Wikimedia UK's Fæ, A new name for an old face Options

[mbz1]

Can someone with super-powerful Admin toolz reveal anything about this photo that was removed from Wikipedia/Commons?

"Image:Hogtied_male.jpg is available as a mostly clothed male alternative to being a page only illustrated with nude women. Teahot (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)"

[Michaeldsuarez]

Can someone with super-powerful Admin toolz reveal anything about this photo that was removed from Wikipedia/Commons?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...ogtied_male.jpg:

{{Information |Description={{en|1=BDSM scene. Man in hogtied position with restraints and chains.}} |Source=Own work by uploader |Author=[[User:Teahot|Teahot]] |Date=2009-01-15 |Permission= |other_versions= }}

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=36041150

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: Wed 30th November 2011, 5:25pm

[thekohser]

Can someone with super-powerful Admin toolz reveal anything about this photo that was removed from Wikipedia/Commons?

I received the photo a few moments ago. I kind of wish I hadn't now.

Cripes, if anyone had a problem with the path down which my Examiner article went, they should be happy I didn't have access to this photo at the time of publication.

[Vigilant]

Can someone with super-powerful Admin toolz reveal anything about this photo that was removed from Wikipedia/Commons?

I received the photo a few moments ago. I kind of wish I hadn't now.

Cripes, if anyone had a problem with the path down which my Examiner article went, they should be happy I didn't have access to this photo at the time of publication.

Post it. Don't be greedy...

[thekohser]

Also, it's interesting to note who appears to have been the only-ever winner of the coveted "Henryk Kupiszewski Prize", unknown to Google Search, Google News, and Google Books, save for as it appears on one online resume page, one Wikipedia article, countless scrapings of said Wikipedia article, and one "booklet" sort of thing on Google Books.

[Eppur si muove]

Also, it's interesting to note who appears to have been the only-ever winner of the coveted "Henryk Kupiszewski Prize", unknown to Google Search, Google News, and Google Books, save for as it appears on one online resume page, one Wikipedia article, countless scrapings of said Wikipedia article, and one "booklet" sort of thing on Google Books.

It appears to be the "Premio Henryk Kupiszewski" in its home language. I get six hits. How's your Italian or French?

Perhaps it should be anglicised to the "Henry Cooper Prize" which you get for almost beating the greatest. The greatest being a book on Roman Law published in the relevant period which might be 3 or 1 years as the sources seem inconsistent.

This post has been edited by Eppur si muove: Wed 30th November 2011, 10:38pm

[Alison]

It disappears everytime I log out of Facebook and then shows up again when I log in. I got a facebook account just to leave that comment.

.. and to send me friend requests!

lol? you found that funny?

Yes! Why on earth would you interested in my FB? I'm a boring, middle-aged nerd who posts pictures of snot-nosed kids and elementary school pottery. Ask Greg - he's on there.

[thekohser]

Yes! Why on earth would you interested in my FB? I'm a boring, middle-aged nerd who posts pictures of snot-nosed kids and elementary school pottery. Ask Greg - he's on there.

I like when she posts stuff about homemade synthesizers.

[melloden]

No evidence has been produced that actually implies Ashley Van Haeften is the subject of that image.

The evidence was so overwhelming, it was pouring out of the image like a high-pressure shower nozzle. Van Haeften uploaded it, he claimed the rights for it, no mention of who the "subject" was in the upload details, he failed to respond to my request to discuss it, and it looks just like him.

I'm sure if the image is not of him, then I should be expecting some sort of retraction demand from England. Haven't gotten one of those yet. Hmm... maybe because Haeften is the subject of that image.

You're just being ridiculous, small, jealous, and petty, Mike. My "Daily Mail" articles have received tens of thousands of page views, so it's obviously just what the public wants and needs to read about Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, which the traditional press isn't giving them.

Go do your frantic hand waving on another thread.

Jealous, that's a good one. Because I'm totally jealous of someone who deliberately writes news in a misleading manner.

Anyway, what's new without criticism?

[melloden]

I wonder why you'd be so disdainful of Cade Metz, "melloden". Oh, yeah, now I remember.

Hey, I like reading Cade Metz's stories more than I like reading yours.

[thekohser]

Because I'm totally jealous of someone who deliberately writes news in a misleading manner.

I call that an "angle". If you think that's "misleading", then you must not have much mental ability to discriminate between the two.

Your punishment? Thirty minutes, bare bottomed, in some hogtie bondage, okay, Michael?

[mbz1]

Because I'm totally jealous of someone who deliberately writes news in a misleading manner.

I call that an "angle". If you think that's "misleading", then you must not have much mental ability to discriminate between the two.

