Hi! I just signed up for my Wikipedia account and have done my first two
edits. (I added a note about "The Inner Light" winning the 1993 Hugo and
added character descriptions to the article for "You're Under Arrest!".)
I don't know how to start a new article, but there are several I want to
do. I need to do a little research on them, but what I would like to do is:
Notable Filk Artists:
Dr. James Robinson (fromerly Dr. Jane Robinson)
Card Captor Sakura character proflies:
Ruby Moon and Spinel Sun
Role Playing Game Titles (if they aren't already there)
Big Eyes, Small Mouth
Cold Iron (Leslie Fish)
The Undertaker's Horse (Leslie Fish)
Chickasaw Mountain (Leslie Fish)
Firestorm; Songs of the Third World War (leslie Fish)
Fossil Fever (Dr. James Robinson)
Any suggestions on how to go about doing this once the research is done.
> "As you know, Derek and those he is defending - his
> associates-in-hiding - are chortling with delight as
> they continually delete ...
I take offense at the sheer viscosity of this torrent of slander. But
that's all water under the bridge (my pathetic liquid ego, conceit and
arrogance are still very much intact ;-)
King of the self-regarding egomaniacs
Today I wanted to read [[Opus Dei]] - and frankly, I didn't exactly like what
I saw. The article reads like it was written by the Opus Dei. Checking the
history, I found that mainly two IPs have been editing the article a *few*
times, spamming it with Opus Dei POV, and completely drowning the remaining
bits of criticism. .
Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opus_Dei&oldid=10888580 to
the current version.
Now, I put a Totally Disputed tag into it, but I don't really feel like doing
a rollback, because I have to would roll back more than 600 (!) edits. (For
the same reason I can't give you a diff - max shown are 500.)
Given that people still hit us with that one "checking" of WP where we didn't
call the disputed birth date of somebody I never heard of "disputed" ,
well, if those people find that article, we will never hear the end of it -
besides the minor problem of the article not exactly being up to WP standards,
like NPOV. Something should be done, but as I said, I don't really feel I
should do a rollback on my own.
If you don't go over the top,
you can't see what's on the other side.
--- Jim Steinman ---
Alex' Assorted Homepages: www.alexsite.de
An anon user named Jeff Sense kept inserting an article he wrote into
[[Mario Lanza]] and various of us reverted him because the text was
highly POV (it is supplied as a external link though). He takes his
revenge on us in a Lanza fan forum (Derek is new user User:Derekmcgovern):
"As you know, Derek and those he is defending - his associates-in-hiding
- are chortling with delight as they continually delete my bio in their
morbid dictating of what people may and may not read and consider about
Mario's life and career. Derek's defense of this gay group's behavior is
beyond redemption. Fascists are fascists. Censorship is censorship.
My bio has been deleted from Wikipedia nearly a dozen times now. Their
games continue. Viscious, greed-driven, megalomaniacal fascist thugs and
censors will not go unchallenged. The EXACT same kind of maggots fed off
Mario and his talent in life, and this current coterie of diseased,
limp-wristed parasites are doing the exact same thing today. They are
but gay dogs scurrying about urinating their pathetic liquid egos,
conceit and arrogance on all things Lanza.
Those who hide - and have hidden for years in the Lanza world under
rocks and behind aliases - are of the dark side...fairies who seek to
present themselves as the only true 'authorities' on the life of Lanza
and to oppress all those who would stand up to them. The transparent
attacks on this site in the past, the fake names, the pornographic
posts, the aliases, all come from the same mindset...all from the same
psychopaths who live in gratuitously deluded worlds of self-importance.
We know who you are and you are the most vile, despicable alleged 'fans'
of Mario Lanza one could ever imagine."
LOL - the only thing he left out was our proclivity for autofellatio.
--- jfdwolff(a)doctors.org.uk wrote:
> Avoiding these images, or having a Preferences key
> to prevent their display, is NOT censorship. It is
> part of achieving the goal of Wikipedia, as I have
> argued above. It is also not a violation of NPOV, as
> an image is not a POV. It is being plain sensible,
> sensitive and broad-minded.
I love how those who are trying to censor Wikipeida
are calling THEMSELVES broad-minded.
And they continue to fail to address where the line is
drawn. The author contends that we should cater to
the millions of people worldwide who would be offended
by Ms. Winslet's blurry breast, but makes no
suggestion to remove all images of women's faces,
which would obviously offend our Muslim readers. Or
the images of the massacre of Nanking, or the image of
the naked girl running from napalm. Or the image of a
man with a gun to his head. Or the image of Rachel
Corrie about to be mowed down by a bulldozer.
