Wikipedia

Talk:Rick Remender/Archive 1

< Talk:Rick Remender
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Anna Frodesiak in topic Infobox Photo Discussion
Archive 1Archive 2

Infobox Photo Discussion

Latest comment: 11 years ago120 comments35 people in discussion

Which photo should used in the Infobox? The Left One or the Right One?

I have contacted the editors from previous comics creator photo discussions, specifically the ones we had on the talk pages of Larry Hama, Scott Allie and Bryan Talbot. In keeping with WP:CANVAS, I contacted every editor, regardless of how they "voted" in those discussions. I also left a message on the WikiProject Comics talk page. Nightscream (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

  •  
    A. at NYComiCon, 2010 (prev. "Left")
  •  
    B. by Remender, 2013 (prev. "Right")
  •  
    C. April 2013 (colours adjusted)
  •  
    D. This file can change if someone tries a 3rd tone adjust.
  •  
    E. which is C with Auto Color in Photoshop
  • F. by Remender
    F. by Remender
  •  
    G. Crop, color corrected F.
  • Nothing is wrong with either image, though if I had to pick I go with the right one as it seems more intended for lack of a better word while the one on left seems more candid.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC) C: Good crop, less harsh lighting, and natural color tones.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I prefer A, because it is less harshly lit, in spite of the flash, and shows the subject in action at a place. B isn't as good because it's too contrasty, and as a selfie it's blatant promo (sorry Rick). I understand that Remender may prefer the 2013 over the 2010 photo. There's no hurry. --Lexein (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Close call. Slight preference for the image on the right
My initial reaction was slightly in favor of the left one. Two reasons, neither strong. In the left one, there's a bit of a smile, while the right one is less of a smile. Second, the right one has some glare from the window.
That said, the right one is more recent, and in many cases that is a point in its favor. It also looks like the subject has lost some weight. Having done so myself, I know if it was me I'd prefer the one on the right.
Sorry to be a bit wishy-washy, but I do not see a compelling story for either, so would not be unhappy with either. You may know that in close calls, I think the subject's wishes can carry some weight.
It appears that the subject is willing to provide a photo. Frankly, the ideal situation would be if the subject provided a new photo, making sure that there isn't any glare over the shoulder. Absent that possibility, I have a slight preference for the image on the right.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • RIght. Despite its problematic lighting, it's more recent, its composition is better, and the background is more interesting and doesn't suffer from the presence of the back of someone else's head. The one on the left is drab and less interesting overall, and the flash creates a gratuitously unflattering shine in the middle of the subject's forehead. Cropping would help the left image somewhat, but it wouldn't resolve its many issues. Rivertorch (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Update: Second choice: C E. He looks jaundiced, but the color can be corrected. It's still too yellow and I still prefer B, but this isn't bad. Rivertorch (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC) 05:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Right The right one was taken just days ago. The subject appears to have lost some weight, meaning the right one is more identifiable with his current appearance, and subject posted the right one on his website so likely favors it himself as well. There is glare, but the left one has a flash on. And the background hardly matters because the left one needs to be cropped anyways. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Left because he looks better and the shot looks more professional, but I don't have a strong preference. I agree it should be cropped.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • A (left) because the lighting is better and the pose is much more professional. I don't think a selfie should be included unless we have no other images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 
Here's one I just got from Flickr. The original at Commons has him with a book. Not sure about the non-free thing there. But anyhow, it can be cropped better than this, and the red can be reduced. Let's call this C just in case. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Slightly inclined to the left image: The background is problematic, but theoretically could be removed in Photoshop to leave just the subject. I can't get past the bad lighting in the right image — it's distracting and the right image also isn't as sharp; it's just a lower-quality photograph even though the background it better. I don't think the three-year difference is significant — we're under no obligation to use the latest image of a subject, just a representative one. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Not particularly feeling a preference, but I think B is a slightly better image - just a gut feeling more than anything. BOZ (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Left Oooooh, I love these pick-the-photo things. I'd say left because despite the flashbulb shine and it being an older image, it conveys way more and has no artsy glare. His face in right is low contrast, so when my eyes catch the glare, then I look at the face, I'm sort of blinded. That's the clincher for me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC) See below - changed to E. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm always the one that has to ask...is there perhaps a better one out there somewhere else? If not I would go for a cropped version (as mentioned earlier by another editor) on the left. Perhaps a bit of photoshop to remove some distracting elements.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I have located a number of images of the subject with a proper CC 2.0 license. Should I present them and see if they might be better choices or would we prefer to let this go the course for now?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I just wrote to him here. Maybe he'll send us one. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I say sure, Amadscientist, add them to the gallery, lettered. Interested editors can strikethrough prior !votes and amend if they change their minds. The more, the merrier. --Lexein (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Right - The glare hurts it, but I'm always in favor of the more recent photo unless there's something really wrong with it. This one has a glare, but it's not so awful you can't make out his face. The left one isn't too old either, though, and I wouldn't take issue with it being used instead. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Addendum: C is the way to go. Kudos to editors who went out of their way to search Flickr for an alternative. Thanks guys. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
The Flickr license is good. If you use advanced search and tick the three CC boxes at the bottom it will only output files that are ok for commons. I just need the bot to clear my upload then I will over write it with crop and colour fixed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
What Canoe just said. Very cool that the discussion was able to allow a look at flickr. It always seems to have some good shots. let me upload what I thought was good and just toss it in for discussion. I did tend to think that all of the flickr images needed some adjusting and cropping though.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
The version I uploaded is about 1 MB larger, I think. I'm not sure why. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In fact, User:Anna Frodesiak has uploaded the one I thought was best, but it is cropped a bit close (Edit="no,,,that as good as you can get it without the book becoming a distraction). I will upload mine separately.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
(Here is my Flickr fair game url: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=~&l=commderiv&ss=0&ct=0&mt=all&w=all&adv=1 Click it. When you get to Flickr, double click the teeny tilde in the url. Then you can replace it with the word(s) you want and it will return only CC results that we can use at Commons. Don't forget to check the uploader's photostream to ensure the cameras and styles aren't all different. That's a sign he doesn't own the pics.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Canoe1967: "I think we can probably all agree to C." I'm not sure what your basis is for this statement, but we do not all agree to C. Three people here have indicated that they favor C, five have indicated B, and twelve have indicated A. (One of those for A was Anna, who has since uploaded a new photo, so it's possible that her favored pic has changed, in which case it would be eleven for A and four for C, but she has not explicitly stated this either way.)

