change.
Now let's revisit WP:3RR... Quote:
"Exemptions
4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits ... such as page blanking ..." 1
So even if I had done more than 3 reverts, my actions there are fully supported by Clear Wikipedia Policy. Total Collapsing is not far from Page Blanking. And again, no one has presented justification for doing so as a legitimate action.
I recommend you cease your baseless misguided threats against me, STOP vandalizing that page, and conform to other WP you all have long been wantonly ignoring over there. --Wright Stuf (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At Talk:Wright Flyer, you really have to stop nagging everybody. Pestering a talk page with repeated arguments is against talk page guidelines. Read the parts about staying concise and focused, not fragmenting the discussion, and not bludgeoning the other participants.
You do not own Wikipedia. You are in no position to tell another user to stay away for 1 hour, let alone a couple of months. I just now did a dummy edit to highlight how you've grossly mischaracterized the discussion you unilaterally closed, after I had made it perfectly clear that blatant Vandalism is in need of being FIXED there.
Many have accused me of being in violation of WP. All have been debunked as distortions or misunderstanding of Policy. As for TPG, I have already made it perfectly clear that it is the 11 of you who have been BLUDGEONING ME, if anyone is doing that. Everyone there would have been saved many wasted hours if you all would simply follow long established Consensus. As we are all obligated to do. --Wright Stuf (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...and you issued your faux-order for me to stop and leave more than half an hour after I announced that I was stopping and leaving. Who is harassing who?! --Wright Stuf (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Wright Flyer; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Wright Flyer. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Please don't accuse other editors of vandalism.for simply disagreeing with you.BilCat (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Talk:Wright Flyer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Counterpoint: If we all followed LONG ESTABLISHED CONSENSUS, dating back to 2014, there would never have been a single revert.
Your collective refusal to follow this far more important Policy pulls the bottom out of your baseless claims that it is me who hasn't been following WP. Welcome to Oppositeville. The land where we take reality, flip it on its head, and then gaslight you until you accept our distorted version of the story. Your accusations fly like the proverbial Zeppelin made of Lead. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That section title kinda grabs you, doesn't it? No, you're not blocked... yet. But you will be. You've never been blocked so you may think it'll never happen, but believe me, it can and will. I don't know you, I have no dog in this fight and I am not part of any consensus here. There are some editors here I know, like and respect, some I don't care for and quite a few I don't know, but they are all telling you the same thing... so listen.
No matter how right you think you are, at some point, either here, or an article tp or at WP:ANI, an admin will decide that your wp:battleground mentality, and your looong wiki-lawyering word-salad screeds are "net negative". That is likely the term that they'll use, that and; "I have already made it perfectly clear that it is the 11 of you who have been BLUDGEONING ME" ([1]), and tbey will block you. You can try telling me off (I intend this to my only post here) or just delete this, or you take this as a warning and adjust... up to you. (jmho) - wolf15:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Bludgeon, you DISTORTED my words. Anybody wishing to do an honest independent evaluation of the exchange can clearly see that word was brought up 2 times. NEVER ONCE by me. I have never initiated that accusal. And my reply to ME being accused was conditional. IF. You know, the part you deliberately deleted, without so much as a replacement of deleted words with "..." to clearly show that something was removed. You removed it to fit your story that I am in the wrong here.
As for Admin oversight, let's not eliminate the possibility that there is ONE out there who might actually choose to enforce Wikipedia Policy. I am the one insisting that everyone follow long established consensus. --Wright Stuf (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
>sigh< Ok, I was just trying to be helpful, but jtbc, I copied and pasted directly from your own post, and included a diff for good measure. The full sentence was; "As for TPG,I have already made it perfectly clear that it is the 11 of you who have been BLUDGEONING ME, if anyone is doing that." If you think the omissions from the beginning and end somehow change (not even substantially, but in any way) the point that you are somehow tone-deaf to that fact that you are accusing eleven (!) editors of "hounding" you, well... don't tell me, because I don't want to know.
