| Revision as of 21:03, 9 May 2008 editPolarscribe (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,997 edits →Re the Virgin Killer image← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:08, 9 May 2008 edit undoPolarscribe (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,997 edits →Re the Virgin Killer imageNext edit → | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
| (Cross-posted from the IfD) I think you've misunderstood me. Firstly, I was never going to speedy-delete this image myself in the middle of a contentious deletion discussion, and I agree that it would be an abuse of admin tools under the circumstances. I do think it would be the best thing if it were speedy deleted, but that is my personal opinion and I will abide by consensus, as I always do. Secondly, I agree that we should not censor Misplaced Pages as a knee-jerk response to external attacks. However, when material is highly controversial and ethically dubious, we should consider very carefully whether it is necessary to keep it in order to ensure balanced encyclopedic coverage of the topic, and should weigh this against the ethical implications. In this case, whether or not this image fits the legal definition of pornography, it is highly controversial and has serious ethical problems, which IMO outweigh any encyclopedic value it may have. ] doesn't mean that we need to go out of our way to keep unnecessary offensive content just so we can thumb our noses at the "moralizing right-wing censors". I should also add that, given that you are one of the more vocal advocates of strict enforcement of the BLP policy and have argued for greater awareness of the impact that Misplaced Pages coverage can have upon real people's lives (as reflected in the quote at the top of your userpage), I would have thought that you would be willing to recognise that Misplaced Pages has social and ethical responsibilities which sometimes oblige us to remove content which we might not otherwise remove. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC) | (Cross-posted from the IfD) I think you've misunderstood me. Firstly, I was never going to speedy-delete this image myself in the middle of a contentious deletion discussion, and I agree that it would be an abuse of admin tools under the circumstances. I do think it would be the best thing if it were speedy deleted, but that is my personal opinion and I will abide by consensus, as I always do. Secondly, I agree that we should not censor Misplaced Pages as a knee-jerk response to external attacks. However, when material is highly controversial and ethically dubious, we should consider very carefully whether it is necessary to keep it in order to ensure balanced encyclopedic coverage of the topic, and should weigh this against the ethical implications. In this case, whether or not this image fits the legal definition of pornography, it is highly controversial and has serious ethical problems, which IMO outweigh any encyclopedic value it may have. ] doesn't mean that we need to go out of our way to keep unnecessary offensive content just so we can thumb our noses at the "moralizing right-wing censors". I should also add that, given that you are one of the more vocal advocates of strict enforcement of the BLP policy and have argued for greater awareness of the impact that Misplaced Pages coverage can have upon real people's lives (as reflected in the quote at the top of your userpage), I would have thought that you would be willing to recognise that Misplaced Pages has social and ethical responsibilities which sometimes oblige us to remove content which we might not otherwise remove. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :(One more thing, sorry for the lengthy post) I also don't think it's pertinent that I haven't personally looked at the image; the discussion has been fairly clear on what the image actually depicts (a semi-naked underage girl) and I wasn't relying solely on WND's assessment of it as pornographic. Like I said, I don't think it matters whether or not it meets the ''legal'' definition of pornography. (Just like we don't stop caring about the accuracy and fairness of our BLPs just because they may not be legally libellous/defamatory. We have a social as well as a legal responsibility, and this is part of it.) ]<sup>]</sup> 21:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC) | :(One more thing, sorry for the lengthy post) I also don't think it's pertinent that I haven't personally looked at the image; the discussion has been fairly clear on what the image actually depicts (a semi-naked underage girl) and I wasn't relying solely on WND's assessment of it as pornographic. Like I said, I don't think it matters whether or not it meets the ''legal'' definition of pornography. (Just like we don't stop caring about the accuracy and fairness of our BLPs just because they may not be legally libellous/defamatory. We have a social as well as a legal responsibility, and this is part of it.) ]<sup>]</sup> 21:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::Someone who appeared on the cover of a mass-produced record album undoubtedly gave full and informed consent for their image to be reproduced and republished in such a manner. There is no evidence that the subject of the photograph has objected to its reproduction and distribution. Indeed, that particular album is still produced and sold with that very same objectionable album cover. For God's sake, it's even on Amazon.com. There's no BLP issue here. |
::Someone who appeared on the cover of a mass-produced record album undoubtedly gave full and informed consent for their image to be reproduced and republished in such a manner. There is no evidence that the subject of the photograph has objected to its reproduction and distribution. Indeed, that particular album is still produced and sold with that very same objectionable album cover. For God's sake, it's even on Amazon.com. There's no BLP issue here. | ||
| ::The image is clearly not child pornography. The "FBI investigation" is a crock. If there was truly a legal issue with the picture, $1,000 says Mike Godwin would have deleted it already, and nobody would object. But there's not, and it hasn't, so that's a ]. It's A FREAKING MASS-MARKET ALBUM COVER OF WHICH HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, OR MILLIONS, HAVE BEEN MADE. | |||
| ::If this image is deleted at the behest of moralizing Christian conservative wingnuts, I will immediately speedy-delete all the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons and depictions of Muhammad, then depart the project permanently. I will not give my time to an "encyclopedia" willing to give in to World Net Daily's unwarranted, sensationalistic and evil ]. ] (]) 21:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:08, 9 May 2008
A talk page.
