Talk:Gaza Strip/yalop3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By now consensus emarged on this talk page that no external links to Photos should be allowed. This is a very bizare view and demonstrate how easy it is for consensus to emarge in a completly biased way. This this is a generalization that is not about these photos nor on Gaza but about external_links all over Wikipedia this is something that need to be discussed by the Wikipedia community as a whole. Please advise where the right forum is.

Alternatvly, maybe from this absurd conclusion you will see that somehow the "consensus" has emerged in the wrong direction....

Why not upload the photos and release them under GFDL? I still haven't heard an answer to that. Jayjg (talk) 18:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll answer again:

1. If I load the photos under GFDL and after that you decide to delete the photos? This will not get us closer to solution. The photo is the same photo on Wikipedia or on external link. Your initial objection was that the photos are "right wing Israeli propaganda". Loading them would not change anything.

2. I am not an attorney. I know nothing about the legal issues and frankly I could not understand what people can or can not do once the photos is on a site which is generally regarded as "no copy right protected".

So the questions remain:

If these photos have value ? If so we should allow external link.

At some point you will understand that "Self promotion" (as clearly define as references to commercial sites" Does not apply here.

Your objection is about photos which contradict your POV (so you think) Make it easier for everyone and discuss your REAL objections to these photos ?

Maybe because they show settlers as human beings ? But they also show Palestinians as human beings .....

Please do not presume to tell me what my objections are or are not; I think every single one of your last 50 comments to me or about me has done so. Use the Talk: page to discuss article content. As for no uploading your photographs, you don't seem to be willing to contribute to Wikipedia in any way, but are perfectly willing to use it to increase traffic to your pictures. Jayjg (talk) 20:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't need to presume anything. When you first removed the links to ther photos you wrote: "Right wing Israeli propeganda". Only when you understood that this is a POV based removal you used other arguments. You are the abusing the medium. The fact IS: These photos add value. Your request to upload them show that even you understand that value. The value exist if these photos are loaded or linked. — Unsigned, again, by 85.65.55.125 It's annoying for other people to sign your comments for you; the comments bellow yours, despite the indentation stand the risk of being mistaken for yours, 85.65.55.125, and it's unfair for every editor who comments bellow you to be forced to do what you yourself can much more easily do by typing ~~~~ (four tildes). El_C 07:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Either you upload them, then we can discuss which is relevant where, invidually; or, the links will be reverted by a majority of editors, these album links are considered inappropriate, that is the reality. Please make sure you sign your name with ~~~~, anonymous editor. El_C 07:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what 21:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) is and anyone here Identify my comments no need for you to sign them.

"Majority of editors here" has proven to be quite a funny crowed:

1. Instead of discussing the photos you complain about my signature and other non jermain issues.

2. You have concluded that external links to photos is not appropriate on Wikipedia.

I wonder: When will you address the real issue: DO these photos add value to a reader about this subject ?

I believe, as perhaps other editors do, that external links to photos are appropriate if they are source material for an article. As I've said before, it would be helpful if you created a username and signed your posts using it (with four tildes "~~~~"). As it stands, I cannot be certain you are the same anonymous editor we've been conversing with or not -- you could be an entirely new person! --Chiacomo (talk) 21:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Chiamcomo: You wrote:

"As it stands, I cannot be certain you are the same anonymous editor we've been conversing with or not -- you could be an entirely new person! "

Man, a little bit of intelectual honesty. Do you believe your self ? I am the same person and you know it. I am not an "anonymous editor" as Jayjg keep refering to me. I am not the issue. The photos are.

None of you have addressed the simple issue: Do the photos add value ? They are not "source material" they are "added value" material. — As always, comments unsigned. By 85.64.35.16 El_C 04:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we have. El_C 04:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As a contributor you are in fact an anonymous editor -- you really should consider more formally joining the community by creating an account. I think your contributions would be valuable. Perhaps the issue is not the inclusion of photo links, but rather, your motives in repeatedly attempting to include them. We should be attempting to create a great encyclopedia -- not a great collection of links. I will agree that the photos are potentially valuable (I've enjoyed looking at them) -- and some of them, perhaps, should be uploaded to WP or the commons so they can be used in this and other articles. I encourage you to do so, actually. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chiamcomo: Thank you for addressing the issue of the photos. Al C: Please stop signing for me.