In addition, changing the photo in the article when a discussion is still ongoing is inappropriate. If you'd like to test how it looks, it would be better to use the Sandbox. Nightscream (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

My basis is that most A. and B. earlier hadn't seen C. Most above seem to agree we should use the best and most recent. C. is the best as well as recent.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Just because a number of editors haven't seen the new photo does not mean that you can assume what their favored pic would be, or what they think the "best" one would be. That, to put it mildly, is shady. Don't you think it would be less questionable to simply contact them again to inform of them the added choice, in case they'd be inclined to revise their stated favored photo? Nightscream (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • C or E, doesn't really matter to me. I removed my lame D version. A is too old and B still has lighting and other issues. Those other editors probably have it on watch lists.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Mr. Remender just wrote back to me saying that he will take a new photo today and send it right over. Then he wrote again saying he likes C and that's fine with him (and I'm guessing any variant). Then he wrote again saying that "Google" has his birth year as 1978 but it's really 1973. Oh, and he said that he doesn't really like the 2010 pic we had there before, which ever one that is. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, we still need to cite a published source for the birth date. There was no source in the article, so I removed the birth date entirely.
As for Remender's feelings about the photo, my feelings is that the subject's feeling can be taken into consideration (and indeed is the reason this discussion was called), but cannot be the sole determining factor in choosing the photo. Ultimately, it will be determined by WP:CONSENSUS.
Speaking of which, I contacted those who participated in the discussion prior to the addition of the newest photo, in order to view it and clarify if their position on the most appropriate photo has changed, as per the matter mentioned above. Nightscream (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Would a photo of him holding up a bit of paper saying "My birthday is xxxx" be considered a good source? I just suggested that to him. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Nope. I think that is considered self published. See also: Hoang v. Amazon.com.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Self-published sources can be used under certain, limited circumstances. As long as the material is not unduly self-serving, does not make claims about a third party, there is no doubt as to its authenticity, it is not used to support the subject's notability, and it is merely used for statements of fact, and not claims that are analytical or interpretive, etc., they can be used. Things like dates or places of birth are innocuous (unless one's date or place of birth is itself a controversial issue, as with Michael Moore or Barack Obama), and therefore using something like a subject's own website to source them is perfectly fine. See WP:PSTS and WP:SELFPUB.
The question is, where is the photo of him holding up the sign published? Is it on his website? (If so, he could just create a page or make a blog entry mentioning the details of his birth and early life, and we could just cite that.) Nightscream (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard would probably answer best. I will strike my above answer.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Looking at fixtures in http://www.flickr.com/photos/patloika/8688024283/ which is in the same set I would say Sodium-vapor lamp or Metal-halide lamp both add a touch of orange/yellow that override the natural tones that should have been created by the flash.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • C or E either/both are better than A and B. Between C and E, I'd then vote for C. --luckymustard (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The question is confusing as it seems to illicit a choice between two images when there are actually four images on display (A, B, C, and D). If it is a question between the four images, I choose image B. If it is a question between the images C and D, different only due to editing, I do not see enough difference in the two to warrant a debate. Either is fine. Both have their own separate positives and negatives. Glendale1 (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I think A lost votes because it is too old and B lost votes because of lighting and the 'staged pose'. Most of the earlier votes were before we had C an E. D was my lame effort that I removed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward

Do you think we could now replace the image with one of the C-D-Es? It's clear that A isn't going to be it. Then we can tweak the decision about which of those is best. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe1967: "I think A lost votes because it is too old and B lost votes"
Anna Frodesiak: "It's clear that A isn't going to be it."
Again, you both seem to be making statements that do not reflect the content of what people have said in this discussion. Putting aside the fact that WP:CONSENSUS is not about "voting", Canoe, you again presuming to speak for others as to their reasons for their favored pic, and both of you seem to be implying that consensus has decided against "A", when nine editors have selected A as their favored pic, while a total of ten have selected either C, E, or stated that either C or E are acceptable. That makes the discussion roughly even, and that's after I notified those I originally contacted about the more recently-added choices. Of those, almost none felt it necessary to re-post to indicate a change in their position, and the one who did, Bbb23, made it clear that seeing the new photos had not given him caused to change his.
These statements of yours to the contrary come across as an attempt to strongarm the discussion, by portraying it as having produced a consensus that it has not. I'm guessing that this is not your intent, and I'm certainly not trying to violate AGF by leaping to accusatory conclusions--perhaps you perceived a wider consensus for C or E that is not born out by having looked through the discussion and counting the editors' statements--but whatever the cause, the discussion has not yielded the conclusion you claim it does.
I want to make clear that I have no problem with using C or E if a consensus emerges for it. But we don't have that yet. Here's what I'll do:
I'll contact more editors to weigh in, using the same neutrally-worded type of message. This time, instead of choosing Comics Project editors or those who have edited this article, I'll contact photography-centric editors, and these editors will have the benefit of seeing all the choices upfront. If a consensus emerges for a given photo, I'll gladly change it myself, as I have in previous photo discussions. :-) Nightscream (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
A. was voted on earlier before we had the newer images. Selecting 2010 over 2013 is not the way to go so A. should def be out. B. can be fixed with a lot of effort it photoshop/gimp to fix the lighting. I don't intend to spend time editing it but others may wish to. D. is a quick mess I made that we could overwrite with better tone than C. and E. We could take a white section of the original and see how it varies from 6500k in Color temperature, which is natural white. This way we could get close to natural tone by adjusting by numbers and not by eye or auto-correction.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I am here because I got a request on my talk page to review these photos. I haven't read the entire discussion thoroughly. Of the ABCDE set, I prefer the CDEs. Of those, I would probably pick C or E. However, from a quality of portrait perspective, none of these images are good. Remender's face is well lit in the CDEs, but like all the images I'm seeing here (including the ones in the birthday discussion), they suffer from poor composition. A portrait subject shouldn't have background clutter, or extraneous objects in the background level with their ears to such a conspicuous degree. I understand that it's often difficult to compose properly on the fly during a convention, but Remender seems to be communicating with editors enough to send a better portrait. That said, with no other portraits to choose from, I'd go with or E. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe1967: "A. was voted on earlier before we had the newer images." One more time: You cannot automatically assume that this means those editors would have chosen one of the newer images. One editor chimed in to make it clear that he saw the newer images, and did not change his position. All the others were also contacted to indicate whether their positions have changed, and none (thus far) have indicated a change. I already said this above, so why are you repeating the original fallacy?

