| Revision as of 06:52, 10 April 2010 editPrivatemusings (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,995 edits improve ratings per recent editing← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:06, 10 April 2010 edit undoPrivatemusings (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,995 edits replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=pretty good}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Australia|class=pretty good|importance=not very, but a bit}} | |||
| wot no article? I'm a bit surprised..... | wot no article? I'm a bit surprised..... | ||
| Line 55: | Line 52: | ||
| :And considering the fact that Assange himself co-authored a whole book about the scene he was involved in, and considered his hacking conviction a central part of his biography as late as 2006 , it also can't be said that this is an insignificant fact. | :And considering the fact that Assange himself co-authored a whole book about the scene he was involved in, and considered his hacking conviction a central part of his biography as late as 2006 , it also can't be said that this is an insignificant fact. | ||
| :Regards, ] (]) 18:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | :Regards, ] (]) 18:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::(replying to the wikileaks twitter thing) - I'm not sure where that's coming from - but yeah, if there's anything inappropriate here, please remove / fix, or if the chap himself would prefer it gone, perhaps there's some subtle way of letting us (the editors who've worked on it to date) know, and we can nominate it for deletion? - I'm up for whatever - oh, and I've removed the tags with the ratings etc. because I couldn't make them work with my updated info, and I'm not sure that anyone currently editing actually uses them :-) cheers, ] (]) 07:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:06, 10 April 2010
wot no article? I'm a bit surprised.....
hmm it is surprising.. I'm not sure if it'd be entirely coincidental though.
<3 Julian Assange
hmmmmm...... Privatemusings (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Does sombody know the pronunciation of Assange? 134.245.5.104 (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o2ZGk1djTU (5:25). don't know how to transcript it into IPA 62.113.209.26 (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- No reference here to Wikileaks! I don't know enough about him to 'be bold' and update, but if anyone does that is one glaring omission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulvo (talk • contribs) 06:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Images
people keep reverting the good photos of julian to maximally bad, unrepresentatives ones claiming copyright violations which they are NOT. You can see how bad this is when there are two photos taken at a conference (new media days/copenhagen) within what appears to be seconds of each other, from the same camera, and the one that makes the speaker look dumb is picked, even though BOTH have been uploaded to wikipedia, one called "1" and the other called "2". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.110.69 (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- About the Copenhagen photos, you may have a point - I have changed it back from File:Julian Assange 20091117 Copenhagen 2.jpg to File:Julian Assange 20091117 Copenhagen 1.jpg, although I think that both of them are not very good (he is barely recognizable when they are displayed in the article).
- File:Julian assange.jpg, which had been uploaded by User:Groasvans to Commons on 1 April 2010, can be found (in a slightly different edit) in this 2008 Wired article, for example - without any indication there that it is under a free license. It has just been deleted on Commons.
- Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is NOT wireds photo. It's distributed by WIkiLeaks itself as a press photo for the advisory board.
- No one said it is Wired's photo. The point is: As it is usual on Misplaced Pages and Commons, the fact that a photo had been published elsewhere is seen as prima facie evidence that the uploader did not create it himself, i.e. is not the copyright holder as claimed. (If he is, there are standard procedures to identify oneself for that purpose, see Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials.)
- In any case, I don't see problems with the current photo (File:Julian Assange 26C3.jpg).
- Please sign your comments by appending four tildes (~~~~).
- Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is NOT wireds photo. It's distributed by WIkiLeaks itself as a press photo for the advisory board.
"Please fix"
Assange (or Wikileaks) seems to have objections to this Misplaced Pages article: "WL opponents seem to have created Julian's Misplaced Pages page ...").
I don't know if User:Privatemusings, who created the page, can be called a "WL opponent". I am certainly not (more like a fan, if not an entirely uncritical one), and I didn't get that impression of the other users who have edited the article either.
In any case, Wikileaks' statement "For ethical reasons we can't edit" is appreciated (it is in remarkable contrast to many article subjects who mistake Misplaced Pages for a PR outlet), see also WP:AUTO. But they (or Assange) are certainly invited to point out any faults they see with the article here on the talk page. Per Misplaced Pages's biographies of living persons policy, articles such as this one have to conform strictly to Misplaced Pages's verifiability, neutrality, and no original research principles.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The citation (16) ,http://www.smh.com.au/technology/international-man-of-mystery-20100409-ryvf.html , makes no claims that Julian Assange is indeed Mendax , The article is inconclusive & speculative at best , this should be removed at the earliest .
jeph (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- The Sydney Morning Herald article carefully lists concrete parallels, which do not appear to be "speculative".
- The sentence in this Misplaced Pages article currently reads:
- Wired and the Sydney Morning Herald have pointed out that there exist similarities between Assange and the person called "Mendax" in the book.
- So we have two independent reliable sources (the other being last year's Wired UK article) making that connection. (And additionally less reliable ones, like .)
- And considering the fact that Assange himself co-authored a whole book about the scene he was involved in, and considered his hacking conviction a central part of his biography as late as 2006 , it also can't be said that this is an insignificant fact.
- Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- (replying to the wikileaks twitter thing) - I'm not sure where that's coming from - but yeah, if there's anything inappropriate here, please remove / fix, or if the chap himself would prefer it gone, perhaps there's some subtle way of letting us (the editors who've worked on it to date) know, and we can nominate it for deletion? - I'm up for whatever - oh, and I've removed the tags with the ratings etc. because I couldn't make them work with my updated info, and I'm not sure that anyone currently editing actually uses them :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)