User talk:Joseph S Atkinson/Archives/Archive Mar 2007
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Hello
- Hi Joseph, thanks for your message. I will be away from Wikipedia for a few days, but I will study the matter when I get back. Please hang in there and be patient. Nothing here is permenant. Best, Johntex\talk 14:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for your comment
... at my talk page, on how best to phrase the {{notcensored2}} template. Just to keep the context, I've replied back there rather than here. Please come back again, and tell me if we've reached agreement -- or, if not, how better to do so. Thanks again! -- Ben 12:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ejaculation image on the ejaculation article has been marked for deletion
- Hi JSA, you ought to go to the deletion discussion page and state your opinion. 216.78.37.32 07:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will go an cast a vote later today. -- jsa 14:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Do not undo my comments
I have no idea who you are or why you pulled my comment from User_Talk:Jimbo_Wales but I do not see where you have any authority to undermine what I say. If you didn't like my comment, you should reply to it. If you found the image to be inappropriate then help me do something about it. I am an editor not unlike yourself, who is frustrated and tired because of that image. It does not belong on Wikipedia and I have exhausted all other options I know of in getting the issue noticed. -- jsa 15:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- That image belongs only on its article. Adding it to user talk pages is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. There is enough precedent for images restricted only to certain articles; see MediaWiki:Bad image list, for instance. --cesarb 15:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. adding that image to the talk page is attempting to disrupt to make a point. If you continue to do so, you will probably be temporarily blocked for such actions! On another note, it is important to realize that wikipedia is not censored. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have been rounds about the not censored point. I probably understand it better than you do. But "not censored" doesn't mean "anything goes" and Wikipedia has very clear guidelines that this image is in violation of, namely the one where Wikipedia still has to comply with Florida law. At the very least, hide it behind a linkimage tag. I'm quite sick of being bullied over the damned thing as it is. I'm willing to be banned at this point. -- jsa 15:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Trust me, I am not trying to bully you. I am just trying to make sure things run smoothly and in the best interest of the community. There may be issues with the image (and i do not get too involved with them so I cannot make that judgement). However, poisting the image at innapropriate locations is becoming disruptive in your attempts to make a point. If you get blocked, it will just make it more difficult for you to be involved in this issue. Being disruptive is probably the worse thing you can do at this point. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I didn't man to imply that you were. I was making a statement in general. I also came to add that I have no idea where I am supposed to actually go to seek mediation. This image has become a saga of attempts to have it removed/replaced/deleted/linkimaged, and all are thwartrd more or less by one person and a cabal of silent self-proclaimed anti-censors who engage in edit warring, threats, comment deletion, and overstatements of policy to anyone dissenting from their will to keep it there. It's not really about the image anymore as it is their behavior. Even when the image can be replaced with something better, the cabal will not allow it. The page now has two images after it was previously replaced, and then just reinserted elsewhere on the page. -- jsa 15:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Trust me, I am not trying to bully you. I am just trying to make sure things run smoothly and in the best interest of the community. There may be issues with the image (and i do not get too involved with them so I cannot make that judgement). However, poisting the image at innapropriate locations is becoming disruptive in your attempts to make a point. If you get blocked, it will just make it more difficult for you to be involved in this issue. Being disruptive is probably the worse thing you can do at this point. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have been rounds about the not censored point. I probably understand it better than you do. But "not censored" doesn't mean "anything goes" and Wikipedia has very clear guidelines that this image is in violation of, namely the one where Wikipedia still has to comply with Florida law. At the very least, hide it behind a linkimage tag. I'm quite sick of being bullied over the damned thing as it is. I'm willing to be banned at this point. -- jsa 15:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. adding that image to the talk page is attempting to disrupt to make a point. If you continue to do so, you will probably be temporarily blocked for such actions! On another note, it is important to realize that wikipedia is not censored. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