Do you Yahoo!?
Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides!
> Of course you would. You're offended by the image of
> one blurry breast. A porn site would certainly offend
> you. I'm surprised your head didn't explode.
Rick, please quote me exactly where I said I was offended by that
picture. I can guarantee you that I've NEVER said that I was offended by
the Kate Winslet picture. So stop putting words in my mouth, it makes
you look foolish.
Furthermore, for all you know I absolutely love porn and porn websites.
I don't, but the fact remains that you don't know anything about me. So
you really should not talk about me at all. The urge to call you all
sorts of names is very strong... but... I... will... resist....
You seem to be so blinded by your zeal for whatever the heck it is that
you're standing up for that you missed my point entirely. It's not even
about porn. It's about what the sites we link to provide.
Here's a non-porn example:
Let's say there's www.billybobsfishingworld.com. Now, let's further say
that www.billybobsfishingworld.com exists to sell fishing information to
people who like to fish. However, the only way to get that information
is to put in a credit card because www.billybobsfishingworld.com is a
pay site whose primary commodity is itself.
My position (and again, so that you can cool your jets -- it has nothing
to do with porn) is that we should be very hesitant to link to pay sites
in articles where the purpose of the site is to be a pay site. So in
this example in the article for the world renowned fisherman [[Billy
Bob]] we would not link to his "official site" since it's just a way for
Billy Bob to make more money and is not a way for our readers to find
out more about the actual topic of the article, namely Billy Bob. We
need not drive traffic for Billy Bob; he can buy that himself.
Of course it goes without saying that if there is substantial
information freely provided about Billy Bob at
www.billybobsfishingworld.com then that is a different story and then we
should link away.
And yes, I do recognize that this would probably have to be implemented
on a case by case basis.
--- Tony Sidaway <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com>
> Kevin Rector said:
> > Yes, I do believe that if a non-nude can
> illustrate an article as well
> > as a nude can then the non-nude should be used.
> Why in this case, though? The whole point was that
> she posed nude wearing
> the Heart of the Ocean for Jack, and the treasure
> hunters looking for the
> diamond found the picture. That is the McGuffin
> that holds the whole
> story together. You get that contrast, the many
> contrasts in that movie.
> Great opulence above decks, poverty below. A naked
> young girl full of the
> promise of life, an ancient old woman at the end of
> it. Also it's a very
> pretty picture.
I wish we could get an image of Jack's drawing to use
as an illustration. THAT shows her completely nude,
instead of just one breast. But then, it's a drawing,
and not a photo, so apparently that's more palatable.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
--- Tony Sidaway <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com>
> Poor, Edmund W said:
> > If your friend or co-worker was on a diet (perhaps
> for medical
> > reasons), how often would you amuse yourself by
> teasing him, "Hey,
> > Billy, want some ice cream? It's chocolate, yer
> favorite!" Knock it
> > off, will ya?
> This seems a very strange line of argument. Are you
> comparing Ms Winslet
> to a large dollop of ice cream? Who is this person
> on a diet? Should I
> perhaps stop consuming food in public, lest I entice
> someone else to
> over-eat? How about those horror movies I was
> chatting about? It doesn't
> bear thinking about, does it? What kind of appetite
> would *they* incite?
And by the same reasoning, we should remove all images
of animals, so as not to tempt the people who are
trying to overcome their bestiality. And the images
of people, so as not to tempt those who are trying to
avoid the voices in their heads which are telling them
to murder people.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
>Could we drop this really very silly fig-leaf? What we do on
>Wikipedia is censorhip--it's unavoidable, part and parcel of what we
>do in producing an encyclopedia. When we decide what should and
>should not belong to Wikipedia, we're censoring Wikipedia. It's
>censorship, and there's no big deal about it. Why this huge, tiresome
>monstrous effort to find another name for it?
I think you're devaluating the term "censorship". You have not responded to my observation that internal control of content is not strictly "censorship", and this is definitely not a figleaf (or a coloured block, for that matter :-).
We actually control content all the time, through the means of VfD. Apart from hard-boiled trolls, nobody has ever applied the term of "censorship" to the VfD process.
To reiterate my view: Wikipedia aims to produce an encyclopedia for the widest possible readership. This readership is reduced if it attains a reputation for containing inappropriate images. My employer's web access blocking tool already blocks out Wikipedia.
This e-mail has been scanned by the StreamShield Protector antivirus system.
Free education for all doctors.
The simple, fast way to prove you are keeping up to date.