>In some countries it's also illegal to show a penis...
Believe me, this has been much discussed. The "If this, then next they'll want to delete BAMBI!" argument has been made many a time. But not all slopes are slippery.
>Perhaps you'll have a better chance of asking this image to be replaced with >one that doesn't contain an SM bear and dildo.
That's been tried too, resulting in endless discussions, edit wars, and page protection. As long as the image exists, it'll be used in the article, it seems.
- Herostratus
> Actually, nobody accused you of being any of those thing's; they just
> pointed out some rather unsavory comments you had made.� If you
> think those comments made you look like a neo-Nazi/racist/anti-Semite,
> then perhaps you should have thought twice before making them.
While you have a good point, the accusations were quite pointed... I don't believe I could have interpreted them any other way. Some of the statements that I made, such as on the older WR board, were mis-statements - I had't said what I had intended to say, and therefore, my intentions and meaning behind that was taken the wrong way.
> In any event, since that point you've used dozens of IPs to continue
> your attacks, and deliberately vandalized WikiMedia and
> WikiCommons.� Are you really suggesting that, at this point, you
> should be allowed to come back to Wikipedia?
>
> Jay.
No, I'm not suggesting this at all, anymore. My email wasn't timely - my message got sent to the moderated list, and by the time it was cleared to the actual list, the situation had already escalated beyond repair. I don't expect to be unblocked anytime soon, if ever, but that doesn't bother me as much anymore. I do not intend to come back to Wikipedia as Blu Aardvark. If I do decide I want to edit Wikipedia (and I have not at this point decided that I want to continue to contribute), I will come back and make a fresh start with a fresh account. Just... seems more maneagable that way.
I do apologize for our misunderstanding, Jay. I shouldn't have said those things that I said to and about you. In retrospect, it seems as if we both misunderstood each other, expected the worst, and got what we expected as a result.
Dear Wikipedians,
I am a professor at George Mason University (Virginia, USA), and I am researching the Wikipedia contribution practices. As part of my research, I am conducting a survey of Wikipedians. If you would like to participate, you can access the survey at
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=276181968078
The survey consits of 33 short questions, and It should not take you longer than 15 minutes to complete the questionnaire. Your participation in the survey is completely anonymous.
Thank you very much for your help. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Best regards,
Esperanza
On Sun Mar 26 19:08:45 UTC 2006 Steve Bennett stevage at gmail.com wrote:
> On 3/26/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I find it very curious that of all the things they can attack
> > wikipedia for, the fact that wikipedia is not censored is the one they
> > focus on. Very strange indeed.
>
> All the more reason to tag Wikipedia articles as kidsafe/worksafe.
It occurs to me that this entire debate about tagging articles is
entirely moot. If a school or workplace wishes to filter Wikipedia
content by articles, we have already provided the means for them to
identify unwanted material: use the article category.
It should be a straightforward task for any computer technician to create
a filter to keep out all of the articles marked [[Category:Sex]],
[[Category:Porn star]], & even [[Category:Pokemon]], if a school or
workplace desires. Explicit metatags duplicate information that is
already part of the article & thus is unneeded -- unless some person
starts making contributions that confuse this categorization, for example
adding pictures of naked bodies to articles like [[Triangle]] & [[George
W. Bush]]. In that case these edits would be vandalism & dealt with
accordingly.
The means to bar information on Wikipedia that is not safe for children &
the workplace already exists. How they could make this work is thankfully
not our concern.
Geoff
In a message dated 4/2/2006 10:05:28 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au writes:
G'day Thom,
> Is it ethical for a Wiki editor, who is also an admistrator, to edit
both
> sides of an issue?
If that editor is a good Wikipedian --- and, being an administrator, we
should hope he is --- then it is entirely appropriate for him (or her)
to edit any article he (or she) damn well pleases.
What if the editor only thinks he is a good wikipedian, but in
reality
by what he does, is actually promoting a POV? How is that
determined?
and where is the line drawn between good editing and POV pushing?
It's called "writing from a netural point-of-view", and some of us pride
ourselves on our ability to do just that.
If a reader, a researcher say, accesses the pages of standard and non-
standard theories, what kind of "neutrality" is he looking for? If
there is a
controversy between standard and non-standard, was it good editing
to
remove that controversy from the Wikientry? Is it "neutral" for
an admin
editor advocate of the standard theory to write "non-standard
theories are
widely discredited" on the non-standard theory page?
You might as well ask if it's ethical for me to edit an article about
Manchester United FC ...
You are assuming "good Wikipedian" but what about not-good
Wikipedian admin/editors? How do you identify them?
For example, what sort of evidence would you want if I were
to present a case against an aledged wikiadmin pov pusher?
tm
My assertion remains the menu words do not have to be words in Simple English.
For example "portal" - is that meaning (of that word) in Simple English?
Gordo
--
"Think Feynman"/////////
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
gordon.joly(a)pobox.com///
I've been blocked for a month from Wikipedia for personal attacks. Now, I do grant that a block was perhaps justified... but I also feel that a month is quite egregarious.
Yes, I had stated my intention to go on wikibreak, but that isn't to say that I had not intended to come back from time to time, perhaps to comment on discussions or to perform some RC patrol on occasion.
To be fair, I didn't necessarily handle the block appropriately, instead responding by creating (and using some existing) sockpuppets and posting responses laden with even more personal attacks to the relevant thread on WP:ANI. (Sockpuppets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Bl…)
However, I also believe that I had legitimate cause for upset, as I was responding in part to being accused of being a neo-Nazi/racist/anti-Semite. The statements that I was subjected to where highly offensive, and I responded in a very similar vein. This isn't to justify my actions, which, in retrospect, where clear violations of numerous policies, but nonetheless, I do want to make clear that, in part at least, my personal attacks were a response to what I felt were also personal attacks.
I would like to request that my block be reduced to 24 or 48 hours, because, although I can grant that a block was appropriate, I do not believe that a block of one week (the initial length), or one month (the extended length after my response to an admin on my talk page) is appropriate. I do grant that my actions with sockpuppets may have ruined any chance at getting my block reduced to a more appropriate time frame, but I feel I must at the very least request it.
This evening I saw something that I knew to be inaccurate on a Wikipedia
page (namely on the *Starbucks* page). I often visit Wikipedia, and enjoy
reading it, but never before had I ever attempted to edit anything. So I
was really surprised when I clicked on the *edit* button and it send me to a
page informing me that I was blocked. I would like to find out why my I.P.
address is associated with this event, and I appreciate your efforts in
looking into this.
*General info*:
I do not have an account at this time, so no username.
My I.P. address is *198.151.179.66*
**
Wikipedia says that I was blocked by *Refdoc* for "vandalism," but does not
specify any further (i.e. what it was concerning).
I would be really pleased if this could be sorted out/cleared up,
explained, and I could then create an account with Wikipedia. I really want
to find out what this "block" is referring to. Again, thank you for your
time.
-Lauren Sweat