Homeopathy
Hey, Travis. I'm sure you already know, but all homeopathy-related articles are on article probation now; please familiarize yourself with Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. Hope that you understand that this is just a formality I'm going through with all editors there. east.718 at 21:22, February 2, 2008
FCYTravis destroys story relating to Gabrielle Giffords bill HR6530
I created the following two paragraphs describing the circumstances relating the the introduction of bill HR6530 by Gabrielle Giffords, and inserted in Giffords webpage. Someone, who I believe to be FCYTravis, chose the heavy handed approach by deleting the story and removing my editorial privileges, accusing me of having extensive discussion of the H1b visa. Which is totally wrong. My discussion was related to the circumstances regarding her introduction of that bill. This effort should be considered censorship, which is Misplaced Pages's prerogative. Gabrielle Gifford's editor johnpseudo was able to delete negative information about her.Position on H-1B Visa
Giffords has introduced legislation that will increase the cap on the controversial H-1B Visa from 65,000 per year to 130,000 per year. If that is not sufficient, according to her legislation, the cap will be increased to 180,000 per year. The H-1B Visa is controversial and subject to abuse. The Programmers Guild engages in a vigorous campaign exposing what it considers abuses of the H-1B Visa.
Giffords introduced her legislation, HR6530, one day after the testimony of Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft Corporation, to the House Committee on Science and Technology requesting an increase in the H-1B Visa cap. Microsoft is the leading employer of H-1B Visa recipients of companies headquartered in the United States, and the third leading employer of H-1B Visa recipients worldwide behind two companies headquartered in Bangalore, India. No one representing the interests of the US high tech worker was invited to testify before the House Committee on Science and Technology to counter Bill Gates' assertions.
I appreciate this
When I do reverts, I use Twinkle because frankly it's easy to push a button, it never means anything but good faith to me. Except for vandals. I don't give good faith to vandals. OrangeMarlin 07:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Heads-up on Robert J. Marks II
Talk:Robert J. Marks II#Major restructure of Baylor Engineering/Computer Science website makes some sense of, but in no way justifies, ThomHImself's recent edit-war on Robert J. Marks II. He was edit-warring over a bunch of easily replacable broken links. HrafnStalk 09:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
3RR
Count the number of your reversion here and compare to the daily limit set forth at WP:3RR. See what I'm getting at? Odd nature (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Happy happy joy joy. Read. Be enlightened. Stop trying to smear people. You'll be a happier person. FCYTravis (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Re the Virgin Killer image
(Cross-posted from the IfD) I think you've misunderstood me. Firstly, I was never going to speedy-delete this image myself in the middle of a contentious deletion discussion, and I agree that it would be an abuse of admin tools under the circumstances. I do think it would be the best thing if it were speedy deleted, but that is my personal opinion and I will abide by consensus, as I always do. Secondly, I agree that we should not censor Misplaced Pages as a knee-jerk response to external attacks. However, when material is highly controversial and ethically dubious, we should consider very carefully whether it is necessary to keep it in order to ensure balanced encyclopedic coverage of the topic, and should weigh this against the ethical implications. In this case, whether or not this image fits the legal definition of pornography, it is highly controversial and has serious ethical problems, which IMO outweigh any encyclopedic value it may have. WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't mean that we need to go out of our way to keep unnecessary offensive content just so we can thumb our noses at the "moralizing right-wing censors". I should also add that, given that you are one of the more vocal advocates of strict enforcement of the BLP policy and have argued for greater awareness of the impact that Misplaced Pages coverage can have upon real people's lives (as reflected in the quote at the top of your userpage), I would have thought that you would be willing to recognise that Misplaced Pages has social and ethical responsibilities which sometimes oblige us to remove content which we might not otherwise remove. Walton 20:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- (One more thing, sorry for the lengthy post) I also don't think it's pertinent that I haven't personally looked at the image; the discussion has been fairly clear on what the image actually depicts (a semi-naked underage girl) and I wasn't relying solely on WND's assessment of it as pornographic. Like I said, I don't think it matters whether or not it meets the legal definition of pornography. (Just like we don't stop caring about the accuracy and fairness of our BLPs just because they may not be legally libellous/defamatory. We have a social as well as a legal responsibility, and this is part of it.) Walton 21:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Someone who appeared on the cover of a mass-produced record album undoubtedly gave full and informed consent for their image to be reproduced and republished in such a manner. There is no evidence that the subject of the photograph has objected to its reproduction and distribution. Indeed, that particular album is still produced and sold with that very same objectionable album cover. For God's sake, it's even on Amazon.com. There's no BLP issue here.
- The image is clearly not child pornography. The "FBI investigation" is a crock. If there was truly a legal issue with the picture, $1,000 says Mike Godwin would have deleted it already, and nobody would object. But there's not, and it hasn't, so that's a red herring. It's A FREAKING MASS-MARKET ALBUM COVER OF WHICH HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, OR MILLIONS, HAVE BEEN MADE.
- If this image is deleted at the behest of moralizing Christian conservative wingnuts, I will immediately speedy-delete all the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons and depictions of Muhammad, then depart the project permanently. I will not give my time to an "encyclopedia" willing to give in to World Net Daily's unwarranted, sensationalistic and evil moral panic. FCYTravis (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- "PERM Fake Job Ads defraud Americans". Retrieved 2008-03-31.
- "Congresswoman Giffords' proposal to increase caps on the H-1B Visa". Retrieved 2008-03-31.
- "Bill Gates testimony to the House Committee on Science and Technology". Retrieved 2008-03-31.
- "Who Gets H-1B Visas? Check Out This List". Retrieved 2008-03-31.
- "House Subcommittee on Science and Technology Hearing Schedule". Retrieved 2008-03-31.