File talk:Aggie Band Drum Major.JPG

Verifiability

This discussion was moved from the talk page of the article Fightin' Texas Aggie Band.

Pictures of specific individuals like the 2007-2008 drum major, the freshman guarding the drums, and the senior cadet/author make this article look like an ego page. ThreeE 19:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, ThreeE. Let the fun begin...again! The article does go into detail about the band uniform, so it makes sense to include a picture of the uniform to help those (like me) who can't visualize well. Would you have less of an objection of the picture wasn't of our BQ (sorry, Aggie joke, they are all BQs)? I think the picture of the freshman is cute - and does say a lot about the measures the band takes against other bands/potential vandals? but could be removed without harming the article. I disapprove on principle of putting images in the references section, but I think the fact tag is unwarranted. Wikipedia takes the word of the contributor that the picture they upload is what they say it is. Since the image page says exactly what the caption says, we should be okay. If you really disagree, I think the place to dispute it is on the image page, not in the article, as the image could be used on multiple pages. Karanacs 20:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome! I don't think the discussion (not dipute) should be limited to any particular page though. Verifiability does apply to images as well, and if it is just the submitter alone, it is original research -- especially as it is a picture of a person. You pick -- citation, fact tag, or removal. ThreeE 20:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would you recommend citing a picture of a person? Karanacs 20:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A reference that says the person pictured is who it is claimed to be. In this case, the drum major of the band. ThreeE 20:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a SERIOUSLY petty thing to do and does not assume good faith. I took this picture prior step off of the OSU game this year. The person pictured here is carrying a mace (only three people in this uniform are authorized to do so), wearing a whistle (a specific exception made in The Standard), and is wearing two diamonds. If he isn't the drum major, he is doing a picture perfect imitation.

".if it is just the submitter alone, it is original research." Good lord. Everyone put your cameras up and make sure not to add pictures. [/sarcasm used to emphasize point]

If it were something defamatory or amazing, it would be one thing, but this is simply a picture of a band member and is used to illustrate what a band member looks like. It is that simple. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't understand how we could reference other than by pointing to another picture of the same guy that is published somewhere saying specifically who he is. That doesn't seem entirely reasonable. I also think the discussion really has to take place on the image page, because the image could be used in more than one article, and if there really is a question of its verifiability the discussion needs to take place somewhere that all potential users of the image can see and participate in. I'm copying this conversation over there. Karanacs 20:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to nitpick, know that we do give some leeway to images, per Wikipedia:No original research#Original images. A lot of it is just a commonsense assumption of good faith.

This image is missing a source, however, and should be nominated for speedy deletion by placing {{subst:nsd}} on the image description page. -- RG² 21:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking issue with the description of this image is ludicrous. I think ThreeE has proven that he is no longer worthy of a good faith assumption. I could tag nearly every image on Wikipedia since mostly the only ones that are supported by third-party documentation are also the ones that are copyrighted and being used under fair-use. This user is detracting from Wikipedia and wasting time that could otherwise be spent improving articles rather than defending edits against things like this. →Wordbuilder 21:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the WP:ATTACK! Quoting your reference:

The word troll is often and easily (mis)used as an ad hominem attack against someone whose viewpoints and input cannot otherwise be silenced (i.e., via banning). Its successful use and misuse reveals much about how starkly different the world of technicians is compared to normal social and political discourse. The term troll should be used with attention since it is a very easy way of undermining an opposing point of view. Sometimes, overly using the word "troll" may constitute trolling in itself. Established forum users might all agree on one side of a message as being the universal truth; in which case a "troll" might just be some outsider adding an opposing message.

ThreeE 21:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the source of these allegations and your continuing insistence on disrupting anything associated with Aggie Band, the above statement is not an attack, but an observation of your edits and your actions. Your edits are almost EXCLUSIVELY to the detriment of any existing material and, IMHO, are a perfect example of disruptive editing.

Furthermore, comments that you have made are false or blatantly misleading. When your concerns are addressed, you continue to insist that you are right and everyone else is wrong. When you quote a rule/policy/guideline, you quote the sentences that support you and ignore everything else. This is why people find your actions contentious and dishonest (3 violations of 3RR in 45 days + sockpuppetry).

Your edits continue a pattern of behavior that is extremely disruptive to improving articles on Wikipedia. Unless you cease or change your behavior, I see no alternative to an RfA. I would like to avoid that if at all possible. Would mediation be acceptable to you? — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ThreeE, BQZip is correct. I wasn't attacking you personally but was asserting that your continued disruptive behavior is tantamount to trolling. You move from one Aggie-related article to the next searching for things to object to. You ignore the consensus of other editors. It comes to the point where, for the good of the project, some kind of intervention has to take place if you refuse to follow the rules. →Wordbuilder 02:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You called me a troll -- that's an attack. Where have I ignored the consensus of other editors? Where have I been disruptive? Why can't I edit articles I have an interest in? Who made you king? ThreeE 04:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't the first and I doubt he will be the last. If your actions (note I said your actions) aren't trolling they are wikistalking. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ThreeE, given the fact that you are "requiring" something that is specifically given an exception in Wikipedia policy, your argument here seems to hold no water ("Verifiability does apply to images as well, and if it is just the submitter alone, it is original research -- especially as it is a picture of a person. You pick -- citation, fact tag, or removal."). Continuing this "discussion" when the outcome has already been established is trolling. Calling you a "troll" based on your actions is not an attack, but an observation as to the quality of your posts. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what way have I harassed you BQZip? ThreeE 05:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take these irrelevant concerns to your respective talk pages, both of you. Thank you. -- RG² 05:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of discussing this further on this page or anywhere else that currently exists. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]