Canoe1967: "Selecting 2010 over 2013 is not the way to go so A. should def be out..." In your opinion. Not in the opinion of others. The fact that you hold this opinion does not mean that A is disqualified if a consensus of editors feel otherwise.

There are many editors, myself included, who correctly feel that recentism is not a relevant criteria when the subject's appearance has not changed in any significant way. You can tell that a 1986 photo of George Burns is obviously more recent than a 1955 photo of him, because of the obvious changes in appearance. This does not apply when the typical, casual reader can only discern which of two photos is more recent by looking at their upload information or captions.

I have left notices on the talk pages of Wikipedia:Featured pictures, WikiProject Photography, and on the Commons Picture of the day and Commons Village Pump. That should hopefully yield a consensus. We are not assuming consensus by virtue of the mere arguments that one editor uses for his position. Nightscream (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Lead image selection - Redux

The above became a bit of a mess then stalled. New images came along mid-way. Can we start over? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

redundant gallery
  •  
    A.
    at NYComiCon, 2010
  •  
    B.
    by Remender, 2013
  •  
    C.
    April 2013 (colours adjusted)
  •  
    D.
    This file can change if someone tries a 3rd tone adjust.
  •  
    E.
    which is C with Auto Color in Photoshop
  • F.
    F.
  •  
    G. Crop, color corrected F.

I just put C. in the aricle. A. was there but it was 2010 so it is not recent enough. C. or E. are the best two. B. has lighting/glare/other issues and D. is a lame and quick one I did. C. looks closest to natural lighting to my eye but others may disagree.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

And I just put A. back. I don't like A. but Nightscream already reverted when you tried to change it before consensus is reached. I think it's fair to wait. Lets be patient, please. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

2010 is too old. It doesn't matter which image is in the article while we discuss it but at least we can use one of the recent ones.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree it's too old. I agree it's the wrong image. I don't agree with a unilateral action during disucussion before consensus is reached. I will not revert you, but others might. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I originally changed it simply because it was a newly uploaded image that was newer than the existing one. Whether or not a discussion is going on is no reason to not update an article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, Nightscream started a discussion to pick an image on July 28th. In the middle of the discussion at 21:06, 29 July 2013‎ you added the image of your choice.
Whether or not a discussion is going on is no reason to not update an article. I have to disagree. The update you made was unilaterally selecting the photo you thought best while around 20 editors were discussing exactly that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
You may disagree but many won't. When articles in AfD they still get edited and updated. I see no reason to leave the oldest image in the article while we are deciding. Reverting a normal image update is just childish on your part and Nightscream's. I can get the tone almost perfect in GIMP for c/d/e but if you keep acting like children with edit wars then I will just f*** off.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
No need to say we're acting like children. Perhaps I'm being a bit bureaucratic, though. I just thought it a bit discourteous to swap in the image you prefer while the discussion about which image is best is still taking place. Anyway, this is not a big deal, and there's no need for hard feelings. Please don't be upset. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Canoe, you've been here long enough to know people get upset if someone changes images while discussion is ongoing. Even if it is the image ultimately chosen. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I think we should use the "My birthday is" photo. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  Like Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe1967: "Whether or not a discussion is going on is no reason to not update an article."
Wrong. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Editing the disputed aspect of the article before consensus is reached is called edit warring, and it's a blockable offense. Is that a good enough "reason" for you? Whether you think 2010 is "too old" is irrelevant. That is an argument you may cite for your position. It is not, however, a rationale for unilaterally deciding for everyone when consensus has not been reached.

Canoe1967: "When articles in AfD they still get edited and updated."
We're not talking about AfD. Editing an article listed at AfD does not have the effect implementing a decision that must be reached by the deletion discussion in question, a significant distinction that you should be aware of. But if an editor tried to delete an article before the deletion discussion was closed, then you can be assured that he would be similarly admonished.

Canoe1967: "Reverting a normal image update is just childish on your part and Nightscream's."
Um, no, you're getting it backwards. Trying to decide for the entire group when the group has not yielded consensus is childish. And more to the point, it's edit-warring. By contrast, keeping calm, remaining patient, and refraining from such unilateral actions, because Wikipedia policy requires it, as everyone else here seems to be doing, is the far more mature and collaboration-friendly thing to do. Why someone like you, who has accumulated close to 8,700 edits since July 2011 doesn't know this, I have no idea. But you will not decide for the entire group. If you continue to edit-war, then the article will be protected from further edits until the discussion is over, and you risk being blocked from editing. Please do not make that necessary. Nightscream (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur with each of Nightscream's points, and wish I'd written them. Further, I'd box all off-topic discussion digressions (including this, my comment). The topic for this section is !voting on image selection, which is not yet complete. --Lexein (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I haven't changed my !vote because I dislike A-E: I'd prefer to see the author in action, signing a book, or at least head and shoulders. This face-only badge-shot business just bugs me. --Lexein (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Lead image selection - A reasonable way to get to the next step

Maybe this will help us narrow it down.

redundant gallery without captions

A statement to agree with or not:

"Go ahead and use one of the images that is not A. or B. and I won't kick up a fuss if it's not the most pefect one because it will at least move us forward."

