| Revision as of 16:37, 16 December 2005 editGator1 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,151 edits →I'd like to help: saw it, thanks← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:42, 17 December 2005 edit undoGator1 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,151 edits AMA Neutral's OpinionNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| In response to Mb1000 on my talk apge (let's keep this stuff here please) I was aware of your recent edits and am basing my opinion off that version versus Madchesters. Thanks.] ] 16:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC) | In response to Mb1000 on my talk apge (let's keep this stuff here please) I was aware of your recent edits and am basing my opinion off that version versus Madchesters. Thanks.] ] 16:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
| == AMA Neutral's Opinion == | |||
| ==Summary== | |||
| Two users, ] and ] were engaged in a ongoing dispute regarding the proper placement and size of pictures in the ] article that had devolved into an edit war. I was asked by Mb1000 to render a neutral opinion regarding two different page versions: , by Mb1000, versus Madchester's version at . After obtaining Manchester's consent I accepted the matter. | |||
| '''Policy/Source of Opinion:''' | |||
| ] has cited the Wiki-policy that ] as a source for his belief that the pictures, or the placement of those pictures by ] was inapprporiate. He/she also argued that the artcile was too short to have three photos and that his compromsie solution involving a gallery of the excess two photos at the bottom of the article was a fair compromise given the length of the article. Apart from the policy, I also based my third party neutral opinion off an examination of the two page versions in an attempt to determine whether one version was "cluttered" or whether, asthetically speaking, one version was more pleasing than the other. | |||
| '''Opinion:''' | |||
| It is my unbiased opinion that Mb1000's version of the page at is superior. I examined the policy cited by Madchester and believe that neither version of the page violates this policy. Madchester was concerned that the pictures clutter the text, but Mb1000's latest version seems to do no such thing. In fact, in my opinion, the gallery version of the page seems rather awkward. | |||
| While there are a large number of pictures for such a short article, Mb1000's placement of them as of December 16, 2005 at 03:50 is not, in my opinion, in violation of policy and is more pleasing to the eye. | |||
| Thus, the only really relevant criteria to make my determiantion was asthetics. I understand that Madchester beleives that his/her version is superior, but, as a third party neutral, I was asked to give my neutral opinion as an uninvolved third-party. In my opinion, Mb1000's version is more asthetically pleasing than the gallery compromise that Madchester has put forth. | |||
| '''Recommendations:''' | |||
| The one thing that struck me about this was that there was virtually no discussion of this issue on the article's talk page. It was almost completely contained within Mb1000 and Manchester's respective talk pages. I would recommend that debates concerning articles be kept within the article's talk page as much as possible so as to promote as much outside discussion and bring in as many outside opinions as possible. I believe the edit war that developed here was largely do to this strategy of negotiation. Further, I want to compliment Madchester for his compromise gallery proposal, as it helped ease tensions. | |||
| Please keep in mind that my opinion is based almost entirely on my personal fact finding and preferences and, as this opinion is in no way binding upon the parties, I can only '''hope''' my assistance in this matter helps to persuade the parties to put this behind them and move forward. Thank you for your AMA request and please think of me if you need anything in the future.] ] 16:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:42, 17 December 2005
The IMG tag says screenshot of a webpage, but that implies the entire webpage, not a single photo from the mall's corporate site. Cuz you're essentially taking the photo from the webpage and it's not necessarily fair use.
Also, the layout was messing up the paragraph layout; the pics were covering the actual text of the article. --Madchester 02:20, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
I've seen that pic before and it's not a screenshot. It's straight from the Square One webpage and you basically saved the pic from your harddrive to upload it. That's not allowed and we already have an appropriate photo taken by a local user anyway. --70.27.20.140 00:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to help
I am a member of the AMA and I've been asked to take a look at this page and see if I can't resolve a conflcit invovling pictures. Let me know if it is not too late or if you need assistance. I am willing to be an informal mediator (try to help the aprties work out a deal) or an informal arbitrator (here evidence and offer my non-binding opinion). I'd love to be able to help. Just let me know.Gator (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I've heard from Mb, what about you Madchester. Would you like me to mediate or would you like me to arbitrate. It sounds like Mb wants me to arbitrate and offer an opinion, but I will not take any action until I hear from both parties. Let's, for now, keep all discussion about this here ant on my talk page.Gator (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
That last layout by MB1000 wasn't so bad. Jok2000 13:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I've heard form both sides. They both made their arguments and they both seem to indicate that they want my opinion. I would be willing to render my opinion on the matter if that is the case. I will examine the two versions and think about it and any possible compromises and will offer my opinion shortly. If, in the meantime, either of you do not want a third party neutral opinion in favor of another option such as mediation, please let me know.Gator (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
In response to Mb1000 on my talk apge (let's keep this stuff here please) I was aware of your recent edits and am basing my opinion off that version versus Madchesters. Thanks.Gator (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
AMA Neutral's Opinion
Summary
Two users, Mb1000 and Madchester were engaged in a ongoing dispute regarding the proper placement and size of pictures in the Square One Shopping Centre article that had devolved into an edit war. I was asked by Mb1000 to render a neutral opinion regarding two different page versions: , by Mb1000, versus Madchester's version at . After obtaining Manchester's consent I accepted the matter.
Policy/Source of Opinion: Madchester has cited the Wiki-policy that Misplaced Pages is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files as a source for his belief that the pictures, or the placement of those pictures by Mb1000 was inapprporiate. He/she also argued that the artcile was too short to have three photos and that his compromsie solution involving a gallery of the excess two photos at the bottom of the article was a fair compromise given the length of the article. Apart from the policy, I also based my third party neutral opinion off an examination of the two page versions in an attempt to determine whether one version was "cluttered" or whether, asthetically speaking, one version was more pleasing than the other.
Opinion: It is my unbiased opinion that Mb1000's version of the page at is superior. I examined the policy cited by Madchester and believe that neither version of the page violates this policy. Madchester was concerned that the pictures clutter the text, but Mb1000's latest version seems to do no such thing. In fact, in my opinion, the gallery version of the page seems rather awkward.
While there are a large number of pictures for such a short article, Mb1000's placement of them as of December 16, 2005 at 03:50 is not, in my opinion, in violation of policy and is more pleasing to the eye.
Thus, the only really relevant criteria to make my determiantion was asthetics. I understand that Madchester beleives that his/her version is superior, but, as a third party neutral, I was asked to give my neutral opinion as an uninvolved third-party. In my opinion, Mb1000's version is more asthetically pleasing than the gallery compromise that Madchester has put forth.
Recommendations: The one thing that struck me about this was that there was virtually no discussion of this issue on the article's talk page. It was almost completely contained within Mb1000 and Manchester's respective talk pages. I would recommend that debates concerning articles be kept within the article's talk page as much as possible so as to promote as much outside discussion and bring in as many outside opinions as possible. I believe the edit war that developed here was largely do to this strategy of negotiation. Further, I want to compliment Madchester for his compromise gallery proposal, as it helped ease tensions.
Please keep in mind that my opinion is based almost entirely on my personal fact finding and preferences and, as this opinion is in no way binding upon the parties, I can only hope my assistance in this matter helps to persuade the parties to put this behind them and move forward. Thank you for your AMA request and please think of me if you need anything in the future.Gator (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)