←I guess i am a little confused. Can it not be said that the image, taken at the "perfect" time, adds an excellent example to the article? While possibly offensive to some, ejaculation is a part of life. It happens. Hiding it has absolutley no value (in my personal opinion). I guess what I am confused about is why you have such an issue against this image in particular and not all of the other images that show nudity or other possibly offensive material? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Degrees. I am not about censorship at all. But this is a user submitted image of a man pleasing himself, onto himself. It is "sensualized" in its depiction, and its no the best image to represent the subject. It's also not the popular choice for the page, the subject of many edits and reverts. In general, if the image is found to be offensive by so many others besides me, has been replaced by images that are less offensive and better represent the subject, why are some users allowed to circle the wagons and prevent changes from being made without their express approval? And, as I have tried to make clear, Wikipedia has a policy on this matter. This policy has been ignored from start to finish as users try to write their own meaning into the policy. The image is excessive. There are volumes on the talk page where point by point comparisons of policy and even law are spelled out. The conversation is on the par of children sticking their fingers in their ears to ignore what it being said. Their opinion is the only opinion that matters, and there is no "consensus" unless it is in their favor. -- jsa 16:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- While I respect your opinion, it does necessarily mean that I agree with you. In all honsety, I do not have much of a stance on this topic. However, it seems like it is a tough enough issue, and there may be several parties involved. IF you feel that it is breaking the law and against wikipedia policy, I highlry reccomend that you sub,ite a request for arbitration. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. That is the only advice I can give, as well as trying to avoid disruptive behavior. Disruptive behavior is one of the quickest ways to get yourself blocked. I would be interested to know if you should choose to puruse arbitration. Best of luck. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at that page really didn't help my opinions of Wikipedia at this point. What I am really looking for is someone in authority who can look at the image and say if it's within the guidelines. Not some Joe Blow user who is of-the-opinion, someone who is in the know. After thinking about it for a while, I just can't cave into the irony at this point of being chastised and rules thrown up for causing a disruption over using this image. It's a double standard. It strikes me that a proper encyclopedic image on any other page is simply out of place, but an offensive image will be offensive no matter where you put it. My problem is the round table discussion which is still on-going at Talk:Ejaculation over the picture, which if you actually read, is only really one person arguing against changes that are popular and requested, with an army of silent partners to help make reverts. Noone is trying to be an evil censor, they have asked for it to be replaced with a less offensive one. Several have been suggested, but the same one person always keeps interfering with it. We even tried to get the linkimage tag, keeping the current image. This one user still has his way over everyone else by undoing it through his private cabal. This is bullshit. I'm done with it. -- jsa 19:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- As I have stated previousley, that is what arbiration is for. I highly reccomend pursuing it and making your case there. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at that page really didn't help my opinions of Wikipedia at this point. What I am really looking for is someone in authority who can look at the image and say if it's within the guidelines. Not some Joe Blow user who is of-the-opinion, someone who is in the know. After thinking about it for a while, I just can't cave into the irony at this point of being chastised and rules thrown up for causing a disruption over using this image. It's a double standard. It strikes me that a proper encyclopedic image on any other page is simply out of place, but an offensive image will be offensive no matter where you put it. My problem is the round table discussion which is still on-going at Talk:Ejaculation over the picture, which if you actually read, is only really one person arguing against changes that are popular and requested, with an army of silent partners to help make reverts. Noone is trying to be an evil censor, they have asked for it to be replaced with a less offensive one. Several have been suggested, but the same one person always keeps interfering with it. We even tried to get the linkimage tag, keeping the current image. This one user still has his way over everyone else by undoing it through his private cabal. This is bullshit. I'm done with it. -- jsa 19:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- While I respect your opinion, it does necessarily mean that I agree with you. In all honsety, I do not have much of a stance on this topic. However, it seems like it is a tough enough issue, and there may be several parties involved. IF you feel that it is breaking the law and against wikipedia policy, I highlry reccomend that you sub,ite a request for arbitration. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. That is the only advice I can give, as well as trying to avoid disruptive behavior. Disruptive behavior is one of the quickest ways to get yourself blocked. I would be interested to know if you should choose to puruse arbitration. Best of luck. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Solidarity
Hey, I just wanted to extend a hand of solidarity to you on the ejaculation image controversy. I don't think that one thing, though, is a reason to get soured on Wikipedia generally, at least certainly not the actual content of its text. It's an impressive achievement, despite a wrinkles like the ejaculation one. I want to encourage you to keep participating.--Atemperman 15:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitration re: Abu badali
Hi. I am writing you because you were one of the respondants on the RfC about Abu badali that was started back in November. There has been no substantive comment there for over a month and User:Abu badali has never bothered to respond to the RfC. The last comment on the talk page of the RfC was a suggestion to take it to arbitration, which is what I propose we do. Accordingly, I have created a shell/draft listing to add to the list of Arbitration Committee matters here. I've listed your new there, preliminarily, as a complaintant. If you are not interested in participating, please remove your name. If you are, please add your comments as we must prepare a 500 word summary of the case. Thanks for your attention - Jord 15:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