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I gather that the community doesn't think this thread is helpful. No worries. I was just trying to split things in two. I guess it wasn't so brilliant. All this E. or C. business made me think that it will be impossible to figure out which is best. Okay, well, I'm over budget on energy spent on this one. I'll leave it to others to decide. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Latest image

redundant gallery lacking captions

I boldly swapped it in. Rick says that they spent an hour on this and would like everyone to know that they went to a lot of trouble to accommodate Wikipedia. I hope everyone approves of the new image. Personally, I like it very much. Thank you, Rick!!! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay. The image was removed per "poorly lit/colored, and poorly cropped". I give up, and I think I can speak for Rick in saying that he gives up too. The current image seems to be the worst of all. The community got tired of this and left. The talk posts above seem to overwhelmingly agree that A. is the worst choice. The better images remain unused. I don't understand how this can be the result. I tried. I failed. I'm sorry to everyone. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Nightscream. I think any image that you swap in would stick. Do you really prefer the current image? As the community really seems to find the present image the least favourable, any one you pick would be an improvement. So, which do you prefer? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Again, what is your basis for your assessment of the community? Have there been additional editors chiming in about their favored photo since I last counted them up? Because when I did, it seemed fairly even. Again, I'd settle for either A, or one similar to C. Nightscream (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
My basis is that nary an A is to be found since the other images arrived. It's all E and C. So, if you can handle a C or a variant, please swap it in. I really think far more editors would prefer that than leaving the A in there. Would that be okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
All: in photo discussions, there really is no rush. At all. There's no requirement that the subject be looking directly into camera, or to be cropped like it's a badge photo. In the meantime, IMHO it should stay as "A" despite it's age, because it's not cropped too tight, and because the community hasn't found another image with a clear consensus. IMHO there have been a few errors here, which I thought we all knew not to do from long past discussions (IMHO):
  • There should be only one master photo gallery to which all new candidate photos are added. More than one gallery can't help but seem to some like "throwing out" earlier !votes.
  • We should accept that alternate images will trickle in, and so people who !voted shouldn't be annoyed that they might have to re-evaluate and possibly change their !vote. On a related point, don't assume the community "left" or "gave up" - I, for one, was waiting for new candidate photos to re-!vote on.
  • We should (happily, if possible) accept when there's no consensus as just that: no consensus, so no action.
  • We shouldn't open extended nonpublic conversations with folks who choose not to discuss publicly, nor act as proxy for them.
At this point, a cooling-off period is really required, I think, for at least 10 days. I suggest we box-hide extra photo galleries and their related discussion, and resume at the main one. --Lexein (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • (ec) C is the best choice in my opinion of the consensus. I don't know why both of you are edit warring over it after chewing my ass out for doing the same. Counting any votes before we had the newer image should not be done. A is older and should not be included while we discuss it as many have said any but A. I am going to put C back in while we discuss it. If you two revert then I will bring it to the drama boards. C, or variations of it, have the most votes since we got the newer ones. I also think we chased some of the earlier voters away.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Come on, now, everyone. I count at least 5 A or Left !votes, including my own. Hardly "nary". There's no consensus, sorry to say, so please stop pushing any particular image. There's just no requirement for article images to look like badge photos. Holy crap, stop with the non-consensed moves. --Lexein (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Nightscream, I think you should have asked a non-involved admin to lock the article (and add the lock symbol, please), rather than doing it yourself. Seriously. Come on now. Unlock, and request an uninvolved admin to do it, please. --Lexein (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I am going straight to the drama boards with it if you don't revert. You should know better and the boards may teach you that. This is two admin that are edit warring now with one abusing tools.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak: "My basis is that nary an A is to be found since the other images arrived..." Again, we are not going to disregard those who selected A before the more recent images arrived, nor are we going to assume that they would have picked one of the others. Those who selected A were contacted about the newer images, and most did not respond to indicate that they changed their selection, and the one who did respond indicated that he did not. We are not chucking those editor's stated feelings out the window just because some think that newer images makes those opinions irrelevant. In surveying those who spoke here, the feelings appear roughly half between A or C-E. If you want, I'll contact more editors to offer their opinions. If C-E are so likely to draw more favored opinions, then newer editors contacted will presumably favor those latter pics, and a consensus for them will emerge, correct?

Canoe1967: "C is the best choice in my opinion of the consensus." One more time: It is the best choice in your opinion. It is not the best choice according to any consensus, because about half of the people who have spoken here have preferred one, and the other half have preferred others.

Canoe1967: "Counting any votes before we had the newer image should not be done." Wrong. Disregarding them should not be done. While it would be nice if they could explicitly clarify if their votes had changed or not, we're not disregarding the earlier ones, just because you want to strong-arm the discussion by arguing for a consensus that does not exist.

In any event, if this were true, then we'd have to discount all those who chimed in here before I added the newest photo, F, which Anna has brought to our attention, since they did see that one.

Canoe1967: "A is older and should not be included while we discuss it..." Non sequitur. The age of the photo is an arbitrary criterion that you cite for your opinion. It is not a criterion for removing a photo during a discussion, nor have you cited a single policy, guideline, aspect of MOS or principle of logic or reasoning to support this idea. You're trying to fabricate reasons to push your selection through, and it's not working. There is no reason why your favored photo should be left in the article by default during a discussion, as opposed to the current one. And if it were, then we'd have to place F in there, since it's the most recent photo.

Canoe1967: "...as many have said any but A." And the same amount have indeed said A. Emphasizing the views of half of those editors as relevant, as if the those of the other half are not, is dishonest.

Canoe1967: "I am going to put C back in while we discuss it." Wrong. I have reverted the article and protected it. And count yourself lucky that I haven't contacted an uninvolved administrator to have you blocked from editing for edit warring.

Canoe1967: "If you two revert then I will bring it to the drama boards." So much for "then I will just f*** off." But by all means, go ahead. They will see that you reverted repeatedly during a consensus discussion (while simultaneously accusing others of edit-warring), have used deliberately deceptive arguments to conclude a consensus that doesn't exist, and have arbitrarily disregarded the views of other members of the community, just in order to get your way. If you think anyone on those boards will look kindly on that, be my guest, and raise this matter there.

Canoe1967: "C, or variations of it, have the most votes since we got the newer ones." Consensus does not work on "voting", and if you familiarized yourself with WP:CONSENSUS, you'd know that. One or two people stating that they like C-E more than those who prefer A is not a consensus. Again, most of those who selected C or its variants didn't see F.

Canoe1967: "I also think we chased some of the earlier voters away." Again, you do not get to speak for others. It is just as equally possible that many editors, when asked to weigh in on a particular matter, do not like to dwell on it for longer than it takes to voice their opinion. This "chase away" comment by you is just another fabrication. Stop pretending that the made-up states of mind that you attribute to others are a question of fact, let alone that are an excuse for you to conclude that a consensus for your viewpoint has been reached. It hasn't.

I will contact more editors individually to offer their opinions. If C-E are so likely to draw more favored opinions, then newer editors contacted will presumably favor those latter pics, and a consensus for them will emerge, and I will gladly change the Infobox pic to that one myself.

