| Revision as of 05:04, 22 March 2005 editRickK (talk | contribs)36,836 edits →Autofellatio.jpg← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:49, 12 September 2020 edit undoLaundryPizza03 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users50,634 edits Notification: nomination of ESP Guitars at articles for deletion.Tag: Twinkle | ||
| (42 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| </center> | </center> | ||
| == |
== Thanks... rewrote badly == | ||
| Thank you Timbo. I *did* lose my comment, and was very upset about it. I rewrote something not as good and posted that. I'll stick with what I posted, but I do thank you for your quick intervention. High regards, ] ] 06:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for your message. You are more or less right about Jimbo's action at autofellatio, I think, but he was quite clear that he didn't approve of the image and thought it should be removed ''until there was a compromise''. I've asked for the same, Timbo. We could link the image until the problem is resolved. | |||
| == Me too! (Off topic) == | |||
| I don't agree that the minority must concede, Timbo. I think NPOV means, clearly, that ''all views'' must be included, not that the majority must prevail. We have been over this enough times. You haven't yet convinced me that "consensus" means "the majority wins" and I'm not at all convinced that was the intention of Misplaced Pages, nor do I want to see that principle prevail. I believe fiercely in inclusivity in this project. I do not agree that polls are a good means to create a consensus. Quite the opposite. They destroy any attempt to find one. The polls confirmed that there is a majority for keeping the image, Timbo, but you ought not to ignore that they also showed that there is some dissent. You would be kidding yourself if you did not think there was. | |||
| Hi again Timbo, | |||
| From my POV, I don't see the big deal in linking the image. You can still view it if you wish to, but those that do not know that there will be images that are illegal in many places and, at the very least, considered objectionable in others, will not be upset. Why is it such a bad thing that we should show some concern not to upset readers? It doesn't mean we agree with them. I have been quite clear, Timbo, that I am not a prude, am not offended by the images in question and do not have any desire to have a censored Misplaced Pages. But the hardliners have opposed all means even to allow the page to be displayed without the picture, any warning and any way to prevent upset. It seems to me that they are determined to push their POV and feel justified because they have a majority. | |||
| I was making great strides as a scholar at UVa -- completed all coursework; passed orals; dissertation 1/3 done ... then I decided a divorce would be way more fun and profitable. Turned out I was wrong. | |||
| But look, Timbo, a majority of people on this planet believe there is a God of some kind. Would we want our page on God to suggest that it's a fact there is one? Misplaced Pages does not simply reflect the majority, white, liberal view. I'm proud that it doesn't. I will continue to argue that it shouldn't. ] 08:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| You have a good page. Thanks again for the help. | |||
| And I ''am'' proactive, Timbo. I am talking to you. I am willing to discuss the whole issue. The edits keep the issue alive. They're no big deal to revert. I don't insult anyone. | |||
| Regards, | |||
| But I will not be running any polls. I know who has the majority. But I also know that there is dissent. ] 08:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ] ] 07:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Invalid VFD Thanks == | |||
| '''Originally posted to ]''' | |||
| Sadly, compromise isn't possible with those who will not compromise and consensus is impossible with those who don't want it. It's fruitless talking with you, Timbo, because you are so convinced of your rightness and so aware that you have the numbers (here) that you will not consider that there even ''are'' other views you should accommodate. ] 21:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Hi ClockworkSoul, thanks for at least agreeing with me about the VFD vote :). I really don't think the image is only used for shock value, but I can't convince everyone! Cheers, ] ] 06:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| As for polls, a quarter voted for a disclaimer. That's a lot of dissent. the link vote was for a link to a different diagram not to the photo, but even so, 13% voted against that. Not comparable. The next attempt at a poll collapsed because the hardliners could not find a wording that worked for them. Others have expressed dissent elsewhere. A lot of the dissent has been very fierce. I'm astonished that you feel that because the dissenters are a minority, they must simply be ignored. | |||
