Talk:Photograph manipulation/Archive 2

message: Please see the discussion at Talk:Photoshopping about why the section on photoshopping is being merged here, and comment there if you like. Dicklyon 17:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photoshopping merge

message: Now, I understand that Adobe doesn't like their software used as a verb, but the section specifically on that should stay as is, instead of how it was changed in these two edits. I mean, who says "I enhanced this picture with Adobe Photoshop software"? No one. It may be genericization of the trademark, but it's used in the article to illustrate popular usage. Just an FYI for anyone coming across my edits and wondering why I made them. --clpo13 20:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments about wikipedia contributing to copyright violations Talk:List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks#article_for_AFD.Tstrobaugh 18:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite see the relevance.  You seem to be ignoring the difference between using a trademark generically and commenting on the generic use of a trademark.  If you think the current section crosses the line, it can probably be adjusted by strategic use of quote marks or by substituing "photochopping" in places where the term seems be used generically.  But wholesale denial or removal of content is not the way to fix it.  Dicklyon 18:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. I do not distinguish, on wikipedia, the difference between using a trademark incorrectly, and the commenting of the incorrect use of a trademark in an article. Please tell me how you think it is different to order a "rum and coke" at a bar (to use the old SNL bit "no coke, pepsi") and receive a "rum and cola" and writing an article in a newspaper that quotes "this guy ordered a "rum and coke""? How is one a trademark violation and the other not?Tstrobaugh 19:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like you need to consult a trademark attorney. Dicklyon 19:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you assume that I'm not a trademark attorney?Tstrobaugh 20:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The point I was making is that I don't think this section is more just commenting on generification, not actually helping the process along. Revisions to make it known that genericization is a bad thing are okay, but the original edits I reverted completely changed it to something no one ever would say. That was all I intended. --clpo13 21:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Photoshop as a verb 

message: I've split this into two, as it was unneccesarily large and covers two related, but different, themes. Journalism is current, rather than historical, even if the chronology does have to stop somehwere :) It provides a segue into the Ethics section, which could do with expanding, with links from the techincal terminology to Image editing. Basically there's a bunch of acceptable and unacceptable manipulation guidelines here and there (mostly in the US) which I'm currently reading up on. I was considering a spinoff article but I'll post it here first, if people think it's appropriate and it's not too long. mikaultalk 10:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section  

message: This article and Image editing are far too easily confused. Ok, once you're here (or there) it's quite obvious, but I (for one) can never remember which is the "technical" one. Photo manipulation is much more appropriate for this article, due to the slightly critical/negative connotation of the word "manipultation". I'd like to see the redirect currently in place there apply to Photo editing instead, to save all the confusion. Anyone know how to undo a redirect? mikaultalk 10:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Photo manipulation does redirect to photo editing.  What's the problem again? Are you saying you want to undo the previous move from photo manipulation to photo editing, where the reason was that manipulation sounds negative, because you'd prefer the more negative-sounding title?  I wouldn't object, but let's see what others think. Dicklyon 17:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a revert is all it takes, yes. Where is the discussion referring to conotations of the word, exactly? I'd have said this article was a natural spinoff from image editing, an examination of its common uses, consequences and ethical considerations, which would be too much for the main descriptive article. Negative-sounding isn't a POV issue in this instance, it's a recognition of the verifiable falsehoods perpetrated via manipulation of visual media, which is negative by its very nature. Where applications are ethically neutral/positive, the term "manipulation" can be equally neutral/positve, cf manipulation of a limb, for example. The problem is that we currently have two very similar-sounding articles with closely-related topics, only one of which is about the technical process of image editing. It seems obvious to me that the spinoff have a distinct name and "image manipulation" fits the bill perfectly. "Photo editing", on reflection, should redirect to "Image editing", not this page. mikaultalk 19:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion with Image editing 

