Commons:Deletion requests/File:OneEye (unchanged) - small.JPG

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:OneEye_(unchanged)_-_small.JPG

This image is not educational or informational - it may have contained information but that has been removed, it is not linked to from anywhere but the creators user page. The image is watermaked in a way that contradicts the apparent license. Paul Carpenter (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The image is derived from the Vedic Square and is of my own research. I find it quite perplexing that Mr. Carpenter would mention that numerous geometric patterns and symmetries can be observed in a Vedic square, yet he immediately ommits my own discovery. Maybe it's out of jealousy that he himself could not do this after writing a book on this wonderful subject? Whatever his reasons, I find it comical because as I was discussing this with members in an online forum, he was dissecting my information and requested my image to be deleted (as we were discussing it too!). He obviously noticed this (due to a backlink to the Wicki page) and got to work straight away. Otherwise, it was still there unchanged for over one week. Coincedence? I think not. Maybe he wants to revise the graph as his own work in the future (I suspect). I even approached Mr. Carpenter via email, appolagised for the lack of educational information and asked him if I could provide him with a revised edition, explaining how this graph can be brought about. I even appolagised for my lack of editing skills on Wickipedia (as I am new) and asked him if he could assist me? But he has not responded and again, I think he is just plain arrogant and jealous. The image is of my own work and not from any other (I have prior proof of date and postings). There is even a site link I provided that describes to everyone, just how one can bring out this geometrical pattern. I just didn't provide that information on Wickipedia, but as I mentioned, I have informed Mr. Carpenter that I do have that information in my revised edition. He has not responded! EyePhi (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello again,

I'm sorry that you didn't notice the response on my talk page - but I wasn't going to replicate it via e-mail. Please not accuse me of not responding before checking that I actually didn't respond.

Now no-one is doubting that the image is the product of your own research (this is part of what makes it inappropriate for Wikipedia, but this is a Commons issue not a Wikipedia one), but the question is whether it falls into the scope this project which personal artwork with no obvious educational use does not.

Should you upload anything else related to the Vedic Square or otherwise, that would be a completely separate issue and so long as it is within the Common's policy I should not have an issue with it.

Yes, your forum postings brought the content to my attention - but that is a good thing as Wikimedia projects are supposed to edited to best ability of their users.I find the unfounded accusations that I plan to breach Commons policy or Wikipedia policy in the future to be irritating and I don't believe they will help your case but that is not an issue for here. If you wish to discuss my integrity as an editor further, then take it back to my talk page on either Commons or Wikipedia. But I assure you I am not, nor do I suspect anyone else is, jealous of your ability to get a graphics package to make shapes for you.

Beyond that, I do not feel I need to justify my use of the Deletion Request protocol any further.

Thankyou for your interest and please don't be discouraged from learning from and contributing to wikimedia projects in the future - but perhaps read up on the policies and remits first.

--Paul Carpenter (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No I didn't notice it at all untill you responded to my post above today (again!). Maybe you should have emailed me like I amicably did to you? Why didn't you respond to my email from days ago, instead, suddenly appear as soon as a link is posted about the topic? Very interesting isn't it? It just comes accross as very impolite and one can see an intent of animosity when you don't respond directly and then carry on editing the way you did. Something you may want to consider in future?

Regardless of what you think, the image of "OneEye" is derived directly from the Vedic Square using graphing tools such MS-Excel. How else is one to graph numbers? Using pen and paper alone? How do you think your own images (posted on the "Vedic Square" page) was created? Magically? You used "graphing" tools for your images, just like I did.

It seems other such institutions whom deal with Vedic Maths have taken this image as being such patterns that derive from the Vedic Square and will also feature as an article in their coming monthly newsletter. I find it bemusing that you could not see this "geometric pattern" as such also, even when you mention on your Vedic Square page that; "Numerous geometric patterns and symmetries can be observed in a Vedic square"? All I wanted to do was to add to that as such. Yet, you posted your own so-called "symmetries" without question as if it is any more "educational" than my image.

I believe that I am genuinely contributing to the topic, since it is mentioned clearly that there are many "...geometric patterns and symmetries..." on your edited page. I will continue, with backing, that my find is educational, just as much as your own images posted on that page. EyePhi (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, I did not e-mail you because I had already responded to your message and didn't feel the need to replicate my response. I did at no point deny the existence of a pattern, nor that the vedic square was the source material, however if I applied graphic filters to an image of the Statue of Liberty to the point that it no longer had anything to do with the statue - then I could no longer claim that it provided any information, let alone pertaining to New York.

The image that I posted was based on given sources, and wasn't in conflict with Wikipedia's policies since it was neither self promotion nor original "research". Being used appropriately on another wikimedia project does put a file within the Commons Scope which I have linked you to over and again.

Beyond that I don't think your really interested in contributing in a positive way to either project and I think you should consider your motivations for being involved. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

So what you're ultimately saying is, if it's 'someone else's work', it's fine to cite as a source, rather from the 'horses mouth'? How is that even certifiable, let alone credible? I bet you don't even know what you have posted is correct or not, I presume? That's just the most rediculous thing I've ever heard. And what has "filters" got to do with this? If you equate "graphing" tools to "filtering", then you better request the deletion of many informative images and graphs from Wicki's Commons files, such as, fractal's and Laplace graphs. Birol Koc (Bizza) 16:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No Original Research is a Wikipedia policy, yes you can read about it on Wikipedia but Wikipedia policies are not up for discussion outside of Wikipedia. My point about filtering an image beyond recognisability was that although your image may have started as a Vedic Square it is now just a piece of personal artwork that is not in the Commons Scope. Please actually do read up on these policies - they are important.

I do know that the content I posted was correct, through reliable sources and personal verification - these are important for any form of actual research.

The reason I created the other image is because your edits highlighted the need for improvement to that article - nothing more.

--Paul Carpenter (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? All graphs and images start off from some form of tabular framework or other numerical constructs. My so-called "artwork" is not from my own design. It is (as I have been telling you from the beginning) derived from the Vedic Square itself. Do you even know HOW it was formed by any chance? Do you know that all types of graphs are formed in the same manner? Through "graphing" tools? And what do you think the images you put up were derived from? You know what? ...fine then. Have my image taken off. It's people like you that makes Wickipedia a laughing stock for information sourcing anyway. What a joke! -Birol Koc (Bizza) 17:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)