| * Heya Timbo. The way I see it, if I have to be underhanded to prove my point, then my point obviously isn't very strong to begin with. In pursuit of that, I try to be sure that I care more about being honest than right. My wife hated that about me during the presidential elections. ;) – ]] 14:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| We went a long way to creating consensus on a images on/off fork but that collapsed, largely because Tony Sidaway refused to allow a warning, which would render the fork useless, of course. This was a considerable compromise on both sides and is still worth exploring. | |||
| ==Fair use== | |||
| En Misplaced Pages en español no se admite la subida de imágenes "fair use", por eso he tenido que borrar algunas de las que subiste. Siento las molestias, un saludo. --] 19:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Spam== | |||
| We discussed the link and had a quasi poll about that. There was nothing like accord on the issue. The discussion broke down because a hardliner called those who want to accommodate all our readers the "jack ass faction". | |||
| No, I think "counteracting" it only legitimizes it. Man, this is so unwiki. We're supposed to reach consensus, not campaign and make targeted spams. --]|] 21:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *I was discussing the same with Tony, and I just wanted to point out that admins tend to take every single vote into account, even if it was seemingly a result of vote stack spam. I realize this doesn't feel quite right, but I can't think of a feasible solution since the votes ''are'' cast by legit 'Pedians. Yours, ]]] 12:28, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == IfD == | |||
| I'll quote myself, Timbo: | |||
| "The point of Misplaced Pages is that the "majority" takes care of the "minority", that all views are represented. Well, it's the point of my Misplaced Pages." This is the point you and I need to discuss. You need to convince me that either Misplaced Pages's majority should not take care of its minority, or that the minority is sufficiently insignificant that it need not be considered.] 22:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, | |||
| I am taking your point, Timbo. I'm glad that you at least, despite your firm stand, believe that compromise is not impossible. I am not "edit warring" on my own though. It takes two sides to make a war. We had a compromise solution that most of the people discussing the page were happy to have in place temporarily, but people who were not involved in discussions opposed it. I guess I feel that the "war" began there. | |||
| Have read your message (excuse me I'm a bit tired it's soon midnight in France). OK, I saw the bug was fixed, then my vote is a vote to keep the image. Thank you for your message on my French User Page which was appreciated. | |||
| It is going to be the case on Misplaced Pages that if there are two sides that are implacably opposed on any issue, and they will not enter negotiations in good faith, they will each be left with a course of editing the article to make it better by their own lights, and that will inevitably mean an edit war. You know that I feel that suggesting that the article is "stable" if no one edit wars over it is not particularly good faith. The opposition has not gone away just because it is not editing the page! Of course, it doesn't progress the discussion to remove the image. I'm not stupid. But if the "other side" will not discuss a compromise, because they form a majority -- something I simply do not think is within the spirit of Misplaced Pages, even if it has become more and more the de facto means of operation here -- what is left to a dissenter? The other parties in the edit war, Timbo, I should remind you, have not even been involved in the discussions, or when they have, have shown no willingness at all to consider compromise. There can only be a dialogue when both sides are talking! Otherwise, yes, it's just the same old stuff over and over. | |||
| ] . 21:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I do believe a compromise should be possible. Personally, I feel linking the image should be explored, or having the option to turn the images off as Cool Hand Luke suggested. I think the opposition to this is particularly unfounded. We all agreed that the default would be images on (although of course they would need to be visible only on scrolling down). We differed over the wording but I don't think that was irresolvable. I know some implacably opposed ''any'' compromise, Timbo, but surely, if those who are willing find one, and then put it on the page, those who are not are exposed as POV pushers? | |||
| ==IfD vote was 65/48, no consensus== | |||
| As far as placement in the article is concerned, this can only really be a solution if it is indicated that there is a picture! I think a link does this best of all. The picture is there. It is available to be seen. But it doesn't confront children or those offended by that kind of thing. | |||
