User talk:PoorPhotoremovalist

Sydney Suburb photos

You have begun enlarging a lot of photos in the Sydney suburb articles. These photos were larger in the past but Autobots have gone through all these articles and reduced back to a sandard size. The wikipedia thinking is that larger photos slow down internet and people spend more time trying to view pages, especialy those with slower internet connections around the world. If users want to see a large image, they can do so by clicking on the photos.

Please do not remove photos because you are not happy with the quality. They often illustrate important landmarks mentioned in the articles and should remain until better photos become available. J Bar (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo removal is needed in a lot of these articles. There are to many pictures in these articles and some are poorly taken.PoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the changes on article discussion page before removing photos. J Bar (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have the right to edit the articles in the appropriate manner that Wikipedia sees fit. Having so many images in articles is uncyclopedic. I am actually working my way through all the suburban navigation boxes

I believe that my edits are fair to all users. I am selecting the best pictures in the articles and keeping them whilst removing the others. So of the photos are of the same thing taken from different anglesPoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 07:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored some of the photos that were in the article Engadine, New South Wales. This article is not overloaded with images and they can be reformatted to fit in betterPoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 09:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC) ‎[reply]

Before deleting Photos

It's easy to delete but what is th reason for losing landmark photos? Can you please explain the reasons for deletion of some and enlargement of others on the discussion pages for those articles? At the very least, a Wikimedia Commons link needs to be created to a category page and all photos linked there, so the photos arenot completely lost from the article. Many years of work has gone into creating these articles and obtaining the photos. If people believe that the articles are 'improved' by having photos of landmarks deleted. Then at the very least, we need to create a link to the photos in wikimedia so that the ae not lost forever. J Bar (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am making fair edits to the articles, removing excess images that double up whilst keeping the the pic of the cropPoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of my images

Please explain the removal of some of my images from the Sutherland shire articles before I put them back. Adam (talk) 08:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bold, Revert, Discuss

I thought I'd draw your attention to an essay, The BRD Cycle, which explains how best to behave when you make a change away from the previous consensus, and that change gets reverted.

It is best not to immediately make the change again without discussing it, as that leads to edit wars, and edit wars lead to the dark side. The best approach when you notice that a change you've made has been reverted is to take the issue up on the discussion page for the article. If your issue affects multiple articles, then it may be better to take it to a project page instead. For your edits, Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia is probably a good start.

It is important to remember that content that you perceive as problematic is not always viewed as problematic by other editors, so you need to be sure to get other editors' opinions. -- Mark Chovain 22:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One can only concur with the comments above. A lot of work has gone into these things and it is best to discuss changes before making substantial deletions. Having said that, I agree that the photos get overdone at times, with doubling up and some shots that are simply not worth having, like some shots I have seen of street signs, as if anyone wants to look at a shot of a street sign.

The Arncliffe article has 40 shots, most of which are valid, but it might be more appropriate to do a gallery at commons.

But please discuss these things before making substantial deletions.

Sardaka (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will try not to step on to many toes but a lot of these articles need to be cleaned upPoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another user is trying to discredit me

Another user has started an account with a similar name as mine to try and discredit me User:Poorarticleremovalist PoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your report as it was placed in the bot reported section, instead of the user reported section. I would have moved it over for you, but the name is not a clearly blatant violation of user name policy. I understand your concern and therefore recommend taking your report to requests for comment. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks, but I do think that the name is inappropriate. But thanks for you help. Kind RegardsPoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Poorarticleremovalist (talk · contribs) needs to be indef blocked. They're clearly imitating this user, make attacks on other editors in their edit summaries, and are disrupting the Sydney Suburb articles. I'm going to file a report on WP:ANI immediately. -- Mark Chovain 07:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa Knott has blocked the impersonator. Happy editing, and remember to discuss those changes! :) -- Mark Chovain 08:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you help in this matter. I was starting to worry that people would think that I was him. Kind Regards PoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

I agree with you that there are some crappy shots around that really don't deserve to be there, but it's partly a matter of how you go about it. I try to respect the contributions of all editors, even if I think their shots aren't too hot. Not much point deleting them unless you replace them with something better. Sardaka (talk) 09:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the Surry Hills article, some culling was justified, but it would be more logical to start with non-important buildings like pubs, and leave the heritage items, which by their nature are useful info, (which is what an encyclopedia is about) whereas pubs are not. Sardaka (talk) 09:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annandale

The post office is on the National Estate, which is enough to make it worth mentioning. You replaced a comprehensive shot of the Abbey with a shot of a minor section out the back, which gives people no idea what the Abbey is like. The changes you made to the article make it look like a dog's breakfast. Perhaps you should stick to text, because you have no visual sense at all.