You'll argue anything with anyone. I was trying to help you avoid getting blocked, perhaps even banned, and for my efforts I'm accused deliberately altering your comments because... what? I'm part of a the vast conspiracy against you? (Rhetorical question, no answer required.) I just wanted to set the record straight about the quote, other than that, I don't care what happens here and don't care what happens to you. Don't engage me, and don't ping me again. Have a nice day - wolf20:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
YOU are the one who engaged me. And you did so by a reversal distortion of what happened. So it is at least consistent of you to disengage by way of yet another reversal distortion. A stalker who complains about being pursued... "Stop following me! And the only reason I was stalking you is because I was trying to help you." --Wright Stuf (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please just drop the stick on Talk:Wright Flyer. Your image and your preference did not get used in the end, don’t take it personally and move on. Editors are interested in improving the articles, nobody wants endless discussions about nothing. Find other articles to edit, this encyclopedia is never finished, dive into the content, not the discussions surrounding it. Thank you. -- Ariadacapo (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That issue was NOT "about nothing". It was about the future of Wikipedia in how Colorized photos get used. This question impacts literally THOUSANDS of other articles. Just because a discussion is meaningless to you, the many hours that others choose to invest their time in stands as proof it is not meaningless to us.
And all of that says nothing about how throughout the entire discussion, I was the one on the side of long established Consensus. So you choosing to tell me to drop it lets me know how much you care about following the most important policies on Wikipedia. --Wright Stuf (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Reverting vandalism is permissible under 3RR. As for the edit dispute, you had the option to uphold long standing Consensus, which I was persisting, with others refusing to follow.
The consensus you speak of does not exist on the Wright Flyer page. While yes 3RR does allow the reversion of vandalism, the edits you were reverting were not vandalism. This was pointed out to you, you clearly read through the 3RR policy and presumably the policy on what constitutes Wp:VANDALISM (you've been here a couple of years and the policy is clearly linked from the Edit Warring policy page, you should know what constitutes vandalism and that it's a very narrow set of edits), yet you continued to double down on your disruptive edits despite saying you just wanted to walk away from it. Well here is a chance to walk away from it. Take your 24 hours, go and chill and destress heaven knows we all need it these days. Go do something else and return after your block expires with your head clearer and continue to edit in the constructive manner in which you have done so previously. Canterbury Tailtalk22:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have fixed the biggest part of that section I was wanting fixed. Not covering up the discussion. THANK YOU!
As for your skepticism about vandalism, just look at this deletion. Clearly an edit made out of spite which damages the Project. That inclusion had been a stable state for roughly a week which that editor himself had previously consented to, before removing only now with comment intended to insult.
When you look at how no one on the Talk page would offer explanation as to why my method of Collapse was not acceptable, and why the repeated Total Collapse and unilateral Closure of unresolved issues, it is clear to me that it was a destructive pattern of reversions. Consistent with this last act of vandalism.
Consensus is a content dispute, you were blocked for edit warring and disruptive editing. Plus the consensus on the article talk page is clearly not to use a colorized image. The consensus you keep claiming seems to only be you. Canterbury Tailtalk02:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a claim. It is established fact. I explained this very clearly over there.
So the people being disruptive were those refusing to follow long-established consensus.
I thoroughly explained that the consensus established in 2014 had been supported directly by 4 editors, and supported tacitly by roughly more than ~100 editors over the subsequent 6+ years. I am now repeating myself over here. No one has adequately explained why consensus on the exact same issue in one article does not, nor should not carry over to another article. But this is clearly your position.
And perhaps you would go further to assert that consensus needs to be re-debated within each section of an article? Idk. But I made it perfectly clear to everyone involved that my position was rooted in principle. That the principle upon which the Ilia consensus was established was a parallel to the WF colorization issue. We had their precedent to show us the way. It was not only me. We had the action (/inactions) of maybe more than a hundred other editors supporting this position. --Wright Stuf (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MY EDIT needs to be reinstated, if Wikipedia Policy on Consensus is to be taken seriously. This week we have witnessed Republican Senators treat their Oath of Office as a joke. I do not know if Wikipedia Admins are sworn in with any oath to uphold WP, but even if that is what happens, there is clearly no safeguard to ensure that this is followed through upon. THIS fundamental problem is the very reason why Wikipedia's creator walked away from his own project in disgust. Because the most important policies were not being followed. BLOCKING ME for this supposed violation of 3RR is like the Capitol Police ticketing and towing Mike Pence's car for being double parked while rioters have invaded the Consensus Policy looking to kill him. --Wright Stuf (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out a consensus that supports that we should have a colorized photo of the Wright Flyer on the article in the infobox? Because I can't find it yet you have seemingly accused me of refusing to follow it. If consensus was gained for a colorized photo on another article please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, what may have been determined to be okay for one article is not a consensus across Wikipedia. You keep talking about this consensus but I have still not seen any such consensus, the only consensus on the talk page is to NOT use a colorized image. Anyway consensus is a content issue which I'm not actually concerned with, you weren't blocked against consensus, you were blocked for edit warring and disruptive editing. And please do not bring American real world politics into Wikipedia, this isn't about the state of the US political system and that is completely irrelevant to anything going on here. Canterbury Tailtalk02:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You say: "...what may have been determined to be okay for one article is not a consensus across Wikipedia."