message: I think we've made some progress in tuning up the photoshopping section, thanks to the constructive edits of several editors.  Feel free to tag anything else that needs references.  In the mean time, I'll keep reverting DreamGuy's removals. Dicklyon 04:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, um, except that you have no reason to revert my edits, as these topics have been discussed and there is no justification for putting the badly-sourced, neologistic POV-pushing stuff back in, especially when there is ALREADY an article on Photoshop contests to cover it. Your antagonist edits, and especially your acting like such acts are acceptable, are wholly inappropriate. DreamGuy 04:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And User:3tmx above clearly pointed out that you should NOT keep reverting, and you ignored him and trued to pretend that he was agreeing with you. Are you just not paying attention, or are you purposefully misrepresenting what other people said? DreamGuy 04:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Progress

message: Thanks for removing those links dreamguy. I've removed a link to that particular website a couple of times. I've put a warning on their talk, not that i imagine they'll look at it.3tmx 12:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links

message: All right, I've been loosely following the ongoing debate about how much about Photoshopping belongs in this article, and I could have sworn that a compromise was made a while back. However, judging from the recent history, a compromise is a long way off. Seriously, what happened to discussion? Did someone make a Wikipedia essay called "Edit warring is okay, as long as you really, really think you're right"? Seriously! This is juvenile! I'm not taking sides here, mind you. I just don't want to see a constant stream of notices on my watchlist about how Dicklyon reverted DreamGuy's edits and vice versa. Come to a consensus people! If things don't turn out how you like, don't just go behind peoples' backs and change things to how you like it! I can't be the only one getting sick of this. Let's decide on what to do and leave it at that. Isn't that how things work, or did I miss something while I was asleep? --clpo13 07:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was all worked out a while back, but then DreamGuy came back after a block; I've been pretty flexible about changes other than big removals, which is all he does, do I just keep reverting; he doesn't do it three times in a day, so no 3RR violation as far as I can tell, and he hasn't responded usefully to warnings in the past, so I don't waste my time on that any more.  Thanks for putting back what he removed and your attempt at a compromise.  However, I see one problem with your latest, at least.  The "see also" in the photoshopping section to the Photoshop contest article makes sense, but I don't see what the e-mail art article has to do with anything.  I was also concerned that the hoax photo didn't have much to do with photoshop contests, since nothing here or there said so, but on further investigation I found it was indeed a contest winner, so I fixed the caption there and linked the vote.  I would still be nice to have an illustration of a photo that was avowedly "photoshopped" and not part of a contest for this section. Dicklyon 15:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed it from the photoshop contest page because it didn't seem to have any connection to a contest.  Its info page talked about it spreading memetically, so it seemed like a candidate to illustrate what was being discussed here.  But I'd be happy to see an alternative illustration instead.  Dicklyon 16:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise, anyone? 

