User talk:Limeheadnyc/Archive2
IFD
[edit]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.--198 03:15, 12 Mar 2005 (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 Talk:Autofellatio. I'll be honest I don't believe you threw up when you saw that picture. TIMBO (T A L K) 07:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Being trolled
[edit]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. Dr Zen 04:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- 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 Talk:Clitoris 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. TIMBO (T A L K) 07:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Template in sig
[edit]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? —Mar·ka·ci:2005-03-13 01:38 Z
This is a strain on the servers; see [[WP:~~~~]] near the bottom. r3m0t talk 15:11, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't think of that. I'll discontinue use of the template starting ... now! TIMBO (T A L K) 17:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Autofellatio.jpg
[edit]Restoring the image... I don't know how. I tried, and the Commons image just showed up. -- AllyUnion (talk) 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 Wikipedia! I hereby release the Autofellatio image under the GFDL." -- AllyUnion (talk) 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.dab (ᛏ) 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 Tony Sidaway 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 WP:CP.
- 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.
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 Wikipedia, 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. dab (ᛏ) 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, TIMBO (T A L K) 08:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
VfD (2)
[edit]A bogus VfD listing should just be deleted. RickK 05:04, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
If I weren't so intimately involved in the arguments all over the place about keeping it, I would delete the VfD, but I probably shouldn't. If you can find another admin that would do it, go for it. Good luck. RickK 05:51, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)