I have no idea which policy you have based your position upon. As for the essay you've highlighted, here is a direct quote:
"These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes."
This is precisely the argument I presented. THANK YOU for finding that essay. NO ONE presented a counter argument as to why consensus in the exactly similar situation should not carry over ...other than "WF is a different article." It was a pro-inconsistency argument. And that is the position you have picked. You may have seen that I mapped out three separate option for proper ways to get established consensus changed. Each of those path would have preserved project consistency. The current state of edits does not. --Wright Stuf (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus on one page (still not sure what consensus you're discussing) has no impact on another page unless it's a policy or guideline, or it's a consensus agreed upon by a Wikiproject or similar. A discussion to use a colorized image on an article talk page has zero impact on other articles, and if a consensus is reached there then that is purely for that page. You need to drop the belief that what was arrived at on one article means it's a Wikipedia wide consensus as one article doesn't have the readership or editorial mass to make such a consensus. If you wish to work with other editors to establish a consensus on the Wright Flyer talk page to use a colorized image on that page you are more than welcome to do so. Currently the consensus is clear to not use it. You are of course encouraged to try and change that consensus as that is how Wikipedia works. However do not use disruptive edits and edit wars to do so, and do not make demands of other users. If you continue to edit with discussions and try to establish a consensus then fabulous. If you wish to continue by making demands, accusing other editors of ignoring consensus and policies, disruptive editing and edit wars then the path of editing will unfortunately close to you. I urge you to choose the path of discussion and collaborative editing. Drop the stick that there is a consensus when there clearly is not, and instead work towards discussing and establishing said consensus for this article or, even better yet, bringing it up out of the article space and establishing a Wikipedia consensus on either the Aviation Wikiproject or in the Images policies and guidelines. Canterbury Tailtalk14:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A few lines down from there, there's a clear link to Ilia Chavchavadze. THIS is where consensus to use a colorized photo was established in 2014, and remains to this day (last week someone switched away from that, justifying the new photo as higher quality, so keeps consensus intact).
You say "Consensus on one page... has no impact on another page..."
I understand that position. But I have no idea which Policy you're basing it on. You had just highlighted an essay which stressed the point for CONSISTENCY across the project, and now you are advocating INconsistency. --Wright Stuf (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will offer this as a salient quote from WP:Consensus...
Across Wikipedia. It does not say "within each article on Wikipedia". I recommend you change the words of this most important policy if you really wish to promote such inconsistency across the project.
Your position and my position have been made perfectly clear. Unless either changes, or new info comes to light, I see no reason for me to continue.
I would like to THANK YOU one more time. Your approach to Administration via discussion has been ABSOLUTELY REFRESHING.
It is not an excuse for ignoring all consensus in a content dispute or deletion discussion."
All editors on that page were choosing to ignore long established precedent. And they explicitly DO NOT have license to do so.
I will now ask you to restore the Wright Flyer article (edit) to conform to the precedent of established consensus. --Wright Stuf (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this UserTalk section, an Admin has posted a policy guidance paper (edit- read: paper on policy guidance) which tells us to be consistent across Wikipedia. I have yet to see anyone make any argument for why the Ilia consensus does not apply at WF, other than "This is a different article." That is a position which promotes INCONSISTENCY, thereby going against guidance we've been given. --Wright Stuf (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. No such policy. There is no directive on Wikipedia to have absolute consistency across the whole project. Back in 2006, the Wikipedia:Consistency proposal failed. There are various threads of consistency, wikiprojects that strive for consistency in certain respects, but nothing that would apply to colorized photos. Binksternet (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was not trying to say this Admin linked to policy. It was an essay.
