File talk:Rein Veidemann 2004.jpg

The fact, that the person is out of focus, does not matter, as long as he's discernible.

Mardus, the idea is to categorize by the main subject or by other reasonably noteworthy features, not by anything that is discernible (see COM:C#Categorization tips). 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:98FE:7CDD:36D0:57AD 12:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The idea is to categorize everyone:

The categories (or galleries) you choose for your uploads should answer as many as possible of the following questions:

• what or whom does the file show?

— including the main subject, but not limited to the main subject (emphasis mine). -Mardus /talk 18:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are missing the context of your emphasis. It doesn't say that the idea is to categorize as many people as possible. Question that you quote is concretized by two questiones that follow and that I referred to above.

The bottom line is that something or someone being merely discernible isn't a reason to categorize by that. If there are noteworthy features other than the main subject then the question you need to consider is what makes these features noteworthy. I did provided a clear rationale why persons in the background do not seem to be noteworthy: they are out focus (or hidden to a considerable degree) and hence they are clearly not the intended subject on that photo. This photo is worthless as an illustration of two persons in the background and so this photo is a noise in categories dedicated to these persons. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:EC3B:A3FE:E8F4:3301 20:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Mardus, I'm giving my best to avoid edit-warring. That's why I waited for over two weeks so that you could provide an adequate rationale to add these categories ("he's discernible" makes no sense in light of Commons' conventions). You didn't I so now I reinstated the status quo. You in turn make your best to turn this into a plain edit war: you avoid discussion and instant revert. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:B11D:51A9:A201:9579 14:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Your removal of relevant categories does not have any appearance of good-faith editing. -Mardus /talk 20:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The point is that these categories seem to have very little relevance as explained and hence removing them was good-faith editing. Your motivation (good or bad) judging by your instant reverting and reluctance to explain your edits in light of what has been said above is less clear. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:6509:9AFE:B323:2504 22:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I provided a very clear edit summary here. -Mardus /talk 22:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Which is the edit summary that I used to initiate this very same discussion. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:6509:9AFE:B323:2504 22:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

These two people still exist in that photo, and you cannot make them go away. -Mardus /talk 22:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

This was not the question and isn't necessarily relevant. You still just make demands and ignore the problem (i.e. you don't discuss it in light of common practises and what categorization guidelines actually say, instead you just fool about by providing a brief interpretation of a phrase taken out of its context). You pretend that you have sort of superiority and so you don't have to discuss or explain your actions. If all people here had that sort of attitude then wiki wouldn't function as a wiki. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:2D50:BDFA:A193:1486 12:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Your statement of my having made any demands, is incorrect. If I have, feel free to cite them word-for-word.

Your complaint, that I have supposedly not discussed, is also incorrect: I have discussed the categorisation of this file in edit summaries, with you, at length, here and elsewhere. Discussion does not require, that I submit to what you want.

The categorisation guidelines actually say at COM:CAT:

"The categories ... should answer as many as possible of the following questions:

• what or whom does the file show?"

And what that actually says, is in context, is a very common practice, is quite an unambiguous categorisation guideline, and I categorised exactly as the passage actually said.

If you care too look at edit summaries for this file, then they are also unambiguous, and the edit summaries explain my actions in fair detail:

• This one says, that I've added the file to category Hando Runnel;
• Here I explain the merits of keeping the file in the Hando Runnel category.
• Here I've added the file to category Ilmar Talve.

So, in conclusion, I believe and am rather certain, that I have categorised this file to the letter and spirit of the guidelines. Later modifications to this file by another user very much appears to concur with this assessment. -Mardus /talk 00:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

You make a clear demand towards me in following manner: you present your way as the only right way, you instantly revert as if my action was vandalism and you report me as if this was personal issue and there was nothing to discuss.

Making a blunt statement "he's discernible" is not discussing. You don't even try to explain why is your statement relevant in relation to purpose of categories. As you very well know it is not common practice to categorize by every detail on image or everything otherwize dicernible, so "he's discernible" in itself isn't an explanation. Also, I've brought out concerns in relation to your approach and I've explained why I removed these categories. You ignore this entirely, as if I misunderstoond something or as if my premises were false (expect that, again, you don't explain in what way is it so). So, you don't discuss.

This other talk page (a report) doesn't discuss this content matter in any way really. That is merely a personal attack.

I repeat: guidelines quote what or whom does the file show? is followed by concretizing questions what is the main subject? what are the noteworthy features of the image?. You pretend that these questions weren't there. So you ignore the context.

It's unclear what exactly does another user concur with. He doesn't explain. Protection reason "Excessive vandalism" is unclear as my edit was quite surely a good-faith edit (I've explained extensively in what way), not vandalism. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:D8F6:6B6:A549:9E0E 08:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I did not make demands to or of you; I relayed, that all identifiable people should be categorised, and your actions and statements vehemently oppose that.

"He's discernible" are two words that you took out of a full sentence that I used in an edit summary, which is also part of this discussion.

That a person is discernible, explains the relevancy as to why a photo should be categorised.

The fact, that two identifiable people are out of focus, is no reason for not including them in their respective categories.

"[T]hat other discussion," as you put it, links both to this file and this file talk.

Your statement of my supposedly 'not discussing' is incorrect, as I have replied to you on multiple occasions, here and elsewhere, and have substantiated my actions in detail.

Reporting user problems, vandalism, and possible IP sockpuppetry is not a personal attack.

'Excessive vandalism' looks like a very well-rounded and sufficient explanation.

The questions in categorisation guidelines subsequent to the main objective are multiple-choice, an therefore do not preclude categorisation of things that are not the main subject matter. If there are three people in a photo, then the follow-up question does not say, that the two other very much identifiable persons should not be included in their respective categories. Because the main objective is to categorise as many as possible of the questions that followed. -Mardus /talk 15:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that I'm not even nearly as vehement as you since I try to discuss the content matter and I don't revert your edits instantly. Yes, you (now) participate in talk page, but still you make your best not to discuss the actual content matter, i.e. the concerns that I brought up above. Instead you spend time on taking words out of their context and other sort of fooling, and on personal remarks.

Yes, "he's discernible" was part of a sentence. So? It's still the only part of your sentence that may resemble a justification for your edits. Also, this part of a sentence isn't logically related to rest of the sentence, it doesn't result from preceding parts.

Reporting user problem, if there are such problems, is fine. In this case however, there's no clear vandalism (at least no more from my part than it was from your part) or other sort of misconduct. You seem to have reported me only because of opposing you in a content matter, with the intent to smear me. It's hard not to consider this as a personal attack.

Your interpreation of multiple-choice questions would make questions about the main subject and (other) noteworthy features pointless. If it was meant to categorize by all details that the image shows, regarless of their noteworthiness, then there would be no such questions. So you can't read it this way really. "as many as possible" obviously refers to other general questions where? when? how? etc., that should be considered besides whom?.

I explained above why it matters that persons are out of focus: it makes this image into a poor illustration of these persons. So for users looking for sufficient illustrations this image is a noise in categories of out-of-focus subjects. The intended subject of this image is clearly another person. So far you have ignored this concern.

It may be that for some cases out-of-focus subject or some smaller detail on image is also noteworthy enough to categorize by that. Then this needs to be discussed in every individual case and line needs to be drawn somewhere. However in this case you just don't care to, and you basically say that I'm wrong because you are right. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:C15A:89AC:9050:CEBD 16:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Not agreeing with you is also discussion.

From my edit summary:

The fact, that a (an identifiable) person is out of focus, does not matter, as long as he's discernible.

One part of the sentence very much depends on another.

Your conduct was marked as vandalism, and as it was marked as such, my reporting of your actions has been veritably justified. You may differ with that assessment, but your differing opinion won't change the nature of your actions, or assessment thereof. Pointing out vandalism and other user issues at ANI is not a smear, nor a personal attack.

The guidelines really are meant to categorise all the details that the image shows, including the two only-slightly out-of-focus people there. For example, Ilmar Talve is slumbering, and there are no other such pictures of him doing that.

The categorisation guidelines' "As many as possible of the following questions" is quite unambiguous, and does not say "as many as possible only of the main subject". The guidelines do not tell to categorise by one item at the expense of others.

That the two gentlemen are out of focus, matters little, because they are there still, and they can be recognised easily. To reiterate, you cannot make them go away.

It's a good ensemble picture, and maybe the original photographer could even upload the original, if the two gentlemen were blurred digitally.

It appears, that categorisation guidelines are not in concert with your interpretation of them. But that's all right. -Mardus /talk 04:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

You are still trying deceive us, apparently you hope that other users don't read what guidelines actually say word for word and in context. It doesn't tell anything about categorzing by as many subjects as possible. Instead it says about categorzing by as many questions (lists what?/whom? where? when? etc.). As for which subjects to categorize by, it's quite clear: it needs to be figured out which subjects are the main subject and/or (other) noteworthy features. I've no idea what you mean by this being "my interpreation" as you don't even care to tell what was the point of having these questions about the main subject and other noteworthy features if there was some other "interpreation".

This not being an ensemble picture is preciselly my point. If photographer's intent was to make an ensabmle picture then other persons weren't clearly in the background and out of focus. If there were other photos taken at different angles or focusing on different subjects then sure, we would have to consider this when categorizing these other photos.

The only misconduct that there might have been is that things were put back and forth, and second time you reverted by ignoring large part of the discussion that had started in a meanwhile. This can be considered an edit war. Leaving aside the question about who's fault this rather is, if it was necessary to report anyone, then at the very least you should have reported yourself as well for misconduct. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:A0F8:83B6:B0BD:3D40 14:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)