message: I'm trying to figure out how to interpret this tag: "Some statements may be disputed, incorrect, unverified, biased or otherwise objectionable."  As far as I know, there are no such statements, unless DreamGuy's desire to remove some stuff is due to "otherwise objectionable."  There's really no ongoing editing or development, just a dispute over a small section that is all that's left of the article he took on the obliteration of a few months back.  Dicklyon 06:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about putting it just in that section, but I figured it might be easier to see at the top. Basically, it's just trying to get him to discuss his recent changes, which he hasn't been really up to doing. Might be a bit pointless though, since he is the only one causing problems. I doubt he'd get the hint anyways. Ah well. --clpo13 06:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he and I have said about all we have to say.  What would be useful would be to hear from a few others, so that we can get feel for some kind of consensus. Perhaps a request for comment? Dicklyon 15:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea under the circumstances. Agree with the ActiveDiscuss tag too. I'm happy to sum up and post the RfC; I'll put a brief summary of the situation below and give it a week; if we have no more input by then I'll get onto it. mikaultalk 19:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps so; please point out the diff you are referring to (or several); on review, I find I did add a photo illustration when the section had been reduced to none; most of my other edits were reverts to versions by you or by Mikaul.  Anyway, I'm willing take responsibility for the side that says we want this section to not be reduced to just a trivial mention, when it's actually a fairly prominent and notable phenomenon.  Pointing to "undue weight" is just DreamGuy's opinion, on which we differ.  Dicklyon 16:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, Dickylon has shown himself to completely ignore any discussion, any consensus, and so forth and blindly revert to his preferred version. He tried this on other articles previously. The only thing that does work is to undo his edits and improve the article. It worked on multiple other articles already, but he's been causing problems at this one longer than usual. Once he realizes he has no chance of prevailing he'll give up like always, and he;s always been the main person opposing all improvements. Once he goes away the others can discuss things like responsible editors. We already see from a number of editors broad support to undo all the nonsense he keeps putting back. We'll get there yet. DreamGuy 05:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've tried talking with DreamGuy on that point, but he deletes all my comments on his talk page. He doesn't appear to be willing to make compromises past what he's already done. Perhaps someone else could try talking to him? --clpo13 19:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted all your comments because they were not any attempt to discuss but just wild, rambling accusations of breaking policies and causing problems, which were completely false, and because I tried to talk on HIS talk page (where his talk page says he prefers to talk), but he insisted upon putting his ill-informed, mean-spirited histrionics on my page, even after he was told to knock it off, which was clear harassment-- and was confirmed as such by the admins he tried to run off to to complaint to me about. DreamGuy 05:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are paranoid. First off, I never explicitly accused you, and certainly not in any wild, rambling fashion (a bit uncivil perhaps, but no more than your usual comments). Second, I reply to comments originally made on my talk page. Since I first commented on your page, the discussion should have stayed there. As to the harassment bit, you are guilty of exactly the same. You know what I'm referring to. Let's drop this and focus on the article at hand, shall we? --clpo13 22:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You certainly won't win anything by making personal attacks. And, no, I have no clue what you are referring to about "harassment" and me being guilty of it. All I did was follow your rules on your talk page that ou reply there, and you insisted on not doing that, and in fact, you are STILL insisting on posting to my talk page a month later despite being warned off multiple times. If you really weren't trying to be harassing you would have listened to myself or the admins who said you shouldn't be doing that. DreamGuy 19:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The ActiveDiscuss hint

message: This is in the not disputed section:
:"Some mention should be made in this section of the cultural impact of photo manipulation vis a vis the recreational use of image editing programs."
That is, in fact, disputed. My recent edits leaving a small section on that was a compromise, which, of course, was ignored by the kiddies who want amateur trivial nonsense to take over every serious article on this site. My position is that "Photoshopping" only needs to be mentioned at all as a term for photo editing based upon Adobe Photoshop and that Adobe disputes the usage. There's absolutely no call to draw any sort of attention to the fact that some bored kids with nothing better to do also play around with crap and then demand the world treat that as important for doing so. It's like going to the Microphone article and finding a couple of paragraphs about how kids sometimes grab them and make fart noises into them for their own amusement. Articles about the kids playing around already exist, and the See also section already links to them. That is far more than they deserve, and we certainly do NOT need to waste any actual text of this article saying that "well, duh, yeah, anything grownups use for real purposes can be turned into a toy for bored idiots, let's list them all here for no apparent reason." 
DreamGuy 05:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, point taken, but please clarify: was your compromise to leave a mention in the article, or in the section? Either is a valuable compromise and I would ask you to stand by it. I agree that Photoshopping is used too generically to refer only to "humorous" photomontage. A good compromise might well be to create a small section for cultural impact (which needn't amount  to any more than the second para in the existing disputed section) and reduce the Photoshopping section to the existing first para, at least for now. To reflect that, I've struck out the phrase "in this section" from the "not disputed" point 3. I'll bring this up in the comments section below. mikaultalk 11:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed

message: :Photoshopping was merged with this article (then Photo manipulation; there is a call to revert to this title on this page) following what appeared to be a consensus at the the Photoshopping talk page, but which effectively became the origin of the current dispute. The rest of the discussion (above) centered around the inclusion of the term "photochopping", which added the issue of neologism to the dispute. The rest of the discussion is  above here. The section at issue has been edited and reverted approximately 100 times during the last six weeks. 
: mikaultalk 19:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction: the move from photo manipulation was 21-Jan-07; the merge of info from photoshopping was much more recent, 14-Apr-07.  The inclusion of photochopping there (bold in the lead, even) goes back more than a year, and was part of what was merged here. Dicklyon 19:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've struck out the inaccurate part. Is there anything else relevent to a brief/general history which should be in there? mikaultalk 12:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably enough.  No need to rehash the whole nasty history. Dicklyon 22:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't get the "more important" comment. It's (less) notable, that's why it's (only briefly) mentioned. The lead mentions "cultural impact" and that's basically what it amounts to. I agree, the term is too widely used to refer exclusively to this kind of use, but I also think that a mention of this kind of use belongs here, if not under the "photoshopping" header then elsewhere in the article. mikaultalk 11:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Brief history

message: At the very end of the photoshopping section, there is this statement:
The latter image was widely circulated as a National Geographic "Image of the Year" and was later revealed to be a hoax.Shark "Photo of the Year" Is E-Mail Hoax from National Geographic News, retrieved on 20 May, 2006
DreamGuy has removed this a couple times saying it lends undue weight to manipulated images such as the Helicopter Shark image the statement refers to. Now, I feel this bit should be included since the section talks about humor images passed through email and as actual news. One of the first things I learned in my elementary English classes was that statements like this need examples to back them up. What good is it to say edited images can be passed as news without giving any sort of example of this actually happening? The National Geographic "Image of the Year" hoax fits this perfectly. It's not lending undue weight; it's clarifying a statement already made. --clpo13 00:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Geographic and [[WP:UNDUE]] 

message: Definition:  to quote Mikaul "I agree with DreamGuy here: a one-line mention of photographic terminology in a book called "Medical Records for Attorneys" is the perfect definition of a non-reliable source, per WP:RS. The adobe citation is more than enough"  Couldn't agree more. Another dodgy source.
Image:  
1) What does " widely circulated mean" Among internet circles?
2) I can't help feel that if we are  going to have an image to illustrate the section (leaving aside the fact there are images elsewhere) that it might be better to have one that is obviously photoshopped eg. head of x on y's body. I don't think the image says anything without knowing the story behind maybe something self evident would bring an added extra???
3) If we are talking about images that have "fooled" the press why not use the one of the explosions that that guy got sacked from reuters for? I know its not exactly appropriate for this paragraph but if the justification for the current image is that it fooled the press surely the reuters one is more notable. 
4) IMO the current image should have been reinserted. 
Adbusters: i don't particularly like this mag but could it be relevant? 
Plus why does Jossi make changes without involving themselves in the discussion.Setting a good example? Or is it because he/she is an admin and above everyone else?
3tmx 17:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference that Jossi chose to restore is the other one of the two we had originally, since the one I recommended was taken back out.  It says "And with digital photography, there is also the possibility of photoshopping – digtally editing the representation to make it more aesthetically pleasing, or to change decisions about framing".  Here, nothing would be changed if they had used "photo editing" or "photo manipulation"; they aren't really talking about the term itself, though they do clarify what they mean by it; it is evidence in support of the observation, but is not an explicit source of the statement that this term is used this way.  The other ref, however, which you reject as "non-reliable" for reasons that I don't get, talks of "photo-shopping" in quotes and refers to the word itself and its use in saying "(as it is now generally known in the commercial design industry)".  And it's in a very serious context, of relevant topic, in a serious book, section on digital photo manipulation.  I don't understand the logic of you guys objecting to this ref.  Anyway, if you find a better source, please do add it; if not, put the one real verifiable source back. Dicklyon 17:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't vouch for anyone else, but I've clarified my objections to the medical book ref further down the page. mikaultalk 17:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: With  tags around the text to strikethrough. Also, why shouldn't the image be inserted? As mikaul has stated before, an article or section that deals primarily with an image-related phenomenon should have an image to properly illustrate it. Journalism and propaganda examples are present earlier in the article to illustrate their respective sections, so why not have a photoshopped image (made purely for fun) to illustrate the cultural uses of the term photoshopped? --clpo13 19:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Changes/thoughts