Wright Stuf, there is no comparison between the two discussions. What you keep saying is a long-standing 2014 consensus was two editors disagreeing, and then one of them posted the colorized image, then four editors split: two adding it back and two taking it down. It happened to stay up, probably because the naysayers finally just went away to do other things and so it hung around as the lead image. No consensus was reached, it was a last-one-in-the-pool-wins solution. In the Wright Flyer talk page discussion a true consensus was reached to not replace an iconic black and white image with a colorized version as the lead photograph. So that dead horse people have been saying you are beating, it's rivaling Secretariat for his big heart, but neither of them are racing again (and if someone hasn't watched all three of Secretariat's record setting --and he still holds the record in all three -- triple crown races in a row on youtube, realizing the entire time that the trainer finally realized before the third race that he didn't have to hold the horse back but that he could run the entire distance at full speed, has missed one of life's pleasures. After mentioning that I guess I'll have to link them: here's the first, the 1973 Preakness...holds him back, holds him back, and then the Kentucky Derby...holds him back..., and then...the Belmont "he is moving like a tremendous machine"). Randy Kryn (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I watched Secretariat live. Great stuff. Yes, Secretariat is long dead. But his progeny are very much alive, and raking in millions. (A short sample search, and one specific example).
"Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus."
I was very clear on this point. Consensus was established by the action AND the inactions of many dozens of editors. I went so far as to present the hard stats: ~140 Total Edits, incl ~27 minor edits. With 100,000+ Page Views on top of that. ANY person behind all of those actions had the opportunity to voice objection against this Consensus. Consensus with these kinds of numbers is OVERWHELMING. A small handful of people showing up in 2021 do not change it. One Admin voicing one opinion does not change it. Nor does one Ilia editor because they found a better quality photo which happens to be b&w.
Now you all can change the long-established consensus, and I mapped out three proper paths for doing that. None have yet to be followed (as far as I know). --Wright Stuf (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really truly for sure you must drop the stick and back away from the horse. THERE WAS NEVER A CONSENSUS for colorized photos anywhere on Wikipedia. The more you insist on it, the less you look capable of editing here. Binksternet (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are on MY Talk page. You are here as my guest. This particular stick happens to belong to me. I will twirl it like a baton, if I feel like it. And if you don't like what I'm doing here, I will be glad to show you the door. --Wright Stuf (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WS, I was going to post this at ANI, but since you can't respond there, I'm posting it here. My first sentence to you was: "Wright Stuf, I suggest then that you ask for a policy clarification at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy." One reason I suggested that you do this, which I didn't state at the time, is that this is obviously an issue which you are both knowledgeable and passionate about. Therefore, you are best suited to broaching a discussion about what Wikipedia's policy towards the use of colorized images should be. This discussion would now have as its goal the creation of WP:Colorization as a policy or guideline, either as a stand-alone page or as a subsection of WP:IMAGE. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have no desire to do anything more myself toward forming such policy.
My position is that the monk image says EVERYTHING which needs to be said. (Photo = 1k words.)
I would be glad to answer any questions anyone might have of me. But I see nothing special about my own opinion on the matter.
THANK YOU for that most kind invite.
I may have mischaracterized your most recent edit to the article. Yes, I am an amateur. The pros do not freely share their work, or they would not be pros. If I was mistaken in your reasons for image deletion, I am sorry. We all share the goal of improving the Project. So in that sense, we are all on the same team. --Wright Stuf (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was speaking of professional status, but that's really just an excuse, and I probably shouldn't have said it. Anyway, perhaps someone else will go take the effort to create WP:COLORIZATION, but chances are that, without a strong advocate in its favor, the result will probably be a ban of their use in articles outside of the subject of colorization itself. Is that really what you want to happen? BilCat (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is easy to predict that the 'wrong' decision will be made in the short term. That's what happened in our article. We are creatures of habit. Our neural pathways get programmed, entrenched, and crystalized into our comfort zone. I was asking folks to step out of their comfort zone. Or at least step back from it. A very tall ask.
There is a cliche in the science community:
"Progress happens one funeral at a time."