| Phew! See you again next month, same venue. :) --]|] 17:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi, sorry, I just got your message. I'm in the middle of a move, so I haven't been on much, and I haven't had time to deal with the cleanup tasks that I had previously taken over. Anyway, thanks for taking care of it. – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 13:46, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The discussion about whether children ''should be'' confronted by this kind of thing, which many of the opponents of compromise reiterate, is not actually germane to our discussion. Yes, I agree that it's a bad thing that some people think vulvas are offensive, but the point is that they ''do''. NPOV says include all views. That means include all views including the ones you don't personally agree with. I've mentioned enough times that my personal view is that there is nothing wrong with the picture. | |||
| ==you're welcome== | |||
| What would be useful, Timbo, would be for you to address first of all the issue of whether you are genuinely prepared to include the other views to your own? I firmly believe you are. I do not believe some of the others are at all, but you at least seem willing to ''try'' to find a way. | |||
| You're quite welcome indeed! The way things are going tonight, someone might even have to do it for me. Happy editing, ] 05:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Next, it would be useful to discuss alternatives in terms of ''how they include all views'' and not how the majority might make concessions. This has been the problem in discussing this, I think. People say "linking is censorship and I'm against censorship" and I say "no, it's not censorship because, look, the picture is still there, it's simply caring for the sensitivities, however misguided, of some of our readers". We should be looking at how those views are reconciled (I think they can be) rather than how they can be more firmly entrenched. | |||
| == re: Thanks == | |||
| Finally, anyone trying to find a compromise has to shit or get off the pot. You have to be able to say, there is no compromise possible (I think this is very rarely the case in Misplaced Pages because disputes are usually over expressions of views and there is usually a middle course that nods to both), or that this is a compromise that is acceptable to both sides, we'll make it, and then allow the hardliners to stand outside of, if not a consensus, then at least a compromise that has involved considered discussion. ] 00:40, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| N/P, it just gives me something to do. --] | ] 05:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Hi Again == | |||
| *idk, i think so, just a metter of finding some one willing to do it. --] | ] 05:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Your user page is temporarily protected. -- ] 08:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Hi again Tim, I really do think that picture is a pornographic, I will admit on the clitoris article ''I'' was over-reacting but I don't feel that way in this case.--] 03:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Im Back == | |||
| I recognise that you do not feel that linking is possible because you think it conveys a negative message. I tend to agree with Samboy, who suggested that the message it conveys is quite neutral: "We know some are offended." and not negative: "We think vulvas can be offensive." | |||
| Hi Tim I figured I'd come back after my self imposed exile (I'll honestly try not to fight on articles I feel disturbed by)--] 04:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| In any case, I am suggesting that we ''do'' legitimate that POV. Suggesting that it should not be recognised is exactly what I feel makes you a hardliner! We ought to try to include ''all'' POVs, not simply the one we personally endorse. | |||
| :How about If I move the drawing down? It's down that way in the ] article--] 04:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok. Also I noted the IFD on that picture (that caused me to throw up); I figured I'd abstain from voting--] 04:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Fair use== | |||
| Recognition of the value of the other POV ''in no way'' endorses it. By saying, yes, we know some people feel this way, we ''in no way'' agree that they are right to. This is exactly my position. I feel the POV that I am wanting included is entirely unhealthy and close to unacceptable. | |||
| Fair use depends on the use. If it's being used to describe the specific incident depicted, it should be fine. If it's being used as a general article, I'm not sure. No lawyers in the hizzy. --] (]) 22:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| By the way, I think fair use requires the source to be credited. --] (]) 22:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| But I would want holocaust denial included in an article on the holocaust, Timbo, even though I find it ''totally unacceptable'', because I believe that the principle of NPOV is what sets us apart (and I'm going to return to it when I discuss what is "encyclopaedic"). | |||
| == Republican party article == | |||
| As for inclusion/disinclusion, I do see your point that you feel linking out of the page is not including the image. I don't agree, because the material is there and is available to readers, but I understand the POV. I thought that the page fork would be the best solution to that problem. I really can't understand the objections to it as anything other than "we get our way and you can just fuck off", although I do understand the concerns over how to word a link. | |||
