Well [[User:SlimVirgin]] and [[User:Jayjg]] managed to get me blocked for a
week surrouding this despite my good faith efforts towards ensuring that
policy was met on this article.
See:
I've requested an {{unblock}} as this block was neither justified nor
preventative (I clearly stated that I'd stopped editing on the article hours
ago and haven't since). The blocking admin's reasoning was that I'd been
blocked "many times for 3RR". I've been justifiably blocked twice for 3RR
and a third time despite my efforts at reverting vandalism surrounding the
last block (User:William M. Connolley) expressed, "Its quite possible that I
could have checked a bit more carefully" (meaning prior to blocking me for
the last 3RR) see:
hardly qualifies as "many times".
If someone could take a look at this case, that'd be appreciated.
Thanks,
-Scott Stevenson [[User:Netscott]]
On 8/25/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/24/06, jkelly(a)fas.harvard.edu <jkelly(a)fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
[snip]
But this doesn't seem to be your concern.
Instead, you're arguing
that the
photograph being used is not an example of what
it is supposed to be
identifying. Jayjg is actually referring you to the correct page -- we
do make
an exemption in our No Original Research rule for
images. If a
Wikipedian takes
a picture of tree, we don't ask that the
assertion that it is a tree
first be
published in a reliable source.
This is incorrect by being incomplete. :)
For example, I could find a picture of something that looks small
shrub which is technically a tree.. And place it on [[tree]]... But
the image would be removed, and quite rightfully so, without a
citation.
Even with a solid citation provided, it would be a poor editorial
judgement to put an image of an atypical tree which many people would
initially is not a tree.
This is pretty much what I see here... An image is being placed on an
article about anti-semitism which some rational people believe is not
a clear example of anti-semitism (but is rather a rather insensitive
and tasteless jab at isral) without a citation. A citation can easily
be provided because the source of the image made a pretty good
argument.
I still think it's a bad editorial judgement to use that image as the
lead, but it's not a violation of NPOV unless we fail to use the image
as a meta fact rather than a fact.
(I could throw into the fire that we still have the copyright tagging
wrong, but an angry letter from the copyright holder would actually be
useful... we'd get to find out what he intended :) )
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l