Your punishment? Thirty minutes, bare bottomed, in some hogtie bondage, okay, Michael?

OMG! It's him, English wikipedia admin and trustee director Fæ!

It is interesting that he described the image "as mostly clothed male alternative to being a page only illustrated with nude women. Teahot (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)"

I mean I have nothing against UK wikimedia trustee director posing in bondage, but he does not know what being nude means How could he be doing a good job in promoting a free knowledge.

[Eppur si muove]

Because I'm totally jealous of someone who deliberately writes news in a misleading manner.

I call that an "angle". If you think that's "misleading", then you must not have much mental ability to discriminate between the two.

Your punishment? Thirty minutes, bare bottomed, in some hogtie bondage, okay, Michael?

Hm that looks suspiciously like the person who spoke to parliament. What puzzles me is how he managed to take the photos while in that position. Does he have a long photo delay on that camera? Has he photoshopped the picture? Has he an identical twin brother? Or could he have legitimately got the pictures deleted as not his own work?

[Michaeldsuarez]

Your punishment? Thirty minutes, bare bottomed, in some hogtie bondage, okay, Michael?

http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Teahot

I couldn't resist. I had to upload them onto ED.

[mbz1]

Because I'm totally jealous of someone who deliberately writes news in a misleading manner.

I call that an "angle". If you think that's "misleading", then you must not have much mental ability to discriminate between the two.

Your punishment? Thirty minutes, bare bottomed, in some hogtie bondage, okay, Michael?

Hm that looks suspiciously like the person who spoke to parliament. What puzzles me is how he managed to take the photos while in that position. Does he have a long photo delay on that camera? Has he photoshopped the picture? Has he an identical twin brother? Or could he have legitimately got the pictures deleted as not his own work?

Why do you believe he took the photo of himself?
He probably could not have chained himself either.
Remember there was a discussion concerning this user David Merrill (T-C-L-K-R-D) ?
This user also has a sex slave, and he provides the link to his home page
which contains pictures and "Slave Manual".
So, if you are interested how it works, you could follow the link from his wikipedia user page to his sex slave page - so much for a free knowledge.

This post has been edited by mbz1: Thu 1st December 2011, 4:54pm

[Eppur si muove]

[Hm that looks suspiciously like the person who spoke to parliament. What puzzles me is how he managed to take the photos while in that position. Does he have a long photo delay on that camera? Has he photoshopped the picture? Has he an identical twin brother? Or could he have legitimately got the pictures deleted as not his own work?

Why do you believe he took the photo of himself?
He probably could not have chained himself either.
Remember there was a discussion concerning this user David Merrill (T-C-L-K-R-D) ?
This user also has a sex slave, and he provides the link to his home page
which contains pictures and "Slave Manual".
So, if you are interested how it works, you could follow the link from his wikipedia user page to his sex slave page - so much for a free knowledge.

I don't believe he took it himself. My point is that the pictures were uploaded and released as his own work. So maybe he did not have the right to release them into the public domain in the first place. They could therefore have been deleted from Wikimedia as incorrectly licensed.

[TungstenCarbide]

It disappears everytime I log out of Facebook and then shows up again when I log in. I got a facebook account just to leave that comment.

.. and to send me friend requests!

lol? you found that funny?

Yes! Why on earth would you interested in my FB? I'm a boring, middle-aged nerd who posts pictures of snot-nosed kids and elementary school pottery.

the same reason I sent an invite to every other Wikipedia Reviewer I recognized there.

Ask Greg - he's on there.

now my delicate feelings are really hurt.

[thekohser]

So maybe he did not have the right to release them into the public domain in the first place. They could therefore have been deleted from Wikimedia as incorrectly licensed.

If that was the flimsy excuse for their deletion, don't you think that reason would have been presented to the reporter prior to his publishing the story about the images?

[carbuncle]

Why do you believe he took the photo of himself?
He probably could not have chained himself either.

Did you look at the image in question? Whoever the pictured man is, he could very easily have clipped the larger chain to his right cuff and just as easily unlock it. If you wanted to upload an image of yourself in bondage to one of the world's most visited websites, I suspect that you might be willing to go to a small amount of effort. In any case, you are suggesting that Van Haeften was being untruthful when he uploaded that image to Commons.

So far as I can tell, it was Ash who caused the deletion of the image, based on a lack of proper information (which only he could provide). It all seems a little fishy.

[lilburne]

I don't believe he took it himself. My point is that the pictures were uploaded and released as his own work. So maybe he did not have the right to release them into the public domain in the first place. They could therefore have been deleted from Wikimedia as incorrectly licensed.

He's a thief you say?