Lexein: "Nightscream, I think you should have asked a non-involved admin to lock the article (and add the lock symbol, please), rather than doing it yourself. Seriously. Come on now. Unlock, and request an uninvolved admin to do it, please." Who protects an article is irrelevant. (The lock symbol is added automatically by the protection mechanism, btw, and no longer requires being added through an edit). As long as the protection is valid--in this case, to bring an end to edit warring--then who does it is moot. Canoe has been repeatedly engaging in edit warring by reverting the article during discussion, and without consensus, while hypocritically complaining that Anna and I have done the same (when in fact, I have merely been reverting edit-war edits, and Anna merely made a bold edit in which she presented a new photo. I disagree with her approach, but I believe her edit was done in good faith). Personally, I think protecting an article and then asking another admin to re-protect it is rather perverse, but if it means that much to you, I'll go to an uninvolved admin and have them protect the article. Nightscream (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

ugh - out-of-thread response textblocks suck. I agree with the lock, but strongly feel that who does it is relevant, to avoid any appearance of abuse of tools, and to avoid this simple discussion exploding onto the "drama boards". So yes, I feel you should ask an uninvolved admin to take on the lock, as an act of good faith. I also feel that dating the photo gallery captions ("@30 July", "@7 August") is important, to put the discussion comments in time context. --Lexein (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I've just left messages on the talk pages of 33 editors. 30 of them were those who posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography, and another three on Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures. Hopefully that will yield a more clear consensus. Nightscream (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
OMFG madness. Can we at least go back to ONE GALLERY? Will anyone answer me on that? Please? Where do you expect these new 33 to !vote? Let's box all the galleries past the first one. --Lexein (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Addendum: All new !votes should go below, only for neatness' sake. All !votes on the infobox photo on this page will be counted equally, without regard to section. --Lexein (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
To Lexein Nightscream: I'm sorry I assumed so much. Maybe I'm reading it wrong and A is best. I saw so much indecision and confusion, I was just trying to cut through the mess and get things sorted out. Personally, I don't really care which image goes in. What I care about is so much discussion wasted on something so small. My aim is always resolve-and-move-on. A thousand pardons. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
No worries, Anna. You acted in good faith, and that's the most important thing. I'm not going to argue which is best; I just want the ultimate decision to be a matter of consensus, that's all. If we looked through the thread and came to different conclusions in good faith, well, hopefully the additional editors commenting will bring a genuine consensus into higher relief. :-) Nightscream (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Nightscream. I wasn't trying to come off as impatient -- just results-oriented. And no need to protect the thing on my account. I won't touch the article, and I very much doubt Canoe will either. This may all go down in history as one of the lamest something-or-others. I may have to move to another country, change my name, and pay for a lot of expensive plastic surgery (or a WP:CLEANSTART, either or) :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Experiments were performed, and results were obtained! Just not the results expected or hoped for. I'm chagrined that I didn't refactor all those new sections and galleries sooner, so that new visitors to this discussion would not be confused (as expressed by one editor below). And though I'm grumpy, I still appreciate your enthusiasm, Anna. But I think I just volunteered to be the infobox photo selection discussion moderator, since I always letter the gallery photos, always want just one gallery and one !vote section, always want more images to choose from, want to always keep !votes coming in, and always campaign for more time to be allowed before any action is taken. --Lexein (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I like C the best, I guess... I was asked for an opinion on this on my talk page. I don't recall voting in one of these before so I'm not sure why I was canvased. I probably just made a typo correction or something. This vote discussion is confusing for newbies to follow. I'm voting on the last set of pictures. In my completely neutral opinion (I'd never heard of this person), I slightly like C over the others. A makes the guy look like somebody else. B is a close 2nd choice. The colors look too unnatural on the other C-iterations. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Ditto on everything Jason Quinn just said. (Michael Barkowski (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC))
  • I was asked to comment. C is my first choice. E is fine, but on my screen, C's colors look a little more natural. F and G are okay, I guess, but they don't really show his face, which makes them less desirable than a headshot for the lead image. B is poor because of the awkward lighting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • C. Not much different than D. I can still fix it to almost perfect from the original, but the others are too much work and aren't worth my time.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Duplicate !vote warning: do not count this, as prior !votes by this editor have not been struckthrough. I will remove this comment when/if strikethrough is performed. --Lexein (talk) 08:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I thought this was the third vote on the same page. Why do we have three vote sections then? I will just strike it and go away.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Currently, the whole page is one long revisitable !voting session, unfortunately scattered due to the addition of sections, and my failing to boldly remove those artificial boundaries promptly, due to bad timing. It's a wiki, and people can change their positions as often as they like as more evidence appears, and as discussion continues. I've just been taking my time, in case more pictures come in. This has been one of the more trying photo selection discussions, due primarily to overeager bold actions which were, in the main, done in good faith. I'm glad some of the new 33 are chiming in, and are fairly uniform in their preference. What say we recount after no new votes for 5 days? --Lexein (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Since it's been a few days since I made the latest round of contacts, and there have been about seven more editors indicating that C is their favored photo, I'm satisfied that consensus is for that photo. Are there any objections? Nightscream (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd wait one more day, for a total of five since the last !vote, then commit. I agree that C seems to be the consensus. --Lexein (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm late to this discussion. I just saw the message in my inbox. I think that the image now showing on the page is good; would leave it. Will (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, C was generally preferred by the highest percentage of editors here. As time went on, it grew on me, as well. --Lexein (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I vote photo C CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

And C it is! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Birthdate

Latest comment: 11 years ago48 comments10 people in discussion
File:Rick Remender showing his birthdate.jpg
February 6, 1973

