User talk:Arsabsurdia

Welcome!

Hello, Gtraylo2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring on Dazzle camouflage

Hallo, I do not wish to be unkind on your first day here at Wikipedia, but edit-warring by reverting a change that has already been reverted is not considered a good thing here.

For the record, I reverted your addition, explaining why, and made further changes which I also explained. If we are to undo those then we will need to discuss them, and I trust you will do so on all future articles you may edit.

For now I will note that the computer vision material has some kind of connection to the military patterns used in the World Wars, but is not the same and probably needs a separate article (if reliable sources exist, otherwise it just needs to be deleted). The artistic work is another matter again, with even slighter relevance. I would be grateful if you would refrain from adding that back as it really does not belong in the article. Whether a suitable home can be found for it somewhere else depends on the notability of the artists, on which I have no opinion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chis, thanks for opening up the discussion here. As I also noted when reverting your removal, the "Modern use" section does not constitute an entirely separate concept and is an extension of the well established "Art History" section within the Dazzle camouflage page. Perhaps the added material belongs within the "Art History" section rather than under a separate heading? And as I noted, I do see need of creating a separate article on "CV Dazzle (makeup)" that will disambiguate from the "Dazzle camouflage" article (as of the time of my writing, "CV Dazzle" merely redirects to the "Dazzle camouflage" page), but the topics are not as disparate as you imply so as to justify omission of the connected history. Gtraylo2 (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, go ahead and create the separate page. I do not think we need more than a link to it on the Dazzle camouflage page. You will need to be careful with the cited sources, which need to be "reliable" and independent of the topic. Thus an artist's own website is usable for basic facts that won't be in dispute, but not for statements about the artist's significance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the word "prominent" as in most known and leading with regards to use of CV dazzle, not necessarily as a moniker of importance. The link to the artist's site is again perhaps an issue of disambiguation -- as currently the only other "Adam Harvey" listed on Wikipedia is a country music singer (also plan to add a page for this artist, as he has an established history, especially with regards to CV Dazzle) -- and the site also expands on the connection between CV dazzle makeup and the naval camouflage technique, though this is reported in other news sources that may make a better citation than the artist's own website. Again, I appreciate your patience and feedback as I expand on this admittedly contemporary topic. Nonetheless I do insist on the longstanding value of the topic and on the connection to the naval tradition. I do think the material fits better now within the "Art history" section, though I think the wording still needs to be tweaked now for flow within the larger section. I will make the appropriate changes as soon as possible. Thanks again. Gtraylo2 (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to be clear. The topic is at best a footnote to an article on military history. The defeating of computer vision is potentially a genuine camouflage topic (for a new article, in the main) but is not part of 'dazzle camouflage'. The recent artwork may possibly just fall within the remit of this article - if and only if it is actually inspired by wartime dazzle, rather than other types of camouflage, but again is most likely to form the subject of a separate article, especially if it is going to become at all lengthy. This article should probably have a single sentence to the effect that more recent artworks follow the inspiration of dazzle in some vague sense. The connection to the naval camouflage is not established.

The assertions that the mechanisms of action of CV dazzle and wartime camouflage are the same or similar may well be WP:OR, and they certainly need to be explicitly cited, as there is no reason to suppose that whatever it was that did or didn't lead submarine commanders to place their vessels poorly for torpedo attacks are the same mechanisms that successfully defeat CV algorithms. For what it's worth, I suspect that CV can be defeated by 1) concealing features used for recognition, especially eyes and mouths; 2) disrupting recognisable areas with high-contrast markings; 3) providing dummy features such as false eye-spots which may mislead algorithms into false positive identifications. Of these, (1) and (3) would not normally be considered dazzle, and (2) may be one way dazzle worked (controversial) but is a separate visual mechanism. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been clear, and I think your deconstruction of the visual mechanisms is most helpful to me in understanding where you see the point of disjuncture between the topics, and constitutes what I think makes the most solid case for reduction of this information within the "Dazzle camouflage" article. I do, however, think you are discounting the connection to military history, as CV dazzle techniques arose in response to both surveillance issues and modern drone warfare (the citations are there, though again with such a contemporary topic, you are right to question the Wikipedia recognized reliability of the sources in terms of WP:OR, though I have made no claims that haven't appeared in the cited primary or secondary sources). You are right that CV dazzle in this context no longer refers directly to naval ships employing the technique (although there is documented connection as inspiration to both the applied style and the intended mechanism of camouflage not by concealment but by disruption), but it remains an important encyclopedic connection to be made between the history of the painting technique and the intent. Gtraylo2 (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That strongly suggests to me that a separate article is the right solution, rather than stretching and weakening this one. A sentence or two and a link to the new article will serve the purpose much better. A connection to drones etc is in no way a connection to WW1 dazzle camouflage, though it could be to military camouflage if proven. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I think this does sound like the right course. I will work toward that end as time allows. I have started a user subpage to begin drafting the independent article rather than moving the existing information to a stub. When the article is up, I will cut down the information within the Dazzle camouflage article to a more referential role as you suggest. In the meantime, I do think it is useful to keep what is there. Does this sound like an appropriate course forward for maintaining the coherence of the current topic and its connection to the modern applications? Thanks again for all of the great dialogue on this. Gtraylo2 (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CV Dazzle

It looks like you aren't actively editing anymore, but in case you still check your account, I wanted to let you know that I took the initiative to make your draft article for CV dazzle into an actual article in the main space: Computer vision dazzle. I noticed that you put in significant time to find sources and I didn't want your effort to go to waste. Thank you! Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Secundus. I appreciate that. My professional life hasn't left much room for Wikipedia editing after my graduate work. I still teach Wikipedia in my classroom, though! All best. Arsabsurdia (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]