My generation will die off before long, and in our place will be a new generation who will have grown up having watched historical movies of WWI in color, because of efforts by Peter Jackson, and they will know that Kitty Hawk First Flight because of my own effort, or the color versions done by many before me, or the much better version yet to be done by many after me. That generation will scratch their head why any encyclopedic photo of an historical event is presented in a b&w photo. This shift in mindset is inevitable. The only question is how long we will remain stuck in the current mindset. This shift is like flying itself. Our grandparents were of a generation stuck in the mindset:
"If God wanted man to fly, He would have given him wings."
Right there in that tiny vignette are an encapsulation of three paradigms that are seen by many today as obsolete: Religion, Patriarchy and fear of flying. We might as well add colorization to the list: "God would have given us Photoshop."
So what might my role be to help this paradigm shift come about on Wikipedia? Anyone who wishes to promote the argument for colorization can point to my example of Sanna Dullaway's monk as being clearly superior. Wikipedia is all about building upon the efforts of those who came before you. I built upon Centpacrr's excellent argument which has stood the test of more than half a decade. His image may have been reverted this week, but no one has rebutted his post.
I am confident that a sound decision will eventually be arrived at. And should a policy get built where they arrive at the 'wrong' decision, I'm totally ok with that. The internet as a whole is robust. Wikipedia as a whole can fail, and this could clear the way for something even better to rise in its place. Wikipedia could go the way of MySpace, a website I don't miss at all. Yahoo got replaced by Google. I almost never go to Yahoo. It's irrelevant to me. I grew up on World Book. But that became irrelevant to me decades ago. Today I use Wikipedia a lot. But I feel no attachment to the site. I expect you're aware that its creator walked away from his project.
I'd be tickled to see an excellent policy on colorization created. But Wikipedia has MUCH BIGGER PROBLEMS it needs to solve. We all just witnessed an Admin refuse to follow Consensus. What kind of society do you have where the Police help the Bank Robbers, while handcuffing and arresting a customer for making a deposit? If you refuse to follow your own rules, then the rules are meaningless.
Hello again, Randy. As you may have seen, I am back.
As for that action of me getting blocked, that was one Admin who decided to not follow Consensus. His position appeared to be that Consensus needs to be debated on every single article, whether or not the exact same issue had had Consensus established in a different article or not. And then he attempted to support his decision by citing an essay. Yet the info within that essay actually supported the position I had been arguing all along. That the standard for Wikipedia is to have consistency across the entire project.
It has been many moons. I do not know whether or not any progress has been made in establishing a clear Policy regarding colorized images. That was the ideal solution which I had supported, and continue to support.
As for this separate issue which you are raising here, I may choose to look at it. If I do look at it, I may choose to inject my opinion on it. I have enjoyed my time away, and I hope that all concerned have had some measure of growth in the interim. --Wright Stuf (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, good to read you, and Happy New Year to you and yours. No need to rehash the colorization thing, but it was an interesting topic at the time, and I enjoyed the pictures. The Kitty Hawk name is interesting, and surely must have been discussed in the major semi-recent book (I haven't read it). Enjoy your post-exile editing, Randy Kryn (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked, and one of your colorizations still exists on the Wright Flyer page. That's actually the best result, and that's it's an accepted part of the page is quite a Wikipedia achievement for you. Nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That Jared Enos colorization just got posted this evening, so I wouldn't consider that to be stable quite yet. But of course my own opinion is that it makes for a superb addition to the article. As for being an accepted part of the page, way back when this first unfolded, my own colorized image was fairly well established on both the Wright Flyer article and also the Wright Brothers article. I had the option to simply leave it as was, and there appeared to be the expectation that those were on their way to becoming accepted changes. BUT instead I opted to take what I saw to be the principled route, and I dug deep into what I saw to be the proper resolution regarding use of that image. And quite predictably, there was this huge backlash which resulted in that image getting clobbered on both articles, and me getting blocked.
So yeah, "post-exile". But just because someone gets crucified, it does not necessarily mean that they were in the wrong. I am inspired by people like Ed Snowden. He's sacrificed his freedom for what he saw to be right. He was willing to sacrifice his life. Wow. What a guy. And he did that knowing that MANY people would see him as the villain. As they still do to this day.