message: From reading through the more recent comments on the talk page (especially in the RfC section), it seems that the consensus is to include an image in the section on the basis that an image-related phenomenon would best be illustrated by an image. I bring this up because DreamGuy's recent edits have removed the image, although I see no rationale for his actions, especially considering they appear to go against consensus. So would it be possible to come to an agreement over whether an image should be included and which image it should be? I mean, at least a simple discussion before deleting the image would be nice. That's assuming DreamGuy even reads this talk page any more... --clpo13 01:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image in the Photoshopping section 

message: This article needs an image of a person before and after; since that is really what most people think of. If someone could find or make one that would be good.TrevorLSciAct 16:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I can't agree with that, it's not specific enough. The photoshopping section concerns two aspects of digital manipulation of images: first, what I've been advised to refer to as the "recreational" use of image editing programs, which this suggestion might well illustrate. Second, the "cultural impact" of this recreational activity, which IMO requires a published example of a resulting image. The article text used to describe this activity as very basic, so it is clear that the image has been altered (often humour is derived from this fact), or in a hyper-realistic way so that the changes are seamless but now we're relying on a single image to "say" the same thing. The Fark one isn't so neat that you couldn't see the joke, nor is it so rough that it would fail to fool the viewer. Find a better one, by all means, but make it one which at least fits both criteria. mikaultalk 16:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the recreational aspect is supposed to be on other articles, like Photoshop contest and meme and so forth. Certainly a professional before and after editing would be fine, but be aware that some in the past here were trying to find excuses to link to their own websites on which they tried to sell image editing services, so be wary that any aded info or photo is actually professional and not an attempt to sneak advertising in. DreamGuy 00:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I missed this response earlier. I'm happy to go with a consensus which accepts the usage as referring to all forms of image manipulation. As such there should be a mention of recreational use, if not necessarily an image exclusive to that. This was in the back of my mind when I defended the Fark image, as there is an element of "professional" editing in it: it's a commercial site, the editing done by a paid graphic artist. However I'm now more inclined now to find something even more "generic" instead. If anyone can find an image which fits all forms of "photoshopping" I'd be amazed happily support it. I hear your concerns, about spam, but with this level of vigilance, none shall pass. mikaultalk 18:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, ok. This page has become such a single-issue discussion I assumed it related to photoshopping. Still, I'm not sure where it would fit as an illustration of anything but the sort of recreational/hobbyist use I was ranting about above. As such, it would only serve to add weight to a section which currently could do without it. In any event, wouldn't that be more of a photomontage example? Compositing is only a tiny part of photo editing / manipulation. mikaultalk 22:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A good example image 

message: Here I have to agree with DreamGuy, against Minestrone Soup's rearrangement that puts "photoshopping" in parallel with digital editing under types of editing.  Makes no sesne. Dicklyon 00:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Emphatically seconded. I've already outlined in detail above the need for a thorough re-jig of this article but it simply cannot happen – nor can any constructive editing occur – while we have this ongoing unresolved dispute. At the very least, under the circumstances, editors should observe the ActiveDiscuss tag on the page (which was removed.. why? I've replaced it, for this very reason) and run any and all edits via this page first. mikaultalk 10:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rearrangement