Sardaka (talk) 10:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS Are you 206.197.59.9?

Visual sense, I am not the one taking these boring photos. I actually plan on reducing the images in this article. The article only needs about five pictures. We can't have pictures of everything just because they are mentioned in the text. You should consider removing the picture of the gate that you took, this is filling the article with crap. Instead of creating long lists try to blend the list into the article text and then remove some of the boring pictures in the article. This would be a great help. Also the picture of the shabby picture of the abby was at least a whole picture and not a partial like the other that you instilled PoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you don't say if you're 206.197.59.9 or not. You are aren't you. You give yourself away with the same attitude, same focus on suburbs, same bad spelling and even phrasing ("shitty" pix). Disguising yourself as a Muslim woman isn't enough. Look, I have no intention of wasting my time over this. I'm sick to death of idiots like you. I nearly gave up on WP because of idiots like you, but I won't give you the satisfaction. Do what you like with the Annandale article. I've got better things to do (expect a visit or two from admins, though).

Sardaka (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, I do not want you to give up, I want you to continue. Only a looser would give up and that is not what I want to see. I would like you to prove me wrong (only with future uploads) and if you do I will be the first to congratulate you. Also I have this article on my watchlist and knew with the first edit and edit summary as well as the photo who it was. Not to worry I wont say any more. The below comments were written before I wrote this PoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful with your accusations and your personal attacks. If you plan to add rubbish to WP then you can expect it to be removed PoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annandale

I suggest that if you want to include a picture of a gate in this article then you should consider removing some of the other photos that are cluttering up the article. We cannot have pictures of everything that is in the article. This article is beyond a joke and it just keeps on getting worse. An article of this size only needs about four or five pictures. PoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added one of you images here [1]. Hopefully we get some feed back. This isn't one of the bad ones but I may consider nominating some more. I was going to post it for feature picture candidates but I didn't want to waist there time even though that is the best place to get feed back. PoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it so important for you to delete these photos of historical buildings from these articles? I agree that in some cases, the photos aren't top quality but that is what we have available to us and they illustrate the the information in the articles perfectly. When someone can provide a better photo, the old ones get deleted.

Why do you prefer to have no photograph there? Aren't there better ways to improve these articles than mass deletions? J Bar (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not about poor photos, its about having to many photos in the article. Other than that I wouldn't care about how poor they were. Also stop reverting as though you own the article. PoorPhotoremovalist (talk)

I doubt that there will be a consensus unless more editors join in the discussion. Because this article has a very low traffic statistic I doubt than anyone will be bothered to join in. Also you do not have the right to revert to a revision of you preference and then state that I need to gain consensus to change your version. Instead of reverting all your edits I tried to include some of yours and some of mine. If you continue with you blind reverts and add rubbish to the article I will have to either report you or fight you. Just because you edit the Sydney suburban articles doesn't mean that you have ownership over these articles.

Also as I have stated before, just because an a suburb has many historical buildings doesn't mean that we need pictures of all of them. PoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My objective is to improve Sydney suburb artiles, not to get into edit wars or 'fight' other editors. I think your comments in edit summaries, talk pages, infoboxes and your own user page have been inflammatory and destructive. Have you made any positive contributions to any Sydney suburb articles? Maybe you can show me some of your positive editorial contributions to articles. J Bar (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evey edit that I have made is a step in the right direction. I am trying to reduce clutter and over crowding of photos in certain articles. It doesn't hurt to have a few poor photos in each suburban article but it does become very annoying when one editor continues to take photographs of a certain nature and then cram them into every article without making any effort to improve their photography. As I stated before, I am not removing photos because they are poor, I am removing and reformatting articles because they have to many photos. Most of the images placed are of insignificant buildings. They may be historical but there are a lot of historical buidlings in Syd and we cannot include pictures of all of them. This project is about improving wp articles and that is what I am here for. The project should also be for the improvement and personal development of the editor and reader alike, this includes photography. That's why we have projects like WP:Picture peer review and WP:Featured picture candidates. I know that if you guys try hard enough you will get there some how, maybe with great difficulty but you will eventually get there, and if you do I will be the first to congratulate. I know that this will be a character building experience for all of us and should help us in the long term.

