Talk:Gin Ganga

Image question

Hi Obi2canibe, can you a) please explain why are you replacing a better quality image by a worse quality one and b) in relation to this topic, respond to my statement on your talk page which remained unresponded so far? Thanks in advance. --A.Savin (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

See my comment here.--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Obi2canibe, re Special:Diff/947803759, what discussion? Your response above is (unsurprisingly) nothing but an open-ended PA to the uploader. Respond here clearly how Special:Diff/945731385 makes any sense? Let's not waste time with another Talk:Galle Lighthouse. Rehman 16:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Rehman: You obviously didn't read my comment on Talk:All Saints' Church, Galle. I have provided full edit summaries whereas A.Savin has not provided any edit summaries for his numerous reverts. I am not prepared to comment further until A.Savin provides proper explanations for his edits.

May I remind you again of WP:INVOLVED - don't stick your nose into my activities simply because of your personal antagonism towards me.--Obi2canibe (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Again, linking to an open-ended discussion.

1. Mind telling me what point there is relevant to this case?
2. You seem to have ignored my question. How does Special:Diff/945731385 make any sense?
3. How am I involved? I've worked on river articles for some time, and I see a bully mass reverting someone's uploads. I won't look away so you can do "your activities" at the expense of our community health.

Don't forget to reply to #2 again. Rehman 16:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not think I am involved, and I clearly see edi-warring. Obi2canibe, may I please ask you to discuss the issue properly here. After the discussion has been opened at the talk page, you need to discuss the substance of the question, and not who left edit summaries and who has not. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to respond to you Ymblanter. I have repeatedly explained in the edit summaries that I consider the images I restored to be better. A.Savin on the other hand has never provided any explanation, either in edit summaries or on the talk page, as to why he has restored his image.

A.Savin has ignored WP:ES, WP:BRD and continues to revert me (1, 2, 3, 4 etc). All I'm seeing is two admins demand that I explain myself when A.Savin is allowed to disregard Wikipedia policies.--Obi2canibe (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Stop lying. I already provided at least two statements [1] [2] which you however have ignored. That's your problem that you cannot find an answer; I am not willing to repeat myself while you are continuing to sabotage my work for Wikipedia for no good reason.

@Ymblanter: Since Obi2canobe is continuing hounding me after your warning, it's finally time to block them for permament disruptiveness and harassment of productive contributors. --A.Savin (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Finally you speak! Your "statement" on Rehman's talk page is meaningless. An editor cannot exempt themselves form Wikipedia policy simply by stating so. You have repeatedly violated WP:BRD which requires the editor who made the changes in the first place (YOU) to explain their edit. Instead you are demanding that I explain my edits, which, by the way, I have done so in the edit summary. You on the other hand have made numerous reverts without providing edit summaries, violating WP:ES. Today alone you made eight reverts with edit summaries. What gives you the right to ignore Wikipedia policies and guidelines?--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

So, you are referring to a policy named "Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle"? As you can read there, however, it is not a policy.

My statement at Rehman's talk page is nowhere near to meaningless; if it appears meaningless to you, that's merely your problem and I'm not responsible for some people's difficulties to understand simple things. --A.Savin (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Ah, a wiki lawyer as well as a Photoshop expert. WP:BRD is a long established process for reaching consensus. What you are trying to do is impose your will on Wikipedia without establishing consensus. There's a word for that.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

"Consensus" is not the same as "permission from Obi2canibe". I don't need any permission from you. --A.Savin (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The new file is of so much obviously better quality that the actions of Obi2canibe look like disruptive editing to me, edit-warring for the sake of edit-warring. Should I go though all instances of such edit-warring over all articles?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

It is not only about reverts of picture improvements (though this alone IMO justifies a block), they also revert me when I add pictures that previously did not have alternatives. Examples:

a) Here they not only reverted the better quality image, but also removed the added interior picture (coupled with the untrue and insulting allegation "shoehorning own images to promote themself" in the summary)

b) Same here -- not only reverted the better quality image, but also removed the added interior picture

c) Same here in editwar modus

d) Same here

etc. pp. This is clear case of WP:Vandalism, because, as we all know, for a notable subject even a bad picture is better than missing picture.