With the exception of Chiamcomo, none of you have addressed the issue. I must confess: I have a problem joining an encycklopedia where the editors do not use their real names.

If Wikipedia is serious it should mandate that funny names like "Jayjg" will not be allowed. If someone wants to contribute to world knowledge he/she should use his real name. You know who I am , just look at my web site and search my name on google.

I, and others, have said the same thing above, you just didn't bother responding to it, instead continuing with your circular rant.*** Fine, I won't sign for you, but I'll separate my comments from yours and let other people complain about that. And it's El_C, 85.64.35.16, not Al. El_C 05:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
By the way, I found your suggestion that Jayjg is a funny name that should'nt be allowed, hysterically absurd, Anonymous editor. El_C 05:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm a public/elected official and my name can easily be googled -- I choose a "funny name" to at least attempt anonymity. This, I think, is one of the strengths of WP -- you can edit and contribute without fear of retaliation. Of course, here in the USA, I needn't fear arrest or persecution, but other people in other places might. By using a pseudonym, editors are free to publish the truth without fear of reprisal. Some editors do, in fact, use their real names, but I don't consider their contributions any more reliable than Jayig's or El C's. Anonymous editors, in some ways, have less anonymity than registered users; had I the inclination, I might locate someone very precisely based on their IP address. My username, by the way, is a bastardization of Danny Kaye's character in The Court Jester. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Anon is more than free to propose policy changes or new policy through the propper channels (or, for that matter, start his own wiki with his own a priori policies), but proposing drastic policy changes on-the-fly, on a talk page, is questionable. El_C 06:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what value there is any more in this dialogue; the anonymous editor does not propose any new arguments, refuses to get a userid, and even refuses to sign his contributions or have others sign for him. I see no evidence of good faith here. Jayjg (talk) 15:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure if you know what "good faith" is. Good faith is to try and make a contrbution here. Good faith is NOT first saying you are against someone POV (as you misunderstood the photos to be) and later hooking up to the "winning argument" of "self promotion"

I don't have to get an ID to contrubute here. So far I could contribute to this page with or without ID. Despite the fact that you (with no good faith) keep refering to me as "Anon" You know who I am am , you know what I add and ... Never mind. You are right on one thing no point in this discussion. You guys are prisoner of your cult. No outsiders welcome I guess unless they dress up like you. (ID and All)

First you want Wikipedia to demand real names, then you claim to be happy hiding behind no account. An account would give us a measure of the value of the contributions you make to Wikipedia; with anoymous editing we assume that you are making no contribution to Wikipedia.
The argument is not about your POV, but about having any POV. Wikipedia is neutral. Images are (generally - that can be misleadingly framed) neutral, but captions can give them a slant. Wikipedia editors can't address POV issues on external sites, but the captions on an image within the article can be edited (and monitored) to a NPOV.
For prisioners of a cult, it certainly seems like you want in. Josh Parris ✉ 00:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Last comment by Josh Parris was one of the most intlegent arguments. At least now I know what is the reason behind creating an account and i will consider doing so. I also understand (and agree) with your point about the inabaility to chenge captions on external sites and about the ability to monitor them on Wikipedia. All points are well taken and I'll consider joining to the "cult". BTW, I am not hiding behind any anonimity. You are welcome to look up my name on my web site and look me up in the phone book.

Comment: An anon user requested mediation last month, to which we are just now responding. First, please accept our apologies for the lateness. Second, please follow the rules for submitting requests - condense your complaints to a paragraph only. Log in as a registered user, and sign all your comments. These are standard requirements for dealing with talk page discussions.-SV|t 19:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)