- Maybe you can make it a bit clearer what you mean. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bogus. Three words; do you think that if I use more words it will be clearer and more easily understood? -- carol (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I can safely say we all know the meaning of those particular words. What PLW is looking for is for you to expand your point, perhaps showing evidence. ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am unable to do that. I would be able to tell you how I change the dates of files on my computer and on my website, but I have the same interface with the wiki that all non-administrative wiki contributors have. There were no high resolution images of Einstein available at the commons last September, October and November. I can not prove it except that I was looking for such an image and did a lot of image sorting while looking for something like this and similar. I think also that it is a great image and wikipedia and the commons are (what word?) 'blessed' to have it; I am not happy with it being rewarded a 'status icon' though for the bogus file history. -- carol (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait a minute. Are you saying someone hacked the Wiki database and cooked up a fake file history - for no possible reason or gain - and the only evidence you have is that you don't remember seeing it seven or eight or nine months ago? And the three people involved in the file between upload and the beginning of this year... were they also paid off using the same money from the Tri-Lateral Commission that paid for the file history to be faked? Matt Deres (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll echo Matt here. This thread makes you sound a bit paranoid schizophrenic! Could it be that it just wasn't categorised correctly or to your expectations or simply that you overlooked it? Even if someone did do what you claim, that doesn't mean we can't find the image suitable to be featured. Its not as though we're rewarding the person who supposedly faked the history. An inanimate collection of bits and bytes that combine to form an inanimate picture can't be held responsible for an individual's actions so the 'punishment' of your oppose does not fit the 'crime'. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, I am saying what I said. It is a bogus file history and I don't think that an image with a bogus file history should be given that special little seal of wikipedia approval -- which is how that template and the appearance on the Main Page is perceived. You are "reading" a lot of potential crimes into the situation I outlined. What would there be to gain from a bogus file history? On my web site, I use it the same way I used to fill in pages of a diary. If I saw something in some month in some other year, it gets written about and the date changed to that day -- not unlike the dated diary books I used to have when I was younger where I wrote on the page with that date. While you have been thinking about the crime that was possibly committed, I have been thinking about what could possibly be gained from behavior like this in a public forum. Assume the file history is bogus, what could be gained? Is it a good feeling to think that a bunch of know-it-all critics where so easily fooled? Stewie Griffin (Family Guy) went to high school and got a date with the coolest girl of all the coolest kids -- do you think it could be like that? -- carol (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In theory, sure, I guess that's part of the drive behind most vandals, but you're going to have to come up with some kind of evidence besides your memory to keep from looking like a conspiracy nut. Faking a file history would require a lot of effort for very little gain. Let's say we *are* fooled by it. Nobody cares anyway; that's not much of a laugh for the perp. Matt Deres (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what you are talking about.. I don't think it actually matters whether the file history has been tampered with or not, at least in terms of featuring the picture itself. It either is or it isn't up to the quality standards we expect of one. We're only judging the suitability of the image for Wikipedia. Your personal opinion on whether the history of the file is accurate is completely beside the point, no matter how vindictive the reasons behind it may be. I'd expect that the closer would ignore a spurious reason for opposition in any case.
- Anyway, to address the issue of whether it the file information is correct or not, why don't we look at the original uploader - User:Mactographer - and his user page. According to the file history, he uploaded the image at 12:58, 4 January 2007. You claim there wasn't a high resolution version of any Einstein images in late 2007. However, not only was the image uploaded in early 2007, Mactographer also added the image in question to his user page in a gallery of images he had uploaded on 10:10, 6 January 2007 (Source). Oh, but of course the Great Einstein Conspiracy also means that those involved must have faked his userpage history too. If you're still not convinced that you've just made a mistake, rather than there being a conspiracy, then I suppose you never will be. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The photograph was not available at the commons at the end of last year. I do not think that this should be considered an example of the best that wikipedia has to offer; but perhaps it is.... Thank you for restating what I said first, btw, that I cannot offer any proof other than the fact that I was looking for this and other similar images and it wasn't there. Bogus file history is the reason I am opposed to this image being FP. More words did not add to what these three words said, did they? I am probably of a minority who likes to think that real contributions are the best wikipedia has too offer. Bogus file histories perhaps are the best and me and that minority are really really wrong. -- carol (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless the image was originally uploaded to the English Wikipedia under exactly the same name, then deleted and readded to Commons and had the file history faked, then it seems it was available, as Mactographer's userpage referenced it. I'm still not sure how you can be so certain that you are right. Its far easier to prove something is there than something isn't there. Its this reasoning that allows people to claim that a god exists. We can't prove there isn't, no matter how much evidence suggests there isn't.
- More words did not really add any weight of argument to the original three, you're right, but they did explain your reasoning, which was important. I could say an image has terrible quality, but unless I elaborate, nobody will take the claim seriously (unless it is very self-evident, anyway). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
