Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Take Me Higher

I would like to invite anyone and everyone into any discussion that they feel is revelvant to this RfC, however I would like to remind everyone that staying on topic and being objective is important in anyone's RfC. Stude62 21:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

may need model releases. Be careful. Phr 23:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• You need to bring this up on the actual project page [1] This is something that needs to voiced. Stude62 23:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Besides, if the woman getting into the Dynasty wants to sue, she will probally sue Take Me Higher, not us. --Karrmann

A lot of those pictures are salvageable with editing. The ones that aren't, are in about the same situation as good faith text edits that are poorly written. We don't block people for that. I'm personally not much bothered by the pictures of dirty cars since that's the way cars look in real life. Wikipedia articles about cars are not supposed to be advertisements so it's fine with me if they show the way cars actually look outside the showroom. If you really have a problem with the images, the remedy is to IfD them.

I also believe it's good policy for photographers to upload unedited images directly from the camera, to avoid quality loss from editing steps if someone else wants to work on the picture, and that means a lot of uploaded pictures will need cropping, brightness adjustment, etc. It would be good if the photographer could make cleaned up versions (cropped, brightness adjustment etc) in addition to the unedited versions, but if he's at least snapping images of cars that nobody else is getting pictures of, then he's doing something useful that can stand until better pictures become available; other people can edit them. The exception would be when privacy is impacted: people and license plates should be wiped or cropped before the initial upload. Phr 02:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• There are some salvageable pictures, and I have been doing just that in recent days by cropping or otherwise manipulating Take Me Higher's images. See my [recent upload logs] for examples. However, the vast majority of the user's pictures are unsalvageable simply due to being ugly, having rusted/dirty cars in them, having pictures of people, et cetera. Another issue with the user is that he insists on replacing quality pictures already present in the articles with his own, low-quality pictures. He also keeps on overlinking articles, frequently linking every instance of an irrelevant date or place name. Appeals to cease this behaviour have had little effect. To Take Me Higher's credit, however, he has been creating numerous automotive infoboxes and he did recently start uploading scanned promotional pictures. However, even with these pictures the quality of the scan itself is poor. DonIncognito 21:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• It sounds then like reasonable discussion is helping. However, I don't think Wikipedia should use scanned promotional pictures--it is not a free advertising outlet, and those pictures are usually copyrighted. Even if they're usable on en under fair use, they're not uploadable to Commons. Any remotely usable properly licensed photo should be used in preference to a fair use photo, IMO. Phr 01:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Kudos for your great work, some of them are really good, like the Olds one (probably hard to find one in such good condition now, plus good cadre and lighting), but some of the other portray cars that are hardly salvageable, not to mention photos, despite your great effort (e.g. the dying Avalon and Stanza). Bravada Talk to me! 01:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• But the purpose of this RfC isn't to censure, its meant to ask for comments (as in request for comment) on the body work and offer suggestions on how to work with member in question. As for not being impressed with with the RfC do you mean that the examples of the images meet Wikipedia standards? Or do you mean that we have not documented the entire body of work? Please explain further. Stude62 19:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• I saw someone advocating blocking the user, which I see as silly. Phr 01:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well, hardly are pics of cars shown from the rear, covered with snow and/or dirt, rusted, missing parts, taken through a foggy window, with view blocked by objects or people, salvageable by editing. That's the way cars DO look in real life, but, for example, the Bluetick_Coonhound page (I chose this at random) is illustrated by a photo of the dog shown in full posture, showing all important features of the race, and not of its rear part wallowing in mud. Dogs don't look that the ENTIRE time, and so cars don't always display showroom condition, but this is an encyclopedia, not a documentary. It should inform people, not mirror reality. A good car picture informs the reader what a car looks like originally, anybody can imagine that it can later sustain damage or just get dirty.
  Take Me Higher uploads whatever images he has en masse without respect to a great amount of informative and warning messages he gets. It is important to indicate that this is not good Wikipedian conduct. Bravada Talk to me! 20:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I'd certainly like to see some kind of response and explanation from him. Phr 01:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• That too is part of the RfC - the usere does not respond to virtually anything left on his talk page. And this is what makes the issue frustrating - the unwillingness to communicate with other users. We have no idea what the user thinks, but the poor quality of work continues on and on... Stude62 23:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, some of the photos are pretty bad, others not so bad. I'd say use good shots if they're available, otherwise go with what you've got. Phr 01:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

But isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia to illustrate the subject in question? How can that be done when the subject looks its worst? As for the analogy of the dog, the point there is that the dog is photographed in full posture because it shows the the dog and its notable charecteristics. Would it be acceptible to show the same dog laying prone on a rug with people's dirty sweaty legs and feet in the picture? While humorous (the idea that someone would submit such a picture), it isn't content for an encyclopedia. Stude62 23:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm glad he is starting to take pictures of cars from the front, maybe what I told him sank in. --Karrmann

Has this RfC reached a conclusion yet? --ApolloBoy 00:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No, because he refuses to discuss his images. We contacted him multiple times, to come answer here, and so far, nothing. --Karrmann 00:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you think we should try to end this then, since TMH is still refusing to talk with us? --ApolloBoy 01:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll talk to him, and try to get an answer. --Karrmann 19:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been more than a week since we last contacted TMH about the RfC. I think it would be best to go ahead and close this... --ApolloBoy 01:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Now he's started uploading "driveway pics" again. I guess he never really listened to us... --ApolloBoy 01:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This nonsense is ending now, I already contacted him. Karrmann 01:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I recently noticed the appearance of a poorly-taken photo of a Lexus ES from Québec. Turns out that our friend Take Me Higher has changed his name and resumed his modus operandi of uploading crap pics.

I've noticed too. Me and Karrmann warned him again, but as I said before, I doubt he will listen to us. BTW, was it really necessary for you and Karrmann to type in all caps? I know we're all frustrated with him, but you've gotta remember civility... --ApolloBoy 00:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I posit that Take Me Higher/Bull-Doser's activities are tantamount to vandalism. For example, here he replaces quality photos with his half-baked crap, thereby decreasing the quality of the article. I call for this user to be blocked as a vandal. DonIncognito 03:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Bull-Doser has just added a new batch of poor quality pictures, which I promptly removed. I still can't believe he keeps ignoring us; clearly something has to be done about him.--ApolloBoy 20:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

He added more, and I removed them, and marked them as vandalism. Karrmann 21:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Bull-Doser seems to be quite responsive as of late regarding his images, and not only that, but the quality of his images have improved significantly. I say we should close this and leave this behind us. --ApolloBoy 20:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. DonIncognito 02:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Karrmann 04:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)