User talk:D0762

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome

[edit] June 3

fuck you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.241.151.161 10:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review means review

Did you even bother to look at the changes which had been made to Facial_recognition_system before you reverted my edit? I doubt you had sufficient time.

I did request review for a reason - the suspicious edits have added errors and inaccuracies to the article as well as obvious editing errors such as removing references and moving others to paragraphs to which they do not relate.

The problem to which I am ATTEMPTING to draw attention requires EXPERT review. Please leave alone what you do not understand.

I shall now revert your reversion. As a registered user you should be made aware that there are rules regarding multiple revisions. Please try to pay some attention and care while editing the wiki. Regards 69.233.2.247 (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for my mistake. I have reverted it to your last version. D0762 (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you have reverted again - did you really have time to thoroughly analyse the differences? Please explain your actions. 69.233.2.247 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have only reverted it twice. The second time was to restore the article to your last version. D0762 (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - I was starting to think you were some sort of nut! Please be a little more considered with your edits ;-) All the best. K 69.233.2.247 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting ordering of messages.. not the order in which I remember things occurring! hehe ...still all worked out well in the end. Perhaps you'll be willing to try to ensure the page gets the expert review which I think it needs? Have a good look at the diffs yourself too - you'll see some serious discrepancies between the two versions, with many of the changes obviously being for the worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.2.247 (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've put a tag on the article asking an expert on the subject to review it. D0762 (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool... perhaps you'd be good enough to add it to your watch list too? - there's definitely something strange afoot! ;-) Sorry I snapped at you - reversions aren't the best form of introduction! 69.233.2.247 (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's quite alright. I've got it on my watchlist now and I'll be on the lookout for any strangeness like this. D0762 (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

0:-) They weren't all that obvious though - that was just the give-away... there were lots of other, more subtle but equally dubious edits. They're the tricky ones to spot. Might be worth keeping an eye on User:Dwwest too, though I suspect he may have been a one time deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.2.247 (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they might have been good faith contributions, but more likely a cleaver hoaxer. I'll review any new revisions as they appear and try to screen out any nonsense. D0762 (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree, I suspect the edits were being made in good faith, the problem is edits like this one where User:Dwwest has incorrected his own (or someone else's - presumably c&p) prose. Much of the new material appears worthwhile but the author has been introducing errors into the text which he introduced, resulting in quite a mess - which I don't have time to untangle at 3:30am! Hence my reversion and request for review. (In that particular edit the addition of the word poor destroyed the explanation of the benefits of the 3D modelling approach. The technique is, of course, useful for counteracting the effects of the direction of the illumination, it does nothing to improve the low-light performance of surveillance equipment as the change implies) 69.233.2.247 (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place post this comment, but I would just like to let you know that I made the edits in question here. I had the intention of making the edits in good faith, but it appears that others feel otherwise. Am I correct in assuming that the mention of "homeland security" in the intro is what made the edits seem suspicious? I was trying to be careful in making sure that all of edits were cited properly but this one slipped through. Here is a link to the source that states how homeland security relates to face detection. It's entirely possible that this source is incorrect, and I agree that it would be beneficial for an expert to review the page. I would also like to note that my primary motive for making these changes is that the task of updating this Wikipedia article was assigned to me at school. Dwwest (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Dwwest. Sorry about all that, 69.233.2.247 and I were just trying to make sure all the information was correct. It all started with a mistaken revert on my part. But as 69.233 said, your contributions are worthwhile and I encourage you to continue editing. Your use of citations if very good for example. Also, there seemed to be some concern about if your additions were a copy and past from another website. I haven't checked myself, but if they are, have a look at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright which will be helpful. Anyway, continue editing and don't get disheartened over this. See you around! D0762 (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I just went back and reviewed my edits again and can see where you guys are coming from. I noticed that somehow I managed to overwrite all the references to the #1 'Bonsor' source with a different one. Also, I tried my best to make sure all of my additions were reworded for this article (no copy and paste) and you can see where I misinterpreted some of the sources (like in the 3D modeling section, I misinterpreted the source's reference to lighting to mean intensity instead of direction). I'll go back and fix the mistakes I can pick out. Mainly to make sure the sources are cited correctly so you and others can verify the info I added. Dwwest (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I just added my changes back into the article along with some corrections. Please review and feel free to revert to a previous version while reviewing my edits.Dwwest (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good :) D0762 (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)