| Hi Limeheadnyc. ] is simply wrong about the paragraph being inaccurate or negative and I still believe that the paragraph should be in the article to highlight GOP beliefs. I can assure you that my own personal views have nothing to do with wanting it to stay. However, I think that ] is being completely partisan. -- ] 01:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| But Timbo, this is why I say the first point that must be passed is an agreement that the views contrary to yours ''should be recognised''. If we can agree that we should be inclusive then we are discussing ''how'' on each point, not ''whether''. This is where the heatedness has come from, I think, on the talkpage. The anti-imagists, if you like, are frustrated because they don't feel the pros are willing to even begin to compromise and have taken the attitude that anything they give is a (grudging) concession. This is very much fuelled by comments like "the article is stable, why should be bother talking about it?". Well, the issue was not actually resolved and didn't go away! But once we've agreed we want to include all, how is easier. | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| On the question of encyclopaedic merit, Timbo, I think you have simply abstracted the dispute. Those who oppose the image don't think it has "encyclopaedic merit" because they do not believe it should be in an encyclopaedia. You want to define "encyclopaedic" entirely functionally, and I understand that desire, but it ignores other ways of defining "encyclopaedic" (the exact same problem happens in VfD, where those who want to trim Misplaced Pages claim that what they want cut is not "encyclopaedic" because their definition of "encyclopaedia" is not "contains all knowledge" but "contains what I think an encyclopaedia should contain"). IOW, Timbo, I don't see the point of bickering over what encyclopaedias should or shouldn't contain as a route to resolving the issue. | |||
| Thanks mate. --] | ] 04:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| What I do think is that a roadmap that looks like this is a way forward: | |||
| *Yeah i noticed that a bit back, just waiting for one of socks to pop up, just a matter of time. --] | ] 05:12, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Personaly, i can't see it being a problem, i figure if someone had a problem with it something would have been said by now. --] | ] 05:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| 1/ Are you willing to recognise views you do not yourself hold and try to include them? Do you agree that this is in fact what NPOV means in a broader sense? | |||
| 2/ If yes, are you willing to explore ways to make this happen in regards to this page? (IOW, are you willing to compromise ''because'' you accept point one, not because you feel the other side has any particular merit? Once I had asked myself this question, I realised I could not dogmatically support a photo and claim to be supporting the NPOV policy at the same time.) | |||
| 3/ What ways are open? | |||
| I suggest the possibilities are: a link, a fork, a small picture at the bottom of the article with a strongly worded disclaimer. You may have others in mind, and they could be put on the table. | |||
| 4/ What are the objections of each side to each way of resolving the POVs? | |||
| 5/ Can the objections be answered ''reasonably'' in the spirit of trying to find a compromise? | |||
| 6/ Voila! | |||
| ==]== | |||
| As it happens, I feel that at least a group of editors were discussing ways (without having accepted that they ''should'' compromise), and that came to nothing. I think it came to nothing because of a lack of commitment from both sides to pass the first couple of hurdles. | |||
| Ullo. Looks like Luke's bowlderizing page for the Oral sex article (the one that shows the article without pictures) has been successfully VfD'd. He has reacted to that by linking the image, which seems rather mean to me. --]|] 10:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I didn't create the "bowlderized" page, and will stand for a sockpuppet check with ] to satisfy Tony's overactive imagination. ] ] 10:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Just to discuss for a moment your point about spiders, Tim. If this were Britannica, we would not be having this discussion. There would be no clitoris pic and the spider pic would be there. But this isn't. It's not a regular encyclopaedia. | |||
| I apologise for assuming that Luke created the article now seemingly headed for deletion. It doesn't alter the fact that he's using this as an excuse to change the parent page. --]|] 10:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I think that if we can reasonably assume that a picture of a spider will offend or upset readers, we should link it too. What is lost by it? The picture is still there but now arachnophobes need not fear the article! Everyone is included. | |||
| ==?????== | |||
| When you say the pictures ''add'' to the article, well, they add for some but not for others. They don't add anything for you. They wouldn't add anything for my friend S, who cannot look at pictures of, well snakes actually, not spiders without feeling physically ill. | |||