@Ymblanter: With that said, this user Obi2canibe is showing obvious unwillingness for encyclopedic cooperation. They are not interested in improving Wikipedia content. It's really time to impose a block for disruption and vandalism. Thanks --A.Savin (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, it is not vandalism, it is just thoughtless edit-warring. I am obviously not happy with this, but I would prefer civilized discussions rather than blocks.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

By the way, a bit off-topic (or not) here: very, very interesting... ;-) --A.Savin (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I am not edit-warring for the sake of edit-warring. A.Savin has added images to several dozen articles on my watchlist. I have only reverted some, where I considered that existing images were better. Where his holiday snaps were better or where he added images to articles where there were none, I did not revert.

By the way, in his 13:38 comment Savin is lying when he says that I reverted "when [he added] pictures that previously did not have alternatives". I have never done this and the examples provided by Savin clearly show this.

Let me explain my reasoning for the four reverts under discussion:

• Galle Fort & List of Archaeological Protected Monuments in Galle District: The existing image clearly showed the fort's walls and one of its entrances. On Savin's image you can barely see the fort's structure.
• All Saints' Church, Galle: The existing image was a close up with the church nicely framed within the photo. Savin's image is taken from further away so the church looks smaller and it unnecessarily shows several neighbouring buildings as well the road. There is even a road cone and taping.
• Gin Ganga: The existing image, though of a lower quality, clearly shows the river. On Savin's image the river is covered with vegetation and can hardly been seen.

Anyway, I don't want waste any more of my time on this as you're intent on letting your fellow countryman get away with ignoring Wikipedia policies and guidelines whilst making only demands of me. I'm here to create encyclopedic content, not shamelessly promote myself like others. Good evening.--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

May I please suggest that the two of you discuss the contested images at the corresponding talk pages. And whatever is not contested should not be reverted. A.Savin is the author of multiple quality images on Commons, and his photos are generally very good. Btw I do not think he is my countryman, from my understanding he is German and I am Dutch. Though we indeed share the same mothertongue.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

So, I have shown four difflink where you clearly not only revertet the exterior (previously available) picture but also removed the interior (previously unavailable) picture, so everyone can see. Who is then actually lying?

And regarding this edit, it's much more serious than you maybe think. If you are misusing your Rollback flag to call "rebel" a group considered terrorist by several countries, including U.S.-- the country hosting Wikimedia servers, this is a reason to report you to WMF Legal, so that they ban you infinitely from all WMF projects. Because supportters of terrorist groups -- no matter if "Islamic State", PKK, LTTE or others -- are not to be tolerated here, for very good reasons. So, if there is no explanation from you in the next few days, I'm going to complain at WMF Legal -- enough is enough. Thanks --A.Savin (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Hi Alexander, I hope you are keeping well in these uncertain times. I have instructed my lawyer to start working on your complaint. I eagerly await communication from WMF Legal. Regards.--Obi2canibe (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The image of Obi2canibe’s has panoramic view of the river, the other one though it’s a better quality one merely shows some trees with water stream.Lustead (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Just because US has banned LTTE with a number of other countries doesn’t mean it’s universally accepted terrorist organization; though they used obviously terrorist tactics, even USA used terrorism in Vietnam War, even Sri Lankan Armed Forces used terrorism at the last phase of the war, we can call War Crimes or State Terrorism; BTW, Sri Lankan Army Chief Shavendra Silva was banned to travel USA by the US Secretary of State for his war crimes and other atrocities, we can take that also into discussion at the WMF Legal.Lustead (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Gin Oya

Gin Oya

FYI: Gin Oya is a small river and not to confuse with Gin Ganga AntanO 05:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)