Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Buzz Aldrin by Neil Armstrong

Buzz Aldrin by Neil Armstrong

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2019 at 22:32:26 (UTC)

Reason: A higher resolution version of a historic photo with EV because it does not hide the fact that a small part of Aldrin's backpack was cut off in the original photo by Armstong (File:AS11-40-5903 - Buzz Aldrin by Neil Armstrong (full frame).jpg). The black frame around the image is retained for both compositional concerns as well as for encyclopedic value because it clearly shows, when zoomed in, that the image ends incidentally excluding the small antenna at the top of Aldrin's suit. Another version of this photo without the black frame (and I believe different coloration) can be found at File:Aldrin Apollo 11 original.jpg.

NASA's version which is very famous is already an FP. I hesitate to advocate delisting it because of concerns voiced at Commons that that version has EV of its own. (See also: c:Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Buzz Aldrin by Neil Armstrong.jpg.) However, IMHO, many instances of the NASA version that are found en.wiki are better replaced by this version unless discussing the NASA version itself.
Articles in which this image appears: ~~Moon landing conspiracy theories~~
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Getting there
Creator: Photo credit: Neil Armstrong (NASA), cropped by Coffeeandcrumbs

Support as nominator – --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stick with NASA version. This version isn't on Buzz Aldrin page. And you shouldn't crop other people's photos. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not understand what you mean. I cropped File:AS11-40-5903 - Buzz Aldrin by Neil Armstrong (full frame).jpg. What is wrong with that? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong is that when someone uploads a photo, that's how they want it. It's not right for anyone else to crop it. People may crop Wikipedia images under a free licence to use outside of Wikipedia. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with what I did as long as attribution is given.[1] Please stop casting aspersions. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- To clarify, the NASA version is also not on Buzz Aldrin. The version on Buzz Aldrin is our crop of this photo. I would be ok with File:Aldrin Apollo 11 original.jpg (the crop at Aldrin and Apollo 11) being promoted instead.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Tdadamemd, who uploaded the "full frame" version I cropped, has been indeffed. I can't ask them to crop it themselves. Who is this "other people"? Would you prefer that I download TIFF again and create my own upload. I can do that. All of these images are in PD.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be glad to consider any edit requests ...although that appears to be moot here now.

As for being "indeffed", it is impossible to block a person from a website that is open to the public. At most, a person's account can be indeffed. And for anyone who looks into my own personal case, you will see that there was absolutely no grounds for the action taken. The charge was sockpuppetry, and that is something that I have never done on any website ever in my entire life. Wikipedia specifies legitimate reasons for having multiple accounts, and my usage fit under these categories. There is actually another user in the discussion on this picture candidate page who also has multiple accounts. It's not a big deal, and certainly not grounds for blocking anyone's account, when used properly, as I have consistently done.

I flew to San Francisco and visited the Wikimedia Office to seek resolution. I was very disappointed to find that they had no interest in correcting the way that certain admins wield their authority, let alone fixing the system that enables them to do so in the manner that was done with me.

When any admin takes the severe action of blocking anyone's acct (let alone indef), they should be required to site the specific evidence which substantiates the infraction. You know, quite similar to how editors are tasked with backing up key facts with solid references. But admins are not required to do so. They freewheel with their authority, and the central office does not care, so Wikipedia is what it is. We have a site where the inventor himself vacated the premises because the day-to-day operations are so broken. --Tdadamemd (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn – the image no longer appears on any en.wiki pages. I will nominate File:Aldrin Apollo 11 original.jpg instead. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]