So, what do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Won't say anything after the huge fiascos at Sondra Locke and Jan Mak. I avoid birthdate discussions now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Bwahahahahahahahahaha! (This really is funny, and not being sarcastic) Sorry. I know that is not the typical reaction on Wikipedia....but then this is NOT the typical thread. Uhm.....there is so much wrong here I don't know where to begin, but I guess the best place is, Thank you Mr. Remender for the images, unfortunately, content on Wikipedia must be verifiable. It is a core principle. Birthdates can be tricky and in reality are not really required on the article. In order to place this information someone needs to verify it with a reliable source. In the past when there have been questions about a notable persons DOB, we have gone through all the conflicting sources and made a consensus on which sources to exclude. A government birth record is actually considered a verifiable source. It need not be linked to the page as a reference. As long as it can be verified to be you and the recorded information, the DOB from that has been used as "verified".
Why the laugh? I was really caught off guard by the subject of the article communicating in this fashion. As a comic book artist...it was ironic. But Rick, you are very much welcome to register an account and join the discussion and I urge you to do so. There is no harm in that. We have some behavioral guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest, but you can use "best practices" and discuss the content on the talk page without any issue. So, are there sources for the DOB and if not can there be a reliable DOB on record that is clearly the subject? (Remember birth records sometimes contain personal information and for that reason should never be linked directly to the discussion or article. You may link to a location where it is accessible if available online).--Amadscientist (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to say what was right and not dwell on what was wrong, but I made the remark so I should at least touch on it. Generally the subject of a BLP has very little control on the article itself and sometimes there is input from them. It is not uncommon (...OK this way is uncommon. Never seen it. Almost wish it had a thought bubble in it though.;-)) for the subject to weigh in on even sources etc. But direct editing should be left to other contributors. I can say that similar situations about such things as the full name of a subject have been hotly contested just because there was no source and just the claim of the subject. It can be very frustrating for living persons who are the subject of Wikipedia articles but we strive to be accurate and we do want to work with a consensus. More information can be found at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and, just incase you want to see our full policy on COI editing, you can review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and, just incase there is ever information that requires immediate attention or you can or wish to verify something of a personal nature you don't wish made public you can e-mail the OTRS team. See Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team. The last link is probably the most important link the subject themself might want. It is sometimes very useful. Thanks for the original input.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

As has already been stated, we need a citation of a reliable source to add his date of birth. Wikipedia cannot cite itself, because that is circular sourcing, and the info cannot be added by Remender himself or a proxy with that personal knowledge, for that is original research.

Again, if this issue is that important to him, does he have an official website or blog where he can mention it? Nightscream (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No, actually you do not need a citation but one would certainly be added or an explanatory note. Remember it only needs to be verifiable not easily accessible. If there is a verifiable government record, it may be a secondary source to some as the birth record is made by the hospital and the government record is recording that. But information does not require an actual citation, it is, however, a requirement that it be verifiable.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Now having said that, what Nightscream suggest is still the easiest method.....for us, but it might not be for Mr. Remender. He may need to have the website designer or creator to update the site bio, but he does have an ooficial site, so if he were to just add the information there we would be able to use the official site to reference the information with an inline citation that way. It satisfies RS for a BLP.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear:

  • Okay: Mr. Remender phones his website guy and tells him his birthdate. The website guy adds it to his website.
  • Not okay: Mr. Remender emails an image stating his birthdate to Wikipedia.

Well then, what about if Mr. Remender emails an image stating his birthdate to his website guy? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he uses an image or not. What matters is that the information come from a published source, and it has to be independent of Wikipedia. Ideally, a secondary source would be best. Less ideal but acceptable would be if his website stated his birth date. Even less ideal than that would be posting the photo on his site, though I supposed it would be okay, as long as it it was explicitly and unambiguously posted by the webmaster(s). I'm not sure why it should have to be a photo. Can't the website just say it outright, perhaps in its bio section (if it has one)? Nightscream (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
It appears he does have a bio section at his official website. It is the easiest way to reference this material in the most common and acceptable way. It must be unambiguous text added directly to the biographical information and not a comment by the subject in the comment section etc..--Amadscientist (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Considering http://rickremender.com/?p=910 and the image, do you think it's reasonable to add the exact day (February 6, 1973) to the infobox? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