message: I have archived a number of older discussions that are inactive and unrelated to more recent discussion. Contrary to what DreamGuy would think, this is not in order to cover up any discussions agreeing with him (or disagreeing with certain editors), but to shorten the talk page and make it more manageable. None of the discussions have anything to do with the Photoshopping section, and most are many months old. They are all accessible here for anyone who wishes to verify that they are ancient, inactive, and irrelevant to the topic at hand. --clpo13(talk) 09:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You originally deleted conversations that were, in fact, completely active and relevant to current discussions. When I told you that archiving now was pointless and in bad faith there was no reason for you to do so again other than sheer stubbornness, and a glance at your edit showed no difference, but I see now that you did leave out some of your earlier improper deletion of active concerns. You shouldn't be archiving at all when someone is objecting to it, as there's no rush to do so, ever. This kind of nonsense is demonstrating bad faith in that you had to have your way and for no good reason. Well, fine, whatever, I won't revert that again, but you sure are going out of your way to purposefully work against others. DreamGuy 09:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proof that you blindly revert. After you complained the first time, I left the discussions that were relevant on the talk page and removed them from the archive. The only things I archived the second (and third) times were completely unrelated. And the only person it would seem I'm working against is you, but that's through no conscious effort on my part. I wasn't in a rush to archive, but by automatically assuming I was up to no good, you really didn't help matters much. No other editor would have complained about archiving old discussions. --clpo13(talk) 09:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived old discussions 

