On 10/17/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Stroudwater_Canal_Bridge.JPG
The caption is original reaseach (it is also wrong but that is do to someone removeing so called POV from the original)
How so?
Well it could be a stroudwater canal bridge but I'm not the only one who thinks it seems to resemble one end of the Sapperton Tunnel on the Thames and Severn Canal. Of course this is original research.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pulsatrix_perspicillata01.jpg
original research
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pulsatrix_perspicillata.jpg
original reasearch
How so? And please note that you're accusing an en: Arbitrator of "original research", so you'd better be damned sure you want to make that claim.
I don't see a reference and the image does not appear to have been published elsewhere prior to appearing on wikipedia. In short a collection of coloured dots has been identified as an object that it has not previously been identified as. This is why we apply a slightly different NOR policy to images.
You're wrong, as usual. "Primary source image" isn't the same as "original research". An example of something that /is/ "original research" and was deleted as such is
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Img052.jpg
Very good. You accept NOR in it's purest form doesn't work for images. So lets see how wikipedia modifies this:
"Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy."
The key line appears to be " images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments"
So do our two videos propose unpublished ideas or arguments?
Well first to the nick berg one. There are no shortage of reports that the video esists and various reports (rather a lot really due to ceritan conspiracy theories) on it's contents Assumeing the video doesn't contradict these it would appear not to propose unpublished ideas or arguments.
Moveing on to Kristian Menchaca I've yet to see any evidence that it is proposeing unpublished ideas or arguments
I'll ask you again, for the second time, to stop your trolling,
I'm not trolling. Simply applying reductio ad absurdum to certian arguments.
or, as you call it, "rules lawyering". If you're so proud of being a rules lawyer, you'd better remember that the lawyers will be first against the wall when the revolution comes. And believe me, the revolution is coming sooner than you think.
Thomas Jefferson would have tended to dissagree I think