No, because the blog entry at that link doesn't mention the exact day. Nightscream (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I think this may need to brought up at the BLP noticeboard. I am becoming uncomfortable with off wiki interactions between the subject and an editor that may be trying to influence this article in a manner that might violate some of our policies and guidelines. The date of birth is simply not an issue needing this much attention from the subject that, for some reason does not want to follow the advice being given. Photos being e-mailed to an Administrator and blog posts from the figure for or about Wikipedia is starting to make me a little concerned. (Amadscientist)--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 21:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with it. Mr. Remender is following proper COI and using the talk page of his article. The contact through email is transparent. I don't think we should ask him to create an account or IP edit the talk page for input. Take a look at Talk:Robert_Silverberg#NPOV where the subject chimed in as an IP. Mr. Remender just wants to get his birthdate sourced. I don't see a reason why he would want to falsify it. It isn't like Hoang v. Amazon.com where the age was a huge issue.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Really? So you don't see an issue for an editor to be uploading images being sent to them from the subject without a proper license just as a way to attempt sourcing a DOB in a manner not consistent with guidelines? If Remender took the image it is a clear copyright violation for the editor to have uploaded it and no attempt to OTRS it. If the subject and the editor wish to circumvent policy and procedure and skip over the advice being given by a number of editors, eventually "I don't hear you" becomes an issue. Continued links to non reliable sources for referencing is concerning. Why doesn't the admin assisting Mr. Remender know more about our policies and procedures here in this regard and if you are going to assist the subject why isn't more effort being made to understand and review policy in this regard. It isn't that something is wrong here, its that something isn't right. I won't take this to the BLP noticeboard if others think there is nothing to be concerned about but I do ask Mr. Remender to contact OTRS to verify that image and ask the editor/admin assisting them to please review guidelines on reliable sourcing as you may find pertinent information to assist the subject in a far better capacity.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 22:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The subject didn't influence me at all. I posted here asking about the birthday. I didn't just believe him and add it to the article. And as for his image, I like the Flickr image and not the one he sent.
About the image, I thought entering his name as source and author would be fine without OTRS considering everything that's on this talk page. I mean, I wrote to him asking him to hold up a bit of paper with his birthdate, then he sent it. Anyway, I'll write to him for OTRS now and tag the pages OTRS pending. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The photographer is the copyright holder. Have her, assuming the lovely Mrs. Remender, email http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS with a url or the file name so they can find it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Anna, you wrote to the subject and asked him to take this picture? You don't see an issue there? Seriously, you cannot get the subject involved in this manner. You've influenced the subject and given them a false sense of hope about the birth dating. If Mr. Remender wishes any further involvement on this article I strongly urge them to start posting on their own. It isn't as if I haven't been contacted by the subjects of Wikipedia articles. I even have friends with articles, but for me to involve myself on their articles would be a conflict of interest. Anna, you now have a conflict of interest here. I am sorry if I sound critical, but this has gone from cute to concerning.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 02:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
False hope? I don't quite understand that.
Influenced? Do you mean in the composition of this latest image? I didn't give my opinion to him of how the image should be. I really don't care that much. When I wrote to him, I gave him the link to this thread: User talk:Anna Frodesiak#Rick Remender, so I guess Nightscream has influenced him. And of course, Rick has been following the discussion on this page the whole time, so I guess everyone here has been influencing him too. But I think he has a mind of his own and influenced himself. After all, a big part of what he does for a living is image composition, right? :)
Anyway, I won't touch the article again. I don't even want to post here again. If Rick emails me again, I will post here and say what he said, if you want. If you don't want me to, I won't. I really, really, really want to edit elsewhere. This has been a huge time-suck, and I want out.
Oh, and the OTRS is sent, received, and returned. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this debate seriously here? Everyone needs a healthy dose of common sense. Ignore what you think the policies say. Nick claims to have been born on February 6. Unless there is a reason to doubt that, let that be what the article says. Stuff the link to the image into a note. If you want to be pedantic, you can claim that the photograph is the source and WMF is simply a host. Or we can ask Mr. Remender to post his birthday on his website. Do not let rules get in the way of improving Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Uhm....you cannot source a DOB with that image. It does not belong in notes or anywhere on this article. And We already suggested that Mr. Remender place this in his official webpage in the biography section but the subject chose to ignore the advice given and simply posted it as a note to Wikipedia in a comment.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 03:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Why can't we source the DOB with a note about that image? Recall that WP:V requires sources for material "challenged or likely to be challenged". In light of the picture do you challenge the accuracy of the DOB, or is your only objection that it does not meet the letter of RS? Someguy1221 (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Anna Frodesiak's attempts to deal directly with the subject appears to be fine. I would still remind the editor that neutrality is still a concern and that this is up to them to decide how far to go. As for the image itself as a source. It isn't. Facts can only be referenced with reliable sources of which this is absolutely not. I will challenge any attempt to source facts with non RS on this page. I have been over this on this page and if no attempt is made to source this fact with a RS, It will eventually end up as a content dispute and the history of the discussion shows all the advice being given has simply been ignored. If the subject refuses to add the information as requested and advised, and no reliable source is available and no birth certificate is available to verify, the information is excluded. it isn't that important to the article anyway.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 03:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that the image is a good enough source for the date under WP:SELFPUB (the section about self-published sources in our main policy on verification). – Fayenatic London 12:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe1967: "Mr. Remender is following proper COI and using the talk page of his article." There is nothing about WP:COI that indicates that using the talk page of the article about a subject is the proper procedure for subject to add information about themselves.

Canoe1967: "The contact through email is transparent. I don't think we should ask him to create an account or IP edit the talk page for input."

Fayenatic London: "It seems to me that the image is a good enough source for the date under WP:SELFPUB (the section about self-published sources in our main policy on verification)."

Contact through email is not "transparent". Using email constitutes relying on persona knowledge as a source (both the subject's personal knowledge, and the editor's personal knowledge gleaned from the subject). Relying on personal knowledge is original research, which is strictly prohibited. We need published sources for info. That means published elsewhere. You can't "self-publish" material on Wikipedia.

Canoe1967: "Take a look at Talk:Robert_Silverberg#NPOV where the subject chimed in as an IP." I do not not see an IP or mention of one in that discussion you linked to. Can you clarify? What was the content discussion about?

Regarding OTRS, OTRS is only used regarding emails from the public, in cases such as copyright claims when a subject wants a file uploaded. OTRS cannot be used as a source, nor can any file hosted on Wikipedia because that is circular sourcing.

If Mr. Remender wants to get his exact birthdate sourced, I would imagine that he'd have included the day in the August 1 blog entry he made, which Anna cited when she added that info. I've sent a message to him via his website, asking him if he can add the day of birth to that blog entry if he is interested in having it added to his article. Nightscream (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

"If you have a conflict of interest, any changes you would like to propose that might be seen as non-neutral should be suggested on the relevant talk page or noticeboard." from WP:COI--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The mention of the email contact was transparent though. Once we are aware that an editor is in contact we should either watch their edits or have them requested on the talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
"I'm Robert Silverberg (really and truly) and I wrote all that stuff. ----Robert Silverberg" The bot didn't sing the IP.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Please avoid repeating other people's material and your own points at such length. The story to date does not match what you say you imagine!   Remember Remender is a comic book artist, a master of the "reveal" through multiple methods of communication. IMHO, WP:IAR means we can sidestep some of the detailed technical requirements when the overall point is evident. Sorry in advance if stating the above prompts the subject to hold back from ticking our boxes! – Fayenatic London 17:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
You have to, at the very least, explain how ignoring our verifiability policy and our Reliable Sourcing policy will improve the article. It seems to me that the subject has simply ignored all of the advice being given and frankly, if they are in private communication with an editor they trust...just tell them where you were born and how to look up the birth record. This isn't about the subject, it's about sourcing a fact. it doesn't matter if the subject knows the accurate information. If we cannot verify it, we don't include it. Also, blog post from the subject in this manner is not the official web page. If it isn't in the bio section...we cant use it. Why...? because we don't really know if that is actually him if he can't even change his own web page and has to resort to a blog post. I know, I know...if he can post a blog doesn't that prove it him. No it proves he can post a blog but can't change the site. It says only that he can make a blog on the site...not that he is the subject of the site if the site cannot be changed at his request.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 00:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
It would be an improvement because it would provide relevant information, which it is standard to include, and which Remender has put into the public domain, albeit by unconventional means. If you want to stick to the program, that's fine by me, but in the language of Tron I consider myself a user. Meanwhile people are laughing at us and, like Amadscientist, I think it's funny too. – Fayenatic London 13:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