message: This is a follow-on to the discussion above ("Trying to establish some common ground").  Please take a look at the currently-protected form of the article, with regards to two very specific things:
* Do you feel it is balanced in the weight it gives the use of the term "photoshopping"?
* Are the citations provided to support the use of the term appropriate?
Please do NOT refer to other editors or their actions during this discussion.  Confine your comments to these two points, which I believe are the major sticking points currently.  If there are any subject matter issues (as opposed to editor conduct or actions) that I have missed, please let me know. Hopefully we can drive this to some sort of conclusion. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mostly agree.  The illustration is not ideal, since it's a contest image, not a generic photoshopping image; a better illustration would be welcome.  I agree about dropping the second sentence in the second paragraph, or putting reference to the pix in parens or something.  I agree that ref 6 is not a very good one; but on ref 7 I disagree; it's a serious book with a serious section on digital alteration of photographs, with legal implications, and explicitly supports the idea that within this serious domain the term photoshopping is used generically (in lower case, even); it is a source the deals expressly with photograhic subject matter, as requested; there is no reason I can see to treat it as inadequate or unreliable in any way (except someone has dropped the url from the ref so readers can't easy follow up and read it now).  Finally, as I said before, the thesis sentence of the second paragraph needs a reliable source; I had added two that can be brought back. Dicklyon 16:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm good with 3tmx's suggestion. It gives the needed information without being too wordy, just as a paper encyclopedia would put (see whatever) after something related, instead of making it into its own sentence. As for refs, I don't really care what goes on there. I kind of agree with mikaul in that having a non-photo ref might lend credence to Photoshopping's use in popular culture, but I don't feel too strongly about that. A better photo illustration might also be nice, but when I really think about it, this section doesn't really need its own image. There's nothing special about "Photoshopped" pictures that can't be shown by the other edited pictures in the article. Then again, a purely frivolous photo might help to counterbalance the more serious pictures shown in the rest of the article as well as illustrate the popular culture or hobbyist usage of Photoshop. --clpo13(talk) 03:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the section is good as is. I don't understand what the big fuss is all about. Besides, why isn't this stuff in its own article? Seems like there's enough information to warrant at least a stub. Then we wouldn't need to worry about gunking up a more serious article. --Editmaniac 09:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Photoshopping used to have its own page. Please see Talk:Photoshopping for the discussion on merging it with this page. There is also the article on Photoshop contests which is wikilinked from this page. Would like a few more inputs to this discussion, then I will try to come up with a version of the page for discussion, based ont he comments made.  Continued thanks to everyone for keeping this discussion on course. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already started one a while back, feel free to edit this one, ie remove content entirely and start again if necessary. mikaultalk 13:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, there is: WP:EL, Links normally to be avoided, point 9: "Links to search engine and aggregated results pages." -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 13:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but this may be an exception: as the guideline itself states, this should be avoided "except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article". As the proliferation of the search term is the point of this section, I'd say I fell within that criterion. Of course, if there is another way to avoid multiple refs to support a simple point, it would obviously be preferable. mikaultalk 14:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I too think such a link would be a step in the wrong direction.  Most of the google hits will be for uses of the term, not for articles that talk about the term, which is what are needed to support the specific claims of the section.  Such references are not as easy to find, since the widespread use of photoshopping is not that widely documented; but there are enough that we can find and cite them. Dicklyon 14:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure there should be multiple inline refs, though? I don't have a real problem with that, it just seems a little OTT. I was thinking of the source research at the beginning of this section of the discussion and wondering how to cite all that in the text. I'd like to provide the reader access to most of those usage refs, but I'd prefer not to make such a big deal of them. mikaultalk 16:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not at all sure.  One good ref to each claim would be fine if someone feels that more are not needed. Dicklyon 18:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Dicklyon, can you please show me the place where DG "explicitly" refused to comment, here?  I haven't seen that yet.  Since he is a stakeholder in this discussion, I would strongly suggest that we do not short-cut this procedure, and give him ample chance to respond.  In the meantime we can work on a draft of what the page should look like and then push to see if we have a consensus when he returns to editing. I agree that this is not ideal, but this whole process has been a long way away from how WP should work. There is no point in unblocking it, making a bunch of changes, only to find that it gets reverted and the whole thing starts up again. The idea here was to get us to a point where we can get some sort of stability. I suggest that we keep the page protected for now. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 11:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, maybe "explicitly" was the wrong word.  You asked him politely on his talk page to comment.  He ignored that for a while, then added a new section saying he was going on break.  I responded with a polite request to respond if he had time before break.  He removed my note and left his usual summary saying I'm not allow to post on his talk page.  So he saw the messages and that was all he had to say in response; that's explicit enough that we know he hasn't just forgotten or gone away without noticing. Dicklyon 15:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, but it doesn't necessarily follow that he is not going to comment - there may be many other reasons why he hasn't done it yet.  I suggest we go ahead and use this time to get a workable consensus version put together and when everybody involved is back, we can see how well it flies. I will give it a few more days to see if anybody else wants to contribute, then we can start building up a proposal.  Sound ok to everyone? -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 15:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like you're just stalling.  The article is blocked, and doesn't need to be.  Normal processes work fine, and we've got only subtle differences in the discussion of what to do.  So unblock it and get on with it.  When DreamGuy is back, he can let us know if he thinks we've gone in a bad direction. Dicklyon 17:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess I'm not altogether sure what the rush is, here.  The discussions have been going on since at least  June, and possibly back to April.  They were going nowhere, and I (who have no real stake in this article, as I have stated previously) have been trying to explore if there is another way to get this resolved other than the methods which had been used up to that point.  One of these is that we need to have patience and give each other enough time to think (and not knee-jerk react) - we all have lives outside of WP and these can sometimes get in the way.  I don't think someone's opinion should be ignored or discounted simply because they can't log in for a few days. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 17:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) His refusal to discuss is implicit, but it is definitely refusal. He's removed multiple requests for comments and discussion on his talk page, complete with uncivil edit summaries and declarations of "banning" editors from his talk page (which makes no sense in a user-run community that thrives on discussion and interaction). I sincerely hope that this break isn't just an excuse to avoid participation in further discussion to be followed by willful ignorance of what is discussed during his absence. --健次(derumi)talk 15:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not characterise it the same way - in fact, DG made a lengthy post in an above section that talked about his concerns.  I feel that we can possibly reach a solution based on what everyone has posted here that might well reach a true consensus, but we have to stop questioning other people's motives and actions.  Not everyone's discussion styles are as verbose as others'.  Let's respect that and come up with a proposal. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on the references to Photoshopping in the current article 