So I had every expectation that I was going to get crushed. But if that was going to be the outcome, there is at least this well-documented record of this lone person who stood for what I clearly saw to be extremely well-established consensus. Now I didn't expect you, nor the others, nor any Admin to agree with this view which was so clear to me. But I held out hope that at least some would see it that way. I maintain hope that a clear Policy will get drafted, and perhaps my input in that extremely lengthy exchange will be taken into consideration when that day comes. As I had stated back then, I see the incorporation of colorized images to be inevitable. Kind of like how synthesized actors are well on their way toward becoming indistinguishable from real human actors. We are not yet at that turning point, but it is getting close. And my own colorization effort of that Wright Brothers image was something that I readily admitted was well short of perfect. It fell somewhere into the uncanny valley. A bit on the creepy side. Whereas Jared Enos somehow managed to jump across to the other side. Still not perfect. But amazingly close.
And the argument from the beginning is that it puts us onto the path toward perfect. I'd say that Sanna Dunaway Monk was near-perfect. That one blew me away.
Well you said no need to rehash ...and here I am rehashing it all. Hmm. Maybe I should learn to let things go.
There is this comedian, Gabriel Iglesias, who used to do this stand-up bit: "Would you rather be right? Or happy." It's hilarious because of the underlying truth in that. And stupid me, I continually choose what I see to be right. You could say that Ed Snowden is stupid too. All the moreso with all the others who did sacrifice their lives for what they saw to be 'right'. MLK is the first name which comes to mind. RFK, JFK, it's a very long list. Aquino, Gandhi, etc, etc. Someone will read this and think that I see myself as some kind of 'colorization-martyr'. It's a term I'd actually accept, if there was a different word where all you're risking is getting your wrist virtually slapped by some wiki-Admin. No threat to life or limb whatsoever. Maybe a 'vartyr', where you make some virtual sacrifice, with absolutely no consequence felt as soon as you log off.
Randy, I don't know if you like flying in general, or just old planes. But I'm preparing to upload my next image. It's a colorization of sorts. It's actually a letter. The famous poem 'High Flight'. It took a lot of effort to restore the faded pen ink. I think the final result was successful. I should have it uploaded within the hour. And I don't expect this image to be controversial in any way. If you like it, you can consider it a New Year's present. It will be posted over on the article covering High Flight. --Wright Stuf (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done. Hopefully no one will have a cow over this restoration effort. I actually see this to have major historic value also. This letter has not been seen in such vivid colors since the 1940s, quite likely. This is nowhere near the significance of the Wright Brother's first flight as far as practical creations go. But it is monumental when considering its artistic value. --Wright Stuf (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I should mention that the color restoration of this letter is nowhere near perfect. It is absolutely crude in some ways. But this puts it on the path where someone at some later date will be able to take it, and improve upon it, and then maybe someday we will have a near-perfect restoration. (Here I am on my soapbox again.)
Ah ha, you just added the Wright Flyer (Kitty Hawk?) image, my mistake in thinking it's been on the page since (EDIT: the colorization discussion) you were banished to the hinterlands. You certainly have passion for Wikipedia embracing colorization of black and white photographs, and doing the martyr thing sometimes moves a social or personal agenda yet often just teaches one to swim against the current for a time to little forward progress. Things like the "High Flight" fix have their own benefits and drawbacks akin to art restoration. I wish you luck and guidance in your work, and please always remember and consider the WP:PILLARS among the guideposts. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You keep talking about me being banished. I'm trying to picture you saying that tongue-in-cheek. Someone arriving at this page and reading that might think that I was actually banned for the remainder of 2021, when that Admin's block was probably only for 24-hours, or something like that. Leaving that article was completely my idea. My effort to give it space to breathe. Ideally with others reconsidering the merits of my 'Established Consensus' argument.
As for those 5 Pillars, I'm not sure which one you were wanting to highlight for me. Perhaps you saw me use the word Soapbox, and so you were schooling me on that. Let's be clear that the Soapbox I was standing on was the one placed on top of established Wikipedia Policy. One that was arguing persistently that long-held Consensus be honored.
Obviously no one else saw it that way. Not even the Admin, whose job it is is to enforce WP. This alternate view by the overwhelming majority (meaning, everyone but me) that Consensus needs to be re-debated in every single article, even when the situation in the long-established article is the exact same ...well that struck me as absolutely silly, and atrociously wasteful. And that Admin even highlighted that essay which teaches us to be consistent across Wikipedia.
That was my position at the beginning of last year. And it remains my position at the beginning of this year. I must say that your well-reasoned and rational rebuttals have been quite refreshing for me throughout this entire process. So I continue to thank you for that. And if you'd like to be more specific regarding which Policy/Policies I can benefit from paying more attention to, please do. --Wright Stuf (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected above. You had left for quite awhile and I assumed the reason. My main interaction with you was about the Wright colorizations which I found interesting but not something which could replace the lead photograph, and your insistence that a decision discussion at one article somehow covers every other related article and topic (it doesn't). As I said, I don't want to rehash, and the opening image at Wright Flyer will surely remain black and white. Just as Wikipedia will not someday present colorizations of Ansel Adams black and whites as their main images, well known historical photos on the level of the Wright's first flight will remain encyclopedic in their original presentation to the world. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I totally understand not wanting to rehash. But then you mention the Ansel Adams thing again. I actually am in TOTAL AGREEMENT with you on Ansel Adams. Those are articles on historic photography, and his photos were in black & white. Likewise, I would readily agree that the John T. Daniels article will ALWAYS present his black & white historic image in that infobox. It would be a grave mistake to do anything but that for both Adams and Daniels.
However, comma...
Articles on the Wright Flyer and on the Wright Brothers are categorically different. Those are not photography articles. They are articles on landmark engineering achievements which happened to be photographed. They were witnessed with the human eyeball, which sees in full color. And therefore it is proper, once a reasonable version has been made available, to present that version upfront. Much more closely to how the historical event was experienced. Not how it was documented.
Ok, that's a rebuttal which I had made perfectly clear in our original discussion over on the Wright Flyer Talk Page. I'm rehashing it here only because you've brought up Ansel Adams here.
I'm well aware of the stark difference in opinions on this. And you may be glad to know that I have no intention of switching the infobox to a colorized photo. Not in the immediate future, that is. I am a very patient person, and I will keep my eyes open for signs that people's views might be shifting. Perhaps even in me reiterating this John Daniels vs Wright Flyer point might land with you differently today. Or perhaps not. I am ok with that, either way.
Oh, by the way, if you do happen to have any interest in the High Flight poem, my latest change there was to switch the image to a digitally manipulated version. You can see my rationale for doing that. Perhaps you have an objection to what I did. If you'd like to revert that change, that would be fine with me. -- Wright Stuf (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Poem seems fine, it's the first I've heard of it (thanks for introducing me to it). My interest in the Wright Flyer comes not from an interest in all early flight but the leap in technology and world-changing direction that the Flyer (Kitty Hawk?) made. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your detailed research and analysis at the Wright Flyer page, nice work. An interesting case made that Kitty Hawk should be the primary name. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've kept adding to the accumulated factual information at the talk page. If the Wright's were alive they'd take you up for a ride just to say thanks! Randy Kryn (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WOW. Wouldn't that be a dream come true.
But they also might see me as having gone off the deep end with my 'Kitty Cat' Cat Launch connections.
I hope that info might prove useful to someone at some future point in time.
I actually have a friend who flies the Wright B rebuild up in Ohio. Maybe I should hit him up for a ride. That would be phenomenal. We were together just three months ago. But several states away from where his plane is. Flying open cockpit can get you feeling like a bird. Kind of like how scuba can get you feeling like you're a fish. But flying open cockpit in something that the Wright's designed... now that would be supremely special indeed. --Wright Stuf (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BilCat. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Wright Flyer that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please do not falsely accuse editors of vandalism.BilCat (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion
I would be very interested to see specific examples of these policies I have been determined to be guilty of violating:
- sealioning,
- Gish galloping,
- personal attacks,
- unreasonableness.
Anyone can go to that link and see for themself what exactly transpired. Exactly who was being abusive to who.
I do not see myself as having crossed any of those lines. So this raises the question:
How are Admins held accountable for these punitive actions which you have total authority to make?
You can determine that I've violated anything, and apparently have no requirement to provide any [citation required].