A blog post can indeed be used as a reliable source, if it comes from the editorial staff or webmaster of the site in question, just as a bio would. As for your comment It says only that he can make a blog on the site...not that he is the subject of the site if the site cannot be changed at his request., I don't even understand what you're trying to say there. Nightscream (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope. A blog is NOT a reliable source unless it is a newsblog. If you don't know that perhaps you should review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Sorry you didn't understand my last post. I will try again. Just being able to add a "blog" to a site does not prove they are the subject. As you just noted, the blog was not added by editorial staff or webmaster. It was a blog entry by someone claiming to be Remender that we have absolutely no way to demonstrate was him and is not acceptable as a reliable source in any way. it must be an actual part of the proper website and not just a note directed to Wikipedia.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 00:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Wut? Are you looking at the same website that I'm looking at? Rick Remender's official website? Someguy1221 (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Again, we have no way to know that Mr. Remender himself added that. it isn't in the official biography and is suspect in the manner it was posted to the site. it isn't that we know it isn't him, its that we can't be sure in this manner. Why can't the subject themselves add the content to their own official website? It may not be easy, but it is not impossible.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 00:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Rick is the only person who ever posts to that website - it's his blog. Are you seriously suggesting that John Cottrell, his website manager, is making fake birthday posts just to fuck with us? Someguy1221 (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Really? You know this as a fact do you? Funny because as yet we cant actually demonstrate it and it is very common for paid staff to post for subjects. I don't think its to "fuck" with us, but...it does seem odd that subject is not following the proper procedure to get this situation settled as has been repeatedly suggested in good faith.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 00:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
It just seems to me an unreasonable level of paranoia. Pick any website anywhere, and it is possible for at least one person to post under a false name. The same is true of any print publication. But it is Rick's website, and posts are in Rick's name. Rick also emailed us to confirm that he is responsible for the posts (OTRS ticket# available if you want), although I suppose you could doubt that Rick sent the email. As long as the blogger is either Rick or someone legally permitted to post on Rick's behalf, it makes no difference to me, and I see no reason to suspect that anything else is the case. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
If OTRS has confirmation that Rick Remender made the blog posts...how does that change the fact that its a blog post? It isn't paranoia, its to protect the subjects themselves.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 01:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Because it's his own blog post? WP:SOCIALMEDIA: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". 01:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I am afraid both the image and the note to Wikipedia are unduly self-serving. This is not meant to be an insult to the subject, but it is the policy you linked.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 01:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The date of his birth is unduly self-serving? Are you serious? I'm trying to assume good faith here Mark, but I'm going to have to give up on this article now. You see to just come up with ever more ridiculous objections. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't write these policies, and of course a picture taken by the subject holding a notepad to source their own birthdate is unduly self serving. So is writing a blog directed at Wikipedia for the same reason. Sorry, but if you wish to counter that this is not unduly self serving, at least give some argument. But if you wish to walk away, I will not attempt to stop you, although I really see no reason for it.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 02:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
No. That's silly. "Self serving" in WP:SELFPUB is explicitly an analysis of the information itself -- here, the birthdate. The manner or reason for publication, has little to to with "the material" "claim" itself. There has been abosolutely no showing that the DOB itself is "unduly self serving." ("I'm king of the world" "I'm the greatest [whatever]," "Everyone likes me," "I cured cancer," etc. etc, etc, is unduly self serving information. Not this fact that everyone living and dead has). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Mark Miller, your behavior is seriously out of line here. You should apologize to Mr. Remender.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I understand. There is no excuse. Even while believing I was not insulting the subject and attempting to figure a manner to source information, I was not sensitive enough on the talk page to the fact that this is an person who has feelings and while they have every right to edit here their not being present is very much akin to not being able to defend themselves. This isn't because any one is forcing me to do this. Not even Jimbo can force this, but the respect I have for his opinion was certainly enough of a shock to make me step back a little and see this from a distance. I do extend my apologize to Rick Remender and hope my over zealous nature was not in any way making you feel I had been accusing you of lying or any falsehoods.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 18:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
And/or buy him a [beverage] for posting his birthdate-selfie on his blog; problem solved, IMHO. I don't know why this hasn't been done already. I can't do it at the moment, I don't have the airmiles. --Lexein (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Mark: "Nope. A blog is NOT a reliable source unless it is a newsblog. If you don't know that perhaps you should review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources." I don't know that because it's not true. I'm well familiar with WP:IRS, and it is for this reason that I know that there is no such requirement that a blog be a news blog. You might want to review the part of about self-published material, particularly the part that says, Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field", as long as the five criteria subsequently listed are met. Rick Remender is a notable in the comics industry, and he is more than reliable for his own date of birth, which does not violate any of those five criteria.

Mark: "Just being able to add a "blog" to a site does not prove they are the subject. As you just noted, the blog was not added by editorial staff or webmaster." I "just noted" that the blog was not added by an editorial staff or webmaster? Really? Um, no. It's Rick Remender's site, so he is the owner of that site, and is the only one who can make blog entries, as evidenced by the fact that there is no login link or any other indication that users or visitors can make them. You have not established that a blog entry is not a part of the "proper" website, or even what the phrase "proper website" means.

Mark: "it does seem odd that subject is not following the proper procedure to get this situation settled as has been repeatedly suggested in good faith." It's only "odd" if you're unable to understand that the typical, casual Web user, who is not a user of Wikipedia, doesn't know what "proper procedure" is on Wikipedia.

Mark: "I am afraid both the image and the note to Wikipedia are unduly self-serving." Only if you don't know what the phrase self-serving means. For some reason, there seem to be some people who think self-serving refers to any act or endeavor undertake in service to one's own interests. In fact, that's not what it means at all. According to just about any dictionary (American Heritage, Random House, Merriam-Webster's, Dictionary.com), self-serving refers to a selfish preoccupation with one's own interests that goes to such extremes that it disregards the truth or the interests or well-being of others. If Remender went out of his way to ensure that his Wikipedia article listed a bunch of awards, by listing on his website obscure awards that are not held in high-regard in the industry, or in which he was a judge--that would be self-serving. Making a blog entry on your site in order to establish a source for your date of birth is not. Nightscream (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Date format

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

(moved from image caption) February 6, 1973 – Or is it June 2? Ack! -- Lexein (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2013‎

I thought of that, but (i) he's American; (ii) he posted "February 1973" on his blog. Therefore is it common sense, and not WP:SYNTH, to interpret it as Feb 6th.   – Fayenatic London 10:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Which is why my edit summary said (JK!)). (Link added). --Lexein (talk) 11:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rick_Remender/Archive_1&oldid=1090398501"