message: * Remove fark image (3tmx)
* Replace fark image with  this one (mikaul)
:I agreed that we can probably find a more appropriate image; I wouldn't remove the fark image until we decide on a replacement; I'm OK with the one mikaul suggests, but I bet there are other good choices, too. Dicklyon 18:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is probably a good place to post up any alternatives, if you or anyone else have any in mind. Ideally we'll have something in time for the block lifting, so no worries about removing anything. mikaultalk 19:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Found the link: "http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/ethics" to be broken. Just letting someone know to either change it or remove it when it's unlocked. ClosedEyesSeeing 19:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For future ref (and if you were actually looking for the page) it moved here. mikaultalk 11:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see, it seems the person that added the link originally forgot to add the extension to the file. ClosedEyesSeeing 16:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I recall, the page was originally up there per the original link, sans suffix. I guess they did some housekeeping one day and a load of links to their pages went dead overnight.. mikaultalk 19:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Link 

message: Can i propose that when  the page is unlocked the stalin image is moved to "history", where it is more appropriate. The current placement of the Stalin image implys to someone looking at the page for the first time that the page deals mainly with propaganda.Maybe the currently proposed professional before and after could go in its place??? Either way I think with the stalin image less prominant the possibility of a name change to image or photo manipulation would then appear less negative and less geared towards propaganda usage. 
3tmx 21:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it would fit best in the history section.  It would still be good if we had a good lead photo, though.  And I have no objection to calling it photo manipulation; the previous move to here seems to have never been discussed, just commented on after the fact by the guy who did it.  The photoshopping section probably still fits best in photo manipulation compared to other possible places. Dicklyon 21:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I first came here to do just that (revert back to photo manipulation). I also noticed  there was a lot to be done here to bring the article up to scratch, and I still think it has real potential. The ethical aspects of photo manipulation are a central theme here and a pervasive one – another good place for that medical attorney source, Dick! The negative connotations of this will have to be carefully contained, as a good deal of the article will naturally outline the abuse of image editing software for political and otherwise pernicious (and recreational) ends. One of the first things needed is agreement on a more descriptive lead section, in effect a statement of the scope the article will have, but I'm struggling to think of a lead image which conveys the idea without looking like it belongs on the more technical image editing page. I've never liked the Stalin pic there, agree about the move, but wouldn't support a purely technical "before and after" shot for the reasons I mention here. mikaultalk 23:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent idea. Dicklyon 01:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stalin

message: Assuming there are no more unanswered points, I suggest we break from this page and take the discussion over to the mediation page to iron out the remaining creases of disagreement. I've taken the liberty of adding a paragraph to the proposed version, slimming the  "popular culture" para down to balance things out (wikified the "kitten" example and weeded out a few superfluous words) which I think fits with the current state of the consensus. The new para really is begging at least one supporting ref, and I've found this one using "photoshopped" with reference to art and graphic design in a fairly highly-acclaimed book. Anyway, I've linked to this version on the mediation page and suggest we use it as the basis for a final compromise there. mikaultalk 15:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to DreamGuy's objection, the MedCab case has been closed. I'm at a loss for what to do next since it's starting to seem like this will never be resolved. I'm looking into filing a formal mediation request, but I'm not feeling hopeful that would go anywhere, either. Also, if Dicklyon is still on for filing an ArbCom request, a formal mediation request would be redundant. --clpo13(talk) 20:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy_2#Time_to_close_this_up_and_take_it_to_RFAr.  Please add yourself as a participant if you think you fit; the draft is at User:Dicklyon/RFArDreamGuy. Dicklyon 20:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: mediation 

message: Very old versions of photoshopping have some interesting images.  Here's one. Dicklyon 20:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And just what is a professional image, DreamGuy? One made by professionals, one made for a professional purpose, or something else entirely? Your vagueness (and continued lack of proof showing the term Photoshopping to refer only to using Adobe Photoshop only for professional purposes) isn't contributing at all to this discussion. Pardon my lack of patience, but I believe I have said before that photo editing isn't restricted to professionals alone. I don't even need proof to show that to be true. (Note: before you misconstrue my comments, yet again, let it be known that I wish to include both professional and non-professional usage, not simply one or the other, as per the reality of the issue.) --clpo13(talk) 01:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image illustration idea for photoshopping

message: I've been asked to unprotect the page, and I am happy to do so. I trust you all to cooperate with one another. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected