Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:28, 14 February 2021

Wright Flyer image

The colorized Wright Flyer image is really nice, thanks for sharing an interesting work of art. It makes the scene real and communicates well to the viewer. It should stay on both articles, but not as lead image (that's stretching the concept of using colorizations a bit too much). Good work! Randy Kryn (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

First Flight, In Color! barnstar

	Best Historical Photo Colorized Image
	Your expertise in providing new images from old benefits the encyclopedia, and this one is really nice. Thank you. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

THANKS Randy. This is the greatest award I have received in my entire life.
If I were to win the lottery, on my death bed I will think of this. Not a care at all about material things which have slipped through my fingers. --Wright Stuf (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Well deserved and accurate. Can't think of any other black and white photo which, if finely colored, would give such an interesting and "you are there" presentation of a major historical event. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I have something to give to you, Randy. Knowing the historical significance of this photo, I wanted to document how the restoration was accomplished. The fun way to do that was to turn it into a music video. I didn't want to clutter the visuals, so text narration is packaged in the subtitles .srt file:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1JrqyBwuMeTyN4DeMcK-n0_fcL9QvEA_i?usp=sharing

If you like it and want to keep it accessible, please save as a dnld. This link will only be temporarily accessible.

Only the b&w steps are shown. I don't show any of the colorization steps. That part was straightforward and did not do anything irreversible, unlike the b&w part. --Wright Stuf (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Watched, and enjoyed the close ups and the filmed portions. Were those two dark rocks near the bottom that were edited out or anomalies in the photo? A couple of years ago I saw many of the Wright Brothers sites in Dayton, Ohio, and liked how they or someone cut up the Wright Flyer's fabric to serve as museum pieces and mementos (one piece went to the Moon with Neil Armstrong). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Yikes. If those were rocks down there, then I totally botched the restoration. And that was the main purpose of the video, to make sure I didn't do anything improper, according to the standards of professional archivists. I am certain that those black spots are irretrievable damage done to the original image. I don't see any reason why anyone would purposely edit those out, but yes, a possibility.

I brought my own family to tour the Dayton sites, try our hand at flying their Wright Flyer simulator, peruse the Air Force Museum and such. Two other vacations complete the Wright Brothers experience: Kitty Hawk, of course. And Dearborn, Michigan of all places. Nothing like being there in person. To do that color restoration, I've touched the sand myself and returned with loads of color photos. It takes more than a century for the color of sand to noticeably change. While at the original bicycle shop outside Detroit, the man working there had been there many years. I doubt he gets asked this often, but I thought it would make for good conversation to ask if he'd seen any ghosts. He said yes. He then went into stories of sounds he would hear when he was there working alone. Wow.

There are other curiosities about the event which surround the First Flight. Like how their first attempt happened on the 121st anniversary of the Montgolfier Brothers' first balloon test flight. And how the guy who clicked the shutter of this iconic photo, John Daniels, died the day after Orville died. Orv & Will aren't even the only famous 'Wright Brothers' from Ohio. But no one thinks of these other two when you say Wright Brothers. These two sets of brothers were even contemporaries, with decades of their lives overlapping, doing their famous things just 50 miles apart from each other. Curious.

In my own conversations with Neil Armstrong, I never talked to him about the Wright Brothers. But I did check to see whether he was open to recognizing deeper meaning behind curious coincidences. He gave the response you would expect from any good scientist. Nothing more than random chance. --Wright Stuf (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Randy, in case you prefer a more vintage look, I added the border back onto the colorized image:

File:Wright_First_Flight_1903Dec17_(restore_115,_colorized).jpg

This has several detail refinements which I also updated in the borderless version. Ok, I probably should sit on my hands now, before I go too far like a middle aged model addicted to plastic surgery procedures. --Wright Stuf (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Good travel and interview stories above. Didn't know about the 121st anniversary connection, a nice coincidence. Glad you got to talk to Armstrong, a great way to square the circle of the Wrights. I spoke with him once for just seconds, but did make that contact (Aldrin a bit more, and attended one of his book-signing talks). Nice work on the border-image. Noticed in the page history that you haven't edited the template {{Wright aircraft}}, so please take a look at it to see if you can spot any improvements or missing pieces. I've had some pretty good edit runs on that one (template construction one of my "things" on Misplaced Pages). Curious, who are the two other Ohio Wright brothers, they don't show up at the disamb. page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

For the {{Wright aircraft}} template, my only recommendation at the moment would be a separate listing for Greenfield Village (Wright house & Cycle Company building).

I'm not sure how much interest you'll have in the rest I have to offer. Short answer: Harry & George. Now I'll recommend you buckle up if you want my long answer...

The Cincinnati Reds, Boston Red Sox and Atlanta Braves have a unique claim. All three clubs can trace roots which go back to the very first professional baseball team, the Cincinnati Red Stockings. The founder of this team was Harry Wright, and also starred his younger brother George. A strong argument can be made that the Baseball Hall of Fame needs to be uprooted from Cooperstown and moved to Cincinnati as its rightful home. Cooperstown was based on A LIE.

So Orv & Wil were the second set of Ohio Wright Brothers, doing their thing 50 miles north of the first set of Ohio Wright Brothers, Harry & George. Totally eclipsed to the point where no one today remembers them. This is not where the curious coincidences end. Younger brother George had a lifespan 30 years longer than Harry. Younger brother Orv, 31 years longer than Wil. Comparing dates of birth & death of both younger brothers, George's are offset from Orville's by a pair of days, Jan 28/30 & Aug 21/19. The first World Series was held a pair of months offset from the First Flight, Oct/Dec 1903. The Red Stockings had left Cincinnati in 1870 with Harry re-establishing the team in Boston, and bringing George with him to form the Boston Red Stockings. Who played in this 1st WS 33 years later? Boston vs Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh is where Gustave Whitehead made what has been claimed to be the first piloted powered flight in 1899, using steam. Three years earlier, in 1896, he started a series of glider flights, similar to the 3-year offset of Orv&Wil between gliding & powered. Where did Gustave_do his gliding tests? In Boston. In 2013, the State of Connecticut formally recognized Whitehead as the first person to achieve powered flight, in 1901, a pair of years offset from Orv&Wil's 1903.

So Doubleday your pleasure with these odd sets of Doublemint Gum aviation & baseball facts related to these pairs of brothers & pairs of cities, Dayton/Cincinnati & Pittsburgh/Boston, etc. If someone wanted to go further down this rabbit hole, they'd note how both Buzz Aldrin and Abner Doubleday are West Point graduates, a school located double the distance from Cooperstown as Dayton is from Cincinnati, 100 vs 50 miles. And all this only scratches the surface. It says nothing of the coincidences I bounced off of Neil Armstrong. Those go MUCH DEEPER.

You mention Squaring the Circle. And you may be familiar with an entirely different set of astounding facts related to Earth-Moon-Sun / Great Pyramid geometry. Actually, both sets of facts are intimately connected. Apollo astronauts, baseball, aviation PIoneers, E-M-S geometry... and the ratio Pi. The captions in my Learn To Fly video highlights the milestones which happened 21/44/66 years after Kitty Hawk, being the first round-the-world flight, Yeager busting Mach 1, and Neil & Buzz's 1st landing. We could have picked Goddard's 1st liquid-fueled rocket launch on Mar 16, 1926, which would make for milestones at 22/44/66 years. So 3 intervals across 1 timespan between 4 milestones. Pi is approximated as 3.14. In Apollo, the commanders of the first mission to Circle the Moon and the last, Frank Borman & Gene Cernan were both born on March 14th, 3/14, Pi Day. A twist on the old jingle "Baseball, NASA, apple Pi & Chevrolet." Full on Da Vinci Code with squaring the circle. Vitruvian men flying to the Moon.

Goddard's milestone happened a pair of days apart from Pi Day, 40 miles east of the Basketball Hall of Fame. Basketball's relation to Apollo and Earth-Moon-Sun geometry is another slew of correlations. Scale the Earth down to the size of a basketball, and the Moon scales to a tennis ball. Put this basketball-Earth directly under the hoop, and the orbit of the tennis ball-Moon is found at the 3-point line. Exactly.

