Commons-hosted Muhammad Images Options

[Michaeldsuarez]

Considering the provenance of this website and the fact there is no current moderation I'm pleasantly surprised that things aren't that bad.

Everything that is the slightest bit controversial is being voluntarily kept to one thread and there seems to be a lot less animosity towards each other...or that could just be the consequence of all the wankers disappearing off to the Other Place™.

Things aren't that bad because new accounts aren't being approved, so troublemakers, spammers, sockpuppeteers, and trolls can't take advantage of the situation. Nevertheless, the lack of new blood, in addition to our utter failure to retain our older users, will cause the Wikipedia Review to continue on with its slow death. The level of activity on the this forum isn't what it used to be, and unless Selina restores the moderators' ability to actually moderate and approve new accounts, the declining activity issue is bound to become worse.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: Tue 15th May 2012, 2:31pm

[Emperor]

Still, I never saw any instance of Holocaust Denial by the staff member here. Can you point to any instance?

Go back and reread the ask Hersch about his views thread. HK asserts that the Holocaust was a forced labor plan created by Hitler's "sponsors" in Britain. Then dogbiscuit jumps in to say that it's trivia whether 1.5, 3, or 6 million were killed.

[Zoloft]

Still, I never saw any instance of Holocaust Denial by the staff member here. Can you point to any instance?

Go back and reread the ask Hersch about his views thread. HK asserts that the Holocaust was a forced labor plan created by Hitler's "sponsors" in Britain. Then dogbiscuit jumps in to say that it's trivia whether 1.5, 3, or 6 million were killed.

Beware people who will bring up a topic without linking it, then tell you what to think about it.

[Emperor]

Beware people who will bring up a topic without linking it, then tell you what to think about it.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[The Joy]

Beware people who will bring up a topic without linking it, then tell you what to think about it.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=37051

I'm still not seeing it.

[Fusion]

Go back and reread the ask Hersch about his views thread. HK asserts that the Holocaust was a forced labor plan created by Hitler's "sponsors" in Britain. Then dogbiscuit jumps in to say that it's trivia whether 1.5, 3, or 6 million were killed.

I have read something of Hersch and his organisation. They seem to blame the Queen of Britain for everything bad in the world. Not the British government, which has the power, but the Queen who is but an almost powerless ceremonial figurehead like the president of the USSR under Stalin. So no doubt the previous king must have been responsible for what the Nazis did during the War despite Britain fighting against the Nazis.

[GlassBeadGame]

Still, I never saw any instance of Holocaust Denial by the staff member here. Can you point to any instance?

Go back and reread the ask Hersch about his views thread. HK asserts that the Holocaust was a forced labor plan created by Hitler's "sponsors" in Britain. Then dogbiscuit jumps in to say that it's trivia whether 1.5, 3, or 6 million were killed.

Can you imagine what it must be like to look back on your life as the henchman of of fruitcake? As for Dogbiscuit, he turned into such a sniveling ass-lick toward the end of WR that it was kind of sad.

But enough nostalgia. Let's say we have a wake and bury this bitch before it starts to smell.

[Tarc]

Still, I never saw any instance of Holocaust Denial by the staff member here. Can you point to any instance?

Go back and reread the ask Hersch about his views thread. HK asserts that the Holocaust was a forced labor plan created by Hitler's "sponsors" in Britain. Then dogbiscuit jumps in to say that it's trivia whether 1.5, 3, or 6 million were killed.

Can you imagine what it must be like to look back on your life as the henchman of of fruitcake? As for Dogbiscuit, he turned into such a sniveling ass-lick toward the end of WR that it was kind of sad.

But enough nostalgia. Let's say we have a wake and bury this bitch before it starts to smell.

Per your own alleged moral standards, I expect you to post sporadic, 1 to 2-line harangues against yourself for being a misogynistic asshole who uses the b-word in a derogatory manner.

[Emperor]

Can you imagine what it must be like to look back on your life as the henchman of of fruitcake? As for Dogbiscuit, he turned into such a sniveling ass-lick toward the end of WR that it was kind of sad.

But enough nostalgia. Let's say we have a wake and bury this bitch before it starts to smell.

Agreed they must feel pretty silly at this point. I can't imagine why Dogbiscuit isn't still exclusively on Wikipedia. He'd fit right in there. Their whole thing was a frightening example of groupthink.

WR should stay open because there are new people out there who need to read this stuff. It wouldn't be too hard once everyone's cooled off to get things going again.

[GlassBeadGame]

WR should stay open because there are new people out there who need to read this stuff. It wouldn't be too hard once everyone's cooled off to get things going again.

Not really. Even when it was good WR was more of a conversation than a reference work. Think river, not fishbowl. It doesn't, and shouldn't, mean much to people who were not part of the conversation.

[Emperor]

WR should stay open because there are new people out there who need to read this stuff. It wouldn't be too hard once everyone's cooled off to get things going again.

Not really. Even when it was good WR was more of a conversation than a reference work. Think river, not fishbowl. It doesn't, and shouldn't, mean much to people who were not part of the conversation.

If it's a river then why take it so seriously? Myspace staggers on, why not Wikipedia Review?

[Detective]

Go back and reread the ask Hersch about his views thread. HK asserts that the Holocaust was a forced labor plan created by Hitler's "sponsors" in Britain. Then dogbiscuit jumps in to say that it's trivia whether 1.5, 3, or 6 million were killed.

It looks to me as if Hersch is saying what LaRouche thinks, without actually saying he agrees with it. We might assume that he does, but he's being clever and not nailing his colours to the mast.

[Web Fred]

Go back and reread the ask Hersch about his views thread. HK asserts that the Holocaust was a forced labor plan created by Hitler's "sponsors" in Britain. Then dogbiscuit jumps