It would appear that there is no requirement whatsoever for you to cite any specific quotes which would prove that a violation had indeed happened.
When a police officer pulls over a car for speeding, they are required to issue a ticket which states very specific info. Exactly how fast the car was going. Where this happened. Even the radar gun calibration certification. The citizen then signs and takes the ticket, and then goes through a process where they've got options to argue their case in court.
Here on Wikipedia, the "cops" clearly have the authority to be judge, jury and executioner, all in one fell swoop. Without so much as any requirement to present specific places where I have been determined to have crossed any line. Well, you did let me know that there is a process which I can appeal your execution decision. But still...
Most curious.
There apparently is not even a standard to the manner in which such action is to be labeled in the Header/Title. The one you've chosen here simply says "Blocked", when your action is this Permanent Expulsion from all of Wikipedia. The exact same header was used one year ago when a different Admin decided to issue a 24-Hour Block. --Wright Stuf (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...oh WAIT.
I had done the same over at that Notice Board. I was being accused of specific abusive behavior. I then asked for a single specific example to support their claim. And what happened next was that I was called out for "sea lioning".
So this, apparently, is the Catch-22 of Wikipedia. If you ask for supporting references to substantiate claims of violating policy, the very act of doing so is in itself a violation of policy.
I will repost for you here what I had posted for you over on the Notice Board:
What I have been doing here is spending loads of my time in an effort to uphold Consensus. Perhaps Consensus is unimportant to you. But I would not be putting all this effort into it if it was unimportant to me. If you go back to the beginning from one year ago, you can see that I was perfectly fine with letting all of this go. But what changed is that I found an example which had established Consensus on a near-exactly parallel issue way back in 2016.
You posted appeal instructions. I asked for specific examples of why you took this most draconian action that a Wiki Admin can wield.
("Well, you did let me know that there is a process which I can appeal your execution decision.")
All my efforts last year were argued based upon Consensus which had been established and repeatedly supported since 2016.
All of my efforts this year were argued based on Consensus which had been established a full year ago.
You have shown me that the system here does not work.
That Admin Notice Board is rife with examples of false accusations made against me. Blatant violations of Wikipedia Policy.
That complaint was started by a person who saw me as making a false accusation. The huge difference is that when I posted my identification of the problem, I did so while expressing that I am fully open to hearing any explanations which might show otherwise. NO ONE presented any explanation as to why they deleted the image instead of switching to the color format they supported (meaning no color). After you swung your axe, one editor then presented their explanation. Yet did not say anything about why they didn't mention any of that during their revert action.
The initial case which I had highlighted of the infobox image DID get explained. The editor who did that indicated that they did not bother to compare the image before swapping them. So apparently it was a case of carelessness. They stated that they are not an expert. Though I am not aware of any expertise required in order to evaluate which of the two images is better for the article.
Ok, you have not given a simple citing of specifics for your cause behind the action you took. If this process of upholding Wikipedia Policies has FAILED so dismally with Canterbury Tail in 2021, and again FAILED so dismally with you and these other involved Admins in 2022, you now seem to suggest that I have hope that this Appeal Process will all of a sudden be done by people who DO care about upholding WP.
It is absolutely clear to me that there were editors definitely in need of being disciplined. But you are refusing to clearly show why I was the one you targeted. Over on that Board, I presented SPECIFIC examples of WP violations. And they were not done by me.
Perhaps you will choose to re-evaluate. But I am not holding my breath.
The very person behind CREATING Wikipedia vacated his own project because of severe problems like this one you are demonstrating here.
I am glad to see that you changed the title here from "Blocked" to "Blocked II". But even then, there is such a RADICAL difference between a 24-Hour Block versus a PERMANENT EXPULSION from all of Wikipedia, that is strikes me as absolutely bizarre that the one same word is used for both actions. If I were in your shoes, I would have swapped to "Permanent Block".
But then again, there is a LOT that I myself would have done differently in an effort to re-establish order over on the Wright Flyer article. I would have taken action which served to support long standing Consensus. Perhaps the most important WP of all. --Wright Stuf (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Wright Flyer; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Wright Flyer. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Please don't accuse other editors of vandalism.for simply disagreeing with you. BilCat (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BilCat. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Wright Flyer that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please do not falsely accuse editors of vandalism. BilCat (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)