Well, I've probably gone way beyond the interest level of most reasonable people on this. But I did see that you had built templates for Richard Bach, Ram Dass, People who have traveled to the Moon, Honor Rolls of Baseball, etc. Also US Founding Fathers. Like how John Adams and Thomas Jefferson died on the same day within hours of each other. Not just any day, but the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. So these things I've been hammering here are like a bad Richard Alpert / Bach LSD trip. Perfectly in line with the theme of Illusions. As I indicated earlier, these synchronicities aren't even the deep ones I laid on Neil A. Armstrong, curiously given the name 'Alien' spelled backwards, with his father being a Freemason, along with his Eagle copilot and 2 other moonwalkers. I got to attend Buzz's Lodge in Clear Lake. And one of my conversations with him was about what the Freemasons asked him to do. He refused to do it. And he refused to so much as tell me what they requested. But I think I know. I think they wanted him to proclaim Tranquility Base as a Masonic Lodge, complete with a masonic flag. My best guess.

Ok, I've probably gone WAY TOO FAR. So I'll end here. --Wright Stuf (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Will get back to read this, not now, but I know it'll be interesting and look forward to it. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No follow up necessary. I mainly put that out there as things that make you go hmm. Me, at least. But if you do, I'll be very interested to hear your thoughts. Btw, my question to Neil was about SL9. --Wright Stuf (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Interesting factoids and structural comparisons. The basketball/tennisball/three-point-line is quite the coincidence, and the Neil A. (never noticed or heard about that). Nice you had such good talks with Aldrin and Armstrong. Knew about the Wright's, (Harry and George), didn't connect them with Ohio. Thanks for a good read. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

With every curious coincidence, the very first angle I seek is the perfectly rational explanation. With the 3-pt line, it's quite possible that the person who picked that distance was an astronomy fan, being quite deliberate. With John Daniels, quite possible he was told the news "Btw, it says here Orv just died." With Adams & Jefferson, the 50th ann of the DoI was extremely significant to both, so fully logical that they'd relax their grip on their mortal coil that day. So with these, I see it to be improper to unequivocally label them as "synchronicities". Even with the 121st anniversary of the Montgolfiers. Wil & Orv knew quite well what they had done and when. And were inspired by them.

With many other odd coincidences, I have absolutely no logical explanation for. "Random chance" is a wholly unsatisfying explanation for why a flipped nickel is found to have landed on its edge. All the moreso when one investigates the cointossers to find an entire table having a bunch of nickels on their edge. The logical answer points toward the nickels having been placed there that way. I saw Neil's answer to be him burying his probability-savvy head in the sand.

There are even other strange coincidences with the Apollo 11 Moon landing aside from SL9. The Intel 4004 & 8008 microprocessors which kicked off our computer revolution had the original designations of 1202 & 1201 respectively. Federico Faggin was born on 12/01. I kid you not. Many many others. One of the foundational papers for the internet was Paul Baran's On Distributed Communication, "RM-3420" (Rand Memorandum 3420). The place of the world's first ArpaNet message has been enshrined for being the birth of the internet. It's been restored as a tiny one-room museum. UCLA Boelter Hall, Room 3420, or rm 3420 (page).

Of course there are few who have interest in people like Ram Dass, Richard Bach, Carl Jung... And most would brand me a kook just for highlighting simple facts like 1202/1201. Not exactly things to bring up in a job interview. ...unless you're applying for Palm Reader. --Wright Stuf (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Randy Kryn,

Yesterday I found a video by Misplaced Pages founder Larry Sanger. I expect you're aware of his story of how he walked away from his project in disgust because critical policies were not being followed. This has been my own long time complaint, and I took it to the very top, where I was met with people there who McConnell'd the issue. This week we witnessed yet another Admin who refused to uphold Policy. Now Sanger gets straight to the point in this video, explaining Misplaced Pages's critical flaws within the first 2 minutes:

Ex-founder Larry Sanger explains the fundamental problem with Misplaced Pages

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cIUk-K_ZT4

But my main reason for sharing this with you here is that at the 4m47s point, Sanger refers to the decentralized/distributed diagram straight out of Paul Baran's landmark paper RM-3420, diagram shown more clearly here (found on pdf pg16of51, as linked in previous post). I stumbled onto this reference to RM-3420 one day after telling you about it, after having gone a bunch of years without so much as thinking about it, let alone seeing it referenced by anyone. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

11 February 2021

If you believe that the other participants at Talk:Wright Flyer#Colorized photo have behaved improperly, please take your complaint to the administrators noticeboard. Your further attempts to prolong the debate are in grave danger of becoming disruptive. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Steelpillow, I see no reason why Collapsing is seen to be necessary or helpful. But if it is, then I collapsed in a way that is not a cover up. It retains the presentation of the most essential points.

You cite WP:DIS. Hello? That is a policy on Article Space, not Talk Space. --Wright Stuf (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

WARNING: You have now breached the edit-warring three-revert rule in reverting this edit by another editor. Any administrator would be well within their rights to block your account right now. May I most strongly recommend that you immediately end your disruptive behaviour before someone takes you to WP:ANI or WP:AN/EW. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Steelpillow, here is yet another example of you misunderstanding and misapplying WIKIPEDIA POLICY. Either that, or you don't know how to count to FOUR.

No editor there has done more than three reverts.

And while we are talking WPolicy...

It has LONG been pointed out that all of you are refusing to conform to long standing WP:Consensus.

Most recently, it has been pointed out that the manner in which Collapsing has been applied constitutes Misplaced Pages:Vandalism.

I specifically stated:

"If anyone has a problem with the way I've collapsed the section, please explain why collapsing the entire discussion is the better approach. And does not constitute a cover up."

Your last action there, in reverting my ANTI-VANDALISM effort, addressed my severe concerns with this edit summary:

"continued deadhorse disruption"

You have therefore confirmed for me that the three of you have opted to engage in vandalism. To this moment, none of you have supported total collapse as a legitimate change.

Now let's revisit WP:3RR... Quote:

"Exemptions

4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits ... such as page blanking ..."

So even if I had done more than 3 reverts, my actions there are fully supported by Clear Misplaced Pages Policy. Total Collapsing is not far from Page Blanking. And again, no one has presented justification for doing so as a legitimate action.

I recommend you cease your baseless misguided threats against me, STOP vandalizing that page, and conform to other WP you all have long been wantonly ignoring over there. --Wright Stuf (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Ease up on the gas pedal

At Talk:Wright Flyer, you really have to stop nagging everybody. Pestering a talk page with repeated arguments is against talk page guidelines. Read the parts about staying concise and focused, not fragmenting the discussion, and not bludgeoning the other participants.

I have closed the second section of discussion. Don't add anything more for a couple of months. Binksternet (talk) 05:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

You do not own Misplaced Pages. You are in no position to tell another user to stay away for 1 hour, let alone a couple of months. I just now did a dummy edit to highlight how you've grossly mischaracterized the discussion you unilaterally closed, after I had made it perfectly clear that blatant Vandalism is in need of being FIXED there.

Many have accused me of being in violation of WP. All have been debunked as distortions or misunderstanding of Policy. As for TPG, I have already made it perfectly clear that it is the 11 of you who have been BLUDGEONING ME, if anyone is doing that. Everyone there would have been saved many wasted hours if you all would simply follow long established Consensus. As we are all obligated to do. --Wright Stuf (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

...and you issued your faux-order for me to stop and leave more than half an hour after I announced that I was stopping and leaving. Who is harassing who?! --Wright Stuf (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Wright Flyer; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. BilCat (talk) 07:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Wright Flyer. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Please don't accuse other editors of vandalism.for simply disagreeing with you. BilCat (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Talk:Wright Flyer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Counterpoint: If we all followed LONG ESTABLISHED CONSENSUS, dating back to 2014, there would never have been a single revert.

Your collective refusal to follow this far more important Policy pulls the bottom out of your baseless claims that it is me who hasn't been following WP. Welcome to Oppositeville. The land where we take reality, flip it on its head, and then gaslight you until you accept our distorted version of the story. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked

That section title kinda grabs you, doesn't it? No, you're not blocked... yet. But you will be. You've never been blocked so you may think it'll never happen, but believe me, it can and will. I don't know you, I have no dog in this fight and I am not part of any consensus here. There are some editors here I know, like and respect, some I don't care for and quite a few I don't know, but they are all telling you the same thing... so listen.

No matter how right you think you are, at some point, either here, or an article tp or at WP:ANI, an admin will decide that your wp:battleground mentality, and your looong wiki-lawyering word-salad screeds are "net negative". That is likely the term that they'll use, that and; "I have already made it perfectly clear that it is the 11 of you who have been BLUDGEONING ME" (), and tbey will block you. You can try telling me off (I intend this to my only post here) or just delete this, or you take this as a warning and adjust... up to you. (jmho) - wolf 15:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Re: Bludgeon, you DISTORTED my words. Anybody wishing to do an honest independent evaluation of the exchange can clearly see that word was brought up 2 times. NEVER ONCE by me. I have never initiated that accusal. And my reply to ME being accused was conditional. IF. You know, the part you deliberately deleted, without so much as a replacement of deleted words with "..." to clearly show that something was removed. You removed it to fit your story that I am in the wrong here.