| who the hell are you? {{vandal|66.74.179.23}} | |||
| And yes, here is where the misunderstanding is, precisely. ''Your POV'' is that the spider photos don't need taking down on ''your account''. But Misplaced Pages is about ''all accounts'' and what is right for all. No? ] 02:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm ], mofo. ] ] 20:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Ok, Ok == | |||
| :I confess I wasn't acting in good faith, honestly though I'm trying to avoid that page because I know i'll get into an edit war if start making "slight changes" with the drawing.--] 02:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| You made a very interesting point. I think an equally strong one would be to say "what if someone said the word 'Jew' was objectionable?" | |||
| == Smashing Pumpkins == | |||
| I think that if we are going to pursue that line of discussion, I should say that I think the objector can be asked to cite their sources, just as they can for any other issue. Is "Jew" objectionable to many? Can he/she show many objecting? You see my point. I don't think there is any real case that the view we're discussing is not held legitimately by many of our readers, and some of our editors. | |||
| Being a die hard fan and stumbling across your user page, maybe we could work together to get it to Featured Article status. ] 22:04, July 24, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| It is very difficult, though, because we wouldn't want to be in the business of saying "this view is ''legitimate'', this one not". NPOV does not allow that. It's not about judgment, is it? | |||
| ==Classic Rock== | |||
| That's why I say point one on any roadmap has to be "should the views in question be recognised?" If the view is that the clitoris picture should entirely be excluded, we have a problem that is very difficult to resolve. We might agree that both views are legitimate, and that one has the advantage of being held by the majority of editors (although I doubt it is held by the majority of the intended audience, which, if I quote Jimbo correctly, is the whole world) and yet, if neither will compromise, one view must be ignored. | |||
| Hello. I was wondering if you would like to participate in my classic rock survey. I'm trying to find the most liked classic rock song. There is more information on my user page. Hope you participate! {{User:Rentastrawberry/Signature}} 02:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| In the case of the white supremacists, you need to return to the principle. Should they be offended and upset because of the views they hold? (Well yes, at every turn they should, but you take my point here.) If the answer is yes, what ground is there? If we are reduced to saying, because I don't like their view, we're really working in a POV way. | |||
| ==Fair use rationale for File:Deetz smallthingsforgotten.jpg== | |||
| I'll await your further response, when you've slept on it ;-) before saying anything else. | |||
| ] | |||
| Thanks for uploading or contributing to ''']'''. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under ] but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to ] and edit it to include a ]. | |||
| If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-no fair use rationale-notice --> ] (]) 15:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| What does interest me, though, is whether you feel that your objection to a link would necessarily hold against a fork? ] 05:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == IFD == | |||
| Hi,<br> | |||
| I listed Image:Autofellatio.jpg on IFD because I feel it's Un-Encyclopedic...I'll be honest I threw up when I saw that dis-tasteful picture. I hope could though we possibly compromise.--] 03:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| You appear to be eligible to vote in the current ]. The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages ]. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to ] and submit your choices on ]. For the Election committee, ] (]) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Hmmm... were you drunk when you wrote this? I hope could though we possibly compromise too, and we did. Check out the ''voluminous'' discussion and polls at ]. I'll be honest I don't believe you threw up when you saw that picture. ] 07:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=693174033 --> | |||
| ::the image is orphaned now, and only used for vandalism (see ). Since the image failed VfD, I have reduced its size now to reduce its usability for vandalism, c.f. its talk page. ] <small>] 10:12, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] of ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| The article ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
| == Being trolled == | |||
| <blockquote>'''Promotional article, suspected to fail ]. According to {{user|Ficadimerda}}, the entire ] is a massive ].'''</blockquote> | |||
| While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