Also with the clean up tags, I am making these comments so that neutral editors viewing the article can make their own assessment after reading the comments. I did this in place of removing images from the article myself. Also I noticed that you reinstated the church shots, I don't mind because it wasn't a complete revert. When I create the commons link I will be making further changes. Also my comments are meant to be constructive criticism. I hope you should prove me wrong with future uploads. If no one tells you then how are you going to find out. PoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is one thing to improve the articles with better photos and better information and expanding the artcles by providing information in areas where it is lacking. It is quite another thing to go ona crusade of mass deletions. The comments you are making are not neutral and have been in most cases quite inflammatory. In most cases the articles are not cluttered with photographs. Have a look at the article on Dubai, which you have used as an example. How many photos does that article have? Alot more than these suburb articles do. And how many of them are doubled up in the article itself? Quite a few.

The reason I am reverting your Cronulla tag edit is that the comment added by you, makes the clean up box incomprehensible. Please make sure that your edit makes sense to other readers. J Bar (talk) 05:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the problem

The problem is very simple: you are going on a unilateral campaign to delete things en masse without bothering to discuss it with anyone else. That's not the way things are done around here. There's no point arguing about this photo or that photo. The problem is that you don't discuss things with anyone else. If you don't want to be part of a team, go somewhere else.

Sardaka (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No this is not the case. The article has to many images, this is not a mass deletion but a minor clean up. This article contains a total of 13 images, isn't that enough for you. I am discussing this and trying to reason with you but my comments are falling on deaf ears because you are the author of these images and you are biased. You should also take into consideration the fact that Wikipedia is not an image gallery. How many times do I need to repeat, just because a suburb or street has many historical buildings doesn't mean that we need to have a picture of every single house in that street. I know that I may have edit warred with the Annandale article a bit but now it seems as though we may have come to an agreement with the current status of the article and I am willing to leave it as is until the proposed commons link is instilled PoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnston Street group

Why don't you try to write an article about the Johnston st group. I found a website that provides information on every house on that block. Instead of having an article for the Abbey you could merge this into an article about the J st group and have a section for each house and have as many pictures as you want. I would be inclined to add some black and white photos though. You should give it a try. P.o.o.r.P.h.o.t.o.r.e.m.o.v.i.l.s.t. (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea. If I had the time I would do it. At the moment I'm flat out trying to revert vandalism on existing articles. Just had a heap of reverts and rewrites to do on all the Eastern Suburbs articles after one editor decided to add something on the Sydney Roosters to every suburb that is not exactly relevant to each suburb. You may have noticed from a few reverts you have done yourself that it's a constant battle against vandals here.

Here's an idea. Why don't you write the article on Johnston Street, Annandale, Sydney? That way, you can show that you are trying to do something positive for wikipedia. It might also help you appreciate the hard work that is required to put together these articles. You could use the excellent article on Appian Way, Burwood, Sydney as a guide. J Bar (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you discussing things with the rest of us plebs. Wiki can only work as a team, and anyone who wants to be a lone ranger should go and do a blog.

Can't see myself doing an article on John. St. group, having already done them on Abbey and Highroyd, plus info in Anna. article. Also, I already have a gallery on Abbey etc, which is linked to other articles, or should be.

My apologies for being abusive a few days ago, but I was getting a little upset by 206etc, being stalked etc, for the second time in 2 years, plus unending run-ins with people whose idea of editing is to delete other people's contributions. I still don't understand your opposition to photos; they make the articles look better, and I'm sure most people are quite happy to see illustrations of things that are mentioned in the text. Look at it from someone else's point of view; do you really think the average reader of Wiki articles is annoyed by seeing photos of things that are in the text? Try and see the other person's point of view.

Sardaka (talk) 09:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Website

What's that website with the info on the John. St. group?

Sardaka (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the website. Your photos are also on it. http://www.sydneyarchitecture.com/LEI/LEI03.htm

I will reply to you above queries when I have more time P.o.o.r.P.h.o.t.o.r.e.m.o.v.i.l.s.t. (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eryldene

What have you got against the shot of Eryldene? It's heritage listed and written up in the text. It's relevant and is a legitimate addition to the article. I will revert the pic. You're well on the way to being blocked again.

Sardaka (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then why don't you add references to the text. The reference at the end of the paragraph does not prove anything and seems to be invalid. Also just because a house is H listed does not make it notable neither does anyone want to see it. I'll come back to this later. Also what about all the other meaningless house pictures you have added to suburban articles that are not mentioned in the text, shall I start cleaning these up. P.o.o.r.P.h.o.t.o.r.e.m.o.v.i.l.s.t. (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how about the Randwick article. It has about 20 or more images, all these images are on commons as well as in the article. Someone has suggested that he does not mind the removal of images if they are also on commons and on commons they are. This article could do with about maybe five or six images at the most. I will start work on this article later P.o.o.r.P.h.o.t.o.r.e.m.o.v.i.l.s.t. (talk)

The reference provided is what is needed. Why is it "invalid"? It meets the requirements of references from a reliable sourece. You're pushing your luck, dearie. Do you enjoy being blocked?

Sardaka (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not breaking any laws by removing photos. Photos are removed and replaced all the time. Normally when a page is vandalized someone who patrols the recent changes will come along and revert the vandalism. I don't see anyone doing it here. Why, because there is no vandalism, I am actually improving the articles on most occasions. I get private emails of thank you from relieved editors who are sick to death of these cluttered Sydney sub articles and who would prefer not to offend (you) by removing them them selves. There is no law preventing me from removing photos that are not needed and just because there is some text there about the house doesn't mean that we need to see the house. I haven't removed your re edition because you did not do a complete revert of my edits so you can think of this as a kind of compromise for the time being. As soon as someone adds some decent images of the suburb it will be time to rm the photo. P.o.o.r.P.h.o.t.o.r.e.m.o.v.i.l.s.t. (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this your photo. The photo was uploaded by Clytemnestra and placed in the article by User:Agamemnone but you are defending it like its your own. May I ask what is going on here. P.o.o.r.P.h.o.t.o.r.e.m.o.v.i.l.s.t. (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not mine, I just like heritage buildings, especially when they're mentioned in the article. As for the reference, it meets the criteria for a reliable source, etc. If you disagree, go to WP:HELPDESK and ask them about refs. They'll fill you in.

Sardaka (talk) 10:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ref has not been filled in properly. I can provide a template later. Also you do not get block for removing images, you get blocked for revert waring. So if I remove the picture and you revert me 4 times in 24 hours then you will get blocked for re adding the image. More later P.o.o.r.P.h.o.t.o.r.e.m.o.v.i.l.s.t. (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How has the ref not been filled in properly? There are a few ways of doing refs, and the way I did it is a legit way of doing it. Go to the help desk and ask them about it. Also, I notice above where you say you're not concerned with removing poor photos, just excessive photos. This isn't logical. It would make more sense to remove the poor ones, and I agree there are quite a few of them, but I'm reluctant to delete other people's contributions.

Sardaka (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need the help desk for these matters. You should probably use one of the templates provided in this article Wikipedia:Citation templates and put 1 of these at the start <ref> and one of these at the end </ref> of the template P.o.o.r.P.h.o.t.o.r.e.m.o.v.i.l.s.t. (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. I notice that you have blanked somebody elses user page. What is this, are you vandalizing other peoples user pages now lol. P.o.o.r.P.h.o.t.o.r.e.m.o.v.i.l.s.t. (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I don't do the refs properly, why don't you just fix them up? You should be doing things like that instead of worrying about photos that aren't important. Better still, write your own articles and tell me and JBar about them so we can do a hatchet job on them. Then you'll know what it's like.

Sardaka (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the refs. I cannot fix references from books that I am not in possession of. You obviously have this book so you would know how to fill out the reference template. Have a closer look at the template link that I provided you with and see what information needs to be filled out. Also if I wrote an article and you and your mate did a hatchet job just for the sake of getting revenge then this would be vandalism. Also with the Johnston st group, I am going to merge all the separate houses in to one article called the Johnston Street group. P.o.o.r.P.h.o.t.o.r.e.m.o.v.i.l.s.t. (talk) 07:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image removals

Hi,

I have a concern over some of your editing. While a number of your image removals do appear to be valid, a number are probably not. Especially, you are removing maps and locators from articles.

We do not rely on "Google maps" to provide location information and maps for articles. We provide them ourselves, as part of the article on a location. While removing poor quality images is reasonable, removing location maps in favor of Google is not. Pymble Warrawee Gordon. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then I can leave the maps alone. I just thought that if every article has coordinates that lead to maps and satellite imagery then it would be a waste of space having these maps in the articles. Also with the images, its not just about removing poor images, its about cleaning up articles with to many images. I came on board to learn more about the Sydney suburbs but nearly every time I click on a new suburb all I see is house after house after house. In some cases its okay to have them there when they are relevant to text but when an articles text mentions 10 to 20 different houses there is no need to have pictures of all of them P.o.o.r.P.h.o.t.o.r.e.m.o.v.i.l.s.t. (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rosebery

Hello. I am just wondering why you decided to delete that information from the article after all this time. Why didn't you delete it when it was first added by Sardaka. Surely you would have seen it then. Did you wait for him to retire or was it because I tried to copy edit that section. P.o.o.r.P.h.o.t.o.r.e.m.o.v.i.l.s.t. (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People constantly add information about recent crimes to these articles. I usually delete theme when I see them because they don't really have historic relevance to the suburb and in most cases aren't significant enough to be included in article on the suburb. I probably missed the addition of this one or might have left there for a while to see whether it was significant enough to remain and then forgot about checking back. Looking at it now, it certainly wasn't a significant event in the suburb's history. J Bar (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I was going to remove it myself but decided to copy edit it instead P.o.o.r.P.h.o.t.o.r.e.m.o.v.i.l.s.t. (talk) 06:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crop and rotate

I was just having a look through some of the Sydney suburban articles and noticed (not for the first time) that a lot of your images need to be cropped and rotated. Do you know how to crop and rotate before uploading. If not I may go through some of these images and rotate and crop them before uploading once again. P.o.o.r.P.h.o.t.o.r.e.m.o.v.i.l.s.t. (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Crop and rotate what and why? J Bar (talk) 03:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Below is one of many offending photos. I would like to refer to this as the leaning tower of Strathfield. Have you not got Microsoft office picture manager. P.o.o.r.P.h.o.t.o.r.e.m.o.v.i.l.s.t. (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The leaning tower of Strathfield, one of many offending photos
Art Deco shops and flats
North Bondi Surf Life Saving Club
North Bondi RSL
Sewerage ventilation shaft situated in Bondi Golf Course

What you need to understand is that most of these buildings are located on sloping ground. You have to find a point of reference when taking these shots and you may need to make compromises. Sometimes you have to take the shot on an angle otherwise you end up with the building in a quarter of the shot and three quarters of the shot filled with bitumen from the road.

1. This tower shot is centred on the corner rise and turret. If you used the left side of the building as your point of reference, then the middle and right side would look like they are leaning too far to the left because the street on the right is sloping up. 2. There are so many angles and slopes around the Bondi buildings. if they weren't photgraphed like that, you would end up with a partial building in the shot and half of the shot taken up by road bitumen. 3. The vent is on a slope and actually leans a lot further to the right. I suppose I could have centred the shot more on the vent for a perfectly aligned shot but it would actually look even more inaccurate.

If you can take better photos of these landmarks then you are welcome to do it and replace the existing ones. Also, please keep in mind that if you start cropping and rotating photos, you will lose the important metadata that is associated with digital shots. J Bar (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Regardless of weather these photos are taken on hills or not you can always stand back a bit further then crop out what you don't want later after rotating the images slightly. The camera meta date is of no importance whatsoever. If you have a look at FP there are tons of photos without the full camera meta data. Also didn't you see the review you image was given on Wikipedia Picture peer review. P.o.o.r.P.h.o.t.o.r.e.m.o.v.i.l.s.t. (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a point of whether these photos are taken on hills or not. It's a matter of getting the whole building in the photo. If you were to stand right back and take a photo from a distance and crop the photo, you could still end up with photo consisting of mostly bitchumen or nature strips. Some of the best photos ever can be the ones taken on angle or from an unusual persepctive.Do you have professional qualifications in photography?

I didn't see the review of my image that you posted on the Wikipedia Picture peer review. I don't even know where that is. I'm not saying that my photos are perfect. Some are far from it. But in most cases they are the best photos to illustrate those landmarks that we have. Often they inspire people to go out and take better photos of those landmarks and replace mine. If editors do that, then I applaude them. I haven't seen you do that yet but have seen you get into edit wars with many editors across many articles. You seem to be on a crusade of deleting the work of other editors but not really making any positive contributions. Now you want to cut and crop photos which will actually distort the images of the landmarks. Why not look for better images on flickr or encourage other editors to make better contributions or even make better contributions yourself? J Bar (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, bear in mind that these photo contributions have been made over the last five years. In that time, skills have improved and the equipment used now has also improved. I am also making an effort to replace photos of landmarks as I get the chance to revisit and photograph again. J Bar (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to hear. I can't wait to see the new photos P.o.o.r.P.h.o.t.o.r.e.m.o.v.i.l.s.t. (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good. And just for your information, I have had quite a lot of positive feedback that my photos have been taken off wikipedia and used in everything from tourism websites, university lectures and newspapers. In fact, today in the Sun-Herald, when they ran a story on the murder of a teacher from Saint Ignatius' College, Riverview, they actually used my photo of the school for that story. J Bar (talk) 06:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of Adam.J.W.C. (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation for evidence.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

May I ask why this has happened when the accounts have not been used abusivelyP.o.o.r.P.h.o.t.o.r.e.m.o.v.i.l.s.t. (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they have been used abusively, as described at user talk:Adam.J.W.C. Thatcher 01:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher's point is well made - you have acted in a deceitful and underhanded manner through the edits of this account.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 10:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]