As for Admin oversight, let's not eliminate the possibility that there is ONE out there who might actually choose to enforce Misplaced Pages Policy. I am the one insisting that everyone follow long established consensus. --Wright Stuf (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

>sigh< Ok, I was just trying to be helpful, but jtbc, I copied and pasted directly from your own post, and included a diff for good measure. The full sentence was; "As for TPG, I have already made it perfectly clear that it is the 11 of you who have been BLUDGEONING ME, if anyone is doing that." If you think the omissions from the beginning and end somehow change (not even substantially, but in any way) the point that you are somehow tone-deaf to that fact that you are accusing eleven (!) editors of "hounding" you, well... don't tell me, because I don't want to know.

You'll argue anything with anyone. I was trying to help you avoid getting blocked, perhaps even banned, and for my efforts I'm accused deliberately altering your comments because... what? I'm part of a the vast conspiracy against you? (Rhetorical question, no answer required.) I just wanted to set the record straight about the quote, other than that, I don't care what happens here and don't care what happens to you. Don't engage me, and don't ping me again. Have a nice day - wolf 20:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

YOU are the one who engaged me. And you did so by a reversal distortion of what happened. So it is at least consistent of you to disengage by way of yet another reversal distortion. A stalker who complains about being pursued... "Stop following me! And the only reason I was stalking you is because I was trying to help you." --Wright Stuf (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Another encouragement

Please just drop the stick on Talk:Wright Flyer. Your image and your preference did not get used in the end, don’t take it personally and move on. Editors are interested in improving the articles, nobody wants endless discussions about nothing. Find other articles to edit, this encyclopedia is never finished, dive into the content, not the discussions surrounding it. Thank you. -- Ariadacapo (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

If you've followed what happened, then you saw me drop it THREE TIMES. Upon which I was subsequently molested THREE TIMES. --Wright Stuf (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore...

That issue was NOT "about nothing". It was about the future of Misplaced Pages in how Colorized photos get used. This question impacts literally THOUSANDS of other articles. Just because a discussion is meaningless to you, the many hours that others choose to invest their time in stands as proof it is not meaningless to us.

And all of that says nothing about how throughout the entire discussion, I was the one on the side of long established Consensus. So you choosing to tell me to drop it lets me know how much you care about following the most important policies on Misplaced Pages. --Wright Stuf (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~Oshwah~ 20:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked

Canterbury Tail talk 21:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism is permissible under 3RR. As for the edit dispute, you had the option to uphold long standing Consensus, which I was persisting, with others refusing to follow.

But there is a MUCH BIGGER PICTURE which you and others might wish to fix: Lack of WP:Colorization. If this policy existed, this entire mess could have been avoided. --Wright Stuf (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The consensus you speak of does not exist on the Wright Flyer page. While yes 3RR does allow the reversion of vandalism, the edits you were reverting were not vandalism. This was pointed out to you, you clearly read through the 3RR policy and presumably the policy on what constitutes Wp:VANDALISM (you've been here a couple of years and the policy is clearly linked from the Edit Warring policy page, you should know what constitutes vandalism and that it's a very narrow set of edits), yet you continued to double down on your disruptive edits despite saying you just wanted to walk away from it. Well here is a chance to walk away from it. Take your 24 hours, go and chill and destress heaven knows we all need it these days. Go do something else and return after your block expires with your head clearer and continue to edit in the constructive manner in which you have done so previously. Canterbury Tail talk 22:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

You have fixed the biggest part of that section I was wanting fixed. Not covering up the discussion. THANK YOU!

As for your skepticism about vandalism, just look at this deletion. Clearly an edit made out of spite which damages the Project. That inclusion had been a stable state for roughly a week which that editor himself had previously consented to, before removing only now with comment intended to insult.

When you look at how no one on the Talk page would offer explanation as to why my method of Collapse was not acceptable, and why the repeated Total Collapse and unilateral Closure of unresolved issues, it is clear to me that it was a destructive pattern of reversions. Consistent with this last act of vandalism.

I have no intention of returning there. Perhaps in 2022 I will re-evaluate. And if you admins have a WP:Colorization page built by then, I for one will be thrilled. --Wright Stuf (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:Colorization

Hi WS, I was going to post this at ANI, but since you can't respond there, I'm posting it here. My first sentence to you was: "Wright Stuf, I suggest then that you ask for a policy clarification at Misplaced Pages talk:Image use policy." One reason I suggested that you do this, which I didn't state at the time, is that this is obviously an issue which you are both knowledgeable and passionate about. Therefore, you are best suited to broaching a discussion about what Misplaced Pages's policy towards the use of colorized images should be. This discussion would now have as its goal the creation of WP:Colorization as a policy or guideline, either as a stand-alone page or as a subsection of WP:IMAGE. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I actually have no desire to do anything more myself toward forming such policy.

My position is that the monk image says EVERYTHING which needs to be said. (Photo = 1k words.)

I would be glad to answer any questions anyone might have of me. But I see nothing special about my own opinion on the matter.

THANK YOU for that most kind invite.

I may have mischaracterized your most recent edit to the article. Yes, I am an amateur. The pros do not freely share their work, or they would not be pros. If I was mistaken in your reasons for image deletion, I am sorry. We all share the goal of improving the Project. So in that sense, we are all on the same team. --Wright Stuf (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I was speaking of professional status, but that's really just an excuse, and I probably shouldn't have said it. Anyway, perhaps someone else will go take the effort to create WP:COLORIZATION, but chances are that, without a strong advocate in its favor, the result will probably be a ban of their use in articles outside of the subject of colorization itself. Is that really what you want to happen? BilCat (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

It is easy to predict that the 'wrong' decision will be made in the short term. That's what happened in our article. We are creatures of habit. Our neural pathways get programmed, entrenched, and crystalized into our comfort zone. I was asking folks to step out of their comfort zone. Or at least step back from it. A very tall ask.

There is a cliche in the science community:

"Progress happens one funeral at a time."

My generation will die off before long, and in our place will be a new generation who will have grown up having watched historical movies of WWI in color, because of efforts by Peter Jackson, and they will know that Kitty Hawk First Flight because of my own effort, or the color versions done by many before me, or the much better version yet to be done by many after me. That generation will scratch their head why any encyclopedic photo of an historical event is presented in a b&w photo. This shift in mindset is inevitable. The only question is how long we will remain stuck in the current mindset. This shift is like flying itself. Our grandparents were of a generation stuck in the mindset:

"If God wanted man to fly, He would have given him wings."

Right there in that tiny vignette are an encapsulation of three paradigms that are seen by many today as obsolete: Religion, Patriarchy and fear of flying. We might as well add colorization to the list: "God would have given us Photoshop."

So what might my role be to help this paradigm shift come about on Misplaced Pages? Anyone who wishes to promote the argument for colorization can point to my example of Sanna Dullaway's monk as being clearly superior. Misplaced Pages is all about building upon the efforts of those who came before you. I built upon Centpacrr's excellent argument which has stood the test of more than half a decade. His image may have been reverted this week, but no one has rebutted his post.

I am confident that a sound decision will eventually be arrived at. And should a policy get built where they arrive at the 'wrong' decision, I'm totally ok with that. The internet as a whole is robust. Misplaced Pages as a whole can fail, and this could clear the way for something even better to rise in its place. Misplaced Pages could go the way of MySpace, a website I don't miss at all. Yahoo got replaced by Google. I almost never go to Yahoo. It's irrelevant to me. I grew up on World Book. But that became irrelevant to me decades ago. Today I use Misplaced Pages a lot. But I feel no attachment to the site. I expect you're aware that its creator walked away from his project.

I'd be tickled to see an excellent policy on colorization created. But Misplaced Pages has MUCH BIGGER PROBLEMS it needs to solve. We all just witnessed an Admin refuse to follow Consensus. What kind of society do you have where the Police help the Bank Robbers, while handcuffing and arresting a customer for making a deposit? If you refuse to follow your own rules, then the rules are meaningless.

....and likewise, any policy on colorization will be meaningless if no one abides by that policy either. --Wright Stuf (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)