| You ''can'' tell whether you are being trolled. Ask yourself whether I am showing you a genuine commitment to include your views, whether I am responding to your positivity. Yes, comments were heated on the clitoris page. Raul and Snowspinner are only interested in pushing their POV by whatever means. I can't respond positively to that. If anyone deserves censure, it's those who have taken that attitude. You could simply say "I am backed by the majority" but you haven't. You declare a shared interest in at least trying to satisfy all views. That's something that I can respond to positively. ] 04:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
| :Listen, I know Raul654 is a great editor, and I think Snowspinner is a solid guy too. Perhaps they're guilty of not coming to your talk page and holding your hand and coercing you to make your point for yourself. Reverting once a day is not keeping the discussion going, it's saying I'm going to annoy everyone until I'm satisfied. That's disruptive. You did this because you kept saying the same things and you weren't convincing anybody. Frankly, I don't blame Raul654 or Snowspinner for reacting the way they did. I've been exceedingly civil in our communiques and we've gotten to the point of discussing compromises. If you had been talking compromises all along nobody would be bringing you to arbcom. So great, and I'd like to continue it. It belongs at ] for the entire community to participate in. That's not the case with arbcom – that's about your actions and whether or not they deserve arbcom intervention. I advise you to take it seriously, because if you don't stick up for yourself in a calm/reasonable/normal manner, you could get banned. They aren't a kangaroo court or a court of any kind. They exist to keep wikipedia running smoothly, and they have the power to do it as they see fit. If they feel your sense of NPOV is illegitimate and disruptive, which I think I, Raul, Snowspinner, Theresa, etc. feel, then you could be in trouble if you maintain that you won't change your mind. ] 07:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> –] (]]) 17:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Template in sig == | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
| You have a template in your sig to a page in your userspace. I didn't want to do it that way when I was customizing my sig 'cause if someone vandalized it, the results would be very widespread. What are your thoughts on the issue? Are you worried about the possible vandalism? —]·]·]:<small>2005-03-13 01:38 Z</small> | |||
| :Meh I'm not too worried ... maybe I should be, though. :/ ] 05:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd notice --> –] (]]) 17:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| This is a strain on the servers; see ] near the bottom. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:11, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Ah, I didn't think of that. I'll discontinue use of the template starting ... now! ] ] 17:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Autofellatio.jpg == | |||
| Restoring the image... I don't know how. I tried, and the Commons image just showed up. --] ] 07:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : Well, the only way to verify the copyright is to ask the original uploader to upload a picture of himself, dressed, with a handwritten sign that says something like, "Hi Misplaced Pages! I hereby release the Autofellatio image under the GFDL." --] ] 08:21, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :so how do you argue this is not a copyvio? No, you don't need an image of the bloke holding a sign. You need written permission to use it with attribution from the porn site in questin. Have you even emailed them and asked if it was their picture? Ask them if it is theirs, and if so, if we may use it, and if not, why do they serve it, and who owns it. Anything less than that is not due diligence.] <small>] 08:49, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Dab, parhaps you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying ''case closed'' about the copyvio discussion, but I ''was'' saying that the issues raised are no more urgent than ones ''already'' raised. Thus deleting it until we find out it's ''not'' a copyvio seems quite absurd. As I believe AllyUnion may have been alluding to, proving its GFDL status may be incredibly hard ... for example, if we can't get in touch with the webmasters of the other sites. | |||
| ::The picture is not the same. Perhaps it's telling that this different, but similar, image has been found on multiple sites, yet our image has not been. I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that the creator of these images sold one to porn sites and released one (the more clinical of the two IMHO, since he's not looking at the camera) under GFDL for wikipedia. | |||
| ::In any case, this is not news. Last time ] emailed the webmaster of the site inqiring about the copyright status of the picture and whether they claimed the rights to ours. I left a note on Tony's talk page inquiring about that and asking him to weigh in on the discussion at ]. | |||
| ::So your insistence on due diligence is correct, and the image obviously ''should'' be deleted if it's a copyvio, but I do not believe I was wrong in uploading the picture again. There are plenty of images on wikipedia with similarly nebulous copyright status'. In lieu of your raving objections to the image on other grounds, I am disappointed that you took it upon yourself to delete the image and be done with it – and I do not mean to be meanspirited, but your comments were a bit unsettling: "it seems the case will now be decided on a technicality, copyvio." ... "I'm glad if that rids us of the image..." | |||
| ::Thus I'm going to reupload the image while continuing the inquiry into its copyright status. I ask that, because of your involvement, you have another admin delete it (if it is ever found out to be a copyvio) as a show of good faith. I hope we can work this out to the betterment of wikipedia. | |||
| ::Best, ] 18:13, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I think you missed the point of my statement. According to the user who uploaded it, it stated that the picture was of himself and that '''he''' was releasing it under the ]. --] ] 22:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::: this was a lie. ok, so I claim it is actually my cousin on the image, and hge tyells me he never released it under any licence. so there, now you have two conflicting, equally credible statements. ] <small>] | |||
| ok Timbo, I'm certainly not going to abuse admin powers over this, and I deleted it ''once'', but I'll not engage in a deletion war, of course, that would be pointless. It is very obvious that this image is one of a series of porn images hosted on one of these gay porn sites that have the ''same actor'' on their entry page. Of course you don't find the exact image, because they want you to ''pay'' to look at it. The original uploader photoshopped a crappy black background into the image, possibly because the original was watermarked. I don't know we have any other images of dubious copyright status that are so obviously of a ''commercial'' nature, and so obviously uploaded in bad faith. If we do, they should be deleted. I agree the copyvio issue needs to be treated separately from the content issues. I'm making no secret that I want the image gone, but my rationale for deleting it were based on copyvio alone. On the content side, i.e. assuming we won't delete it for copyvio, I expect people who consider the image "encyclopedic" to address the concerns I bring up on the talk page honestly, beyond a show of ''naivete'' pretending that it's just like any other old image on Misplaced Pages, and show prepared to find a ''compromise''. The image need not remain in the exact state in which it was uploaded, size reduction and/or grayscale are possibilities for compromise open to us. ] <small>] 07:39, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :As far as the content issues, your compromise suggestions don't sound too terrible. I don't really see the point in size reduction because the image can be resized anyway. I guess I wouldn't stand in your way, though :) Cheers, ] 08:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==VfD (2)== | |||
| A bogus VfD listing should just be deleted. ]] 05:04, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:49, 12 September 2020
The common starling (Sturnus vulgaris) is a medium-sized perching bird in the starling family, Sturnidae. It is about 20 centimetres (8 inches) long and has glossy black plumage, which is speckled with white at some times of year. The legs are pink and the bill is black in winter and yellow in summer; young birds have browner plumage than the adults. It is a noisy bird, especially in communal roosts, with an unmusical but varied song. The starling has about a dozen subspecies breeding in open habitats across its native range in temperate Europe and western Asia, and it has been introduced elsewhere. This bird is resident in southern and western Europe and southwestern Asia, while northeastern populations migrate south and west in winter. The starling builds an untidy nest in a natural or artificial cavity in which four or five glossy, pale blue eggs are laid. These take two weeks to hatch and the young remain in the nest for another three weeks. The species is omnivorous, taking a wide range of invertebrates, as well as seeds and fruit. The starling's gift for mimicry has been noted in literature including the medieval Welsh Mabinogion and the works of Pliny the Elder and William Shakespeare. This common starling was photographed at Bodega Head on the northern coast of the U.S. state of California.Photograph credit: Frank Schulenburg
Archive – More featured pictures...
Thanks... rewrote badly
Thank you Timbo. I *did* lose my comment, and was very upset about it. I rewrote something not as good and posted that. I'll stick with what I posted, but I do thank you for your quick intervention. High regards, BradGad (Talk) 06:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Me too! (Off topic)
Hi again Timbo,
I was making great strides as a scholar at UVa -- completed all coursework; passed orals; dissertation 1/3 done ... then I decided a divorce would be way more fun and profitable. Turned out I was wrong.
You have a good page. Thanks again for the help.
Regards, BradGad (Talk) 07:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Re: Invalid VFD Thanks
Originally posted to User_talk:ClockworkSoul
Hi ClockworkSoul, thanks for at least agreeing with me about the VFD vote :). I really don't think the image is only used for shock value, but I can't convince everyone! Cheers, TIMBO (T A L K) 06:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Heya Timbo. The way I see it, if I have to be underhanded to prove my point, then my point obviously isn't very strong to begin with. In pursuit of that, I try to be sure that I care more about being honest than right. My wife hated that about me during the presidential elections. ;) – ClockworkSoul 14:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Fair use
En Misplaced Pages en español no se admite la subida de imágenes "fair use", por eso he tenido que borrar algunas de las que subiste. Siento las molestias, un saludo. --Comae 19:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Spam
No, I think "counteracting" it only legitimizes it. Man, this is so unwiki. We're supposed to reach consensus, not campaign and make targeted spams. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I was discussing the same with Tony, and I just wanted to point out that admins tend to take every single vote into account, even if it was seemingly a result of vote stack spam. I realize this doesn't feel quite right, but I can't think of a feasible solution since the votes are cast by legit 'Pedians. Yours, Radiant_* 12:28, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
IfD
Hello,
Have read your message (excuse me I'm a bit tired it's soon midnight in France). OK, I saw the bug was fixed, then my vote is a vote to keep the image. Thank you for your message on my French User Page which was appreciated.
Pabix ܀. 21:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
IfD vote was 65/48, no consensus
Phew! See you again next month, same venue. :) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry, I just got your message. I'm in the middle of a move, so I haven't been on much, and I haven't had time to deal with the cleanup tasks that I had previously taken over. Anyway, thanks for taking care of it. – Quadell 13:46, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
you're welcome
You're quite welcome indeed! The way things are going tonight, someone might even have to do it for me. Happy editing, Antandrus 05:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
re: Thanks
N/P, it just gives me something to do. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- idk, i think so, just a metter of finding some one willing to do it. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Your user page is temporarily protected. -- Curps 08:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Im Back
Hi Tim I figured I'd come back after my self imposed exile (I'll honestly try not to fight on articles I feel disturbed by)--198 04:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- How about If I move the drawing down? It's down that way in the Oral sex article--198 04:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Ok. Also I noted the IFD on that picture (that caused me to throw up); I figured I'd abstain from voting--198 04:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fair use
Fair use depends on the use. If it's being used to describe the specific incident depicted, it should be fine. If it's being used as a general article, I'm not sure. No lawyers in the hizzy. --SPUI (talk) 22:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
By the way, I think fair use requires the source to be credited. --SPUI (talk) 22:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Republican party article
Hi Limeheadnyc. User:Lagavulin is simply wrong about the paragraph being inaccurate or negative and I still believe that the paragraph should be in the article to highlight GOP beliefs. I can assure you that my own personal views have nothing to do with wanting it to stay. However, I think that Lagavulin is being completely partisan. -- Old Right 01:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks mate. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah i noticed that a bit back, just waiting for one of socks to pop up, just a matter of time. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:12, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Personaly, i can't see it being a problem, i figure if someone had a problem with it something would have been said by now. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oral sex
Ullo. Looks like Luke's bowlderizing page for the Oral sex article (the one that shows the article without pictures) has been successfully VfD'd. He has reacted to that by linking the image, which seems rather mean to me. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't create the "bowlderized" page, and will stand for a sockpuppet check with User:Chakravyuh to satisfy Tony's overactive imagination. Cool Hand Luke 10:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I apologise for assuming that Luke created the article now seemingly headed for deletion. It doesn't alter the fact that he's using this as an excuse to change the parent page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
?????
who the hell are you? 66.74.179.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Ok, Ok
- I confess I wasn't acting in good faith, honestly though I'm trying to avoid that page because I know i'll get into an edit war if start making "slight changes" with the drawing.--198 02:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Smashing Pumpkins
Being a die hard fan and stumbling across your user page, maybe we could work together to get it to Featured Article status. Jobe6 22:04, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Classic Rock
Hello. I was wondering if you would like to participate in my classic rock survey. I'm trying to find the most liked classic rock song. There is more information on my user page. Hope you participate! RENTASTRAWBERRY röck 02:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:Deetz smallthingsforgotten.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Deetz smallthingsforgotten.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of ESP Guitars
The article ESP Guitars has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Promotional article, suspected to fail WP:GNG. According to Ficadimerda (talk · contribs), the entire Category:ESP electric guitars is a massive walled garden.
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of ESP Guitars for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ESP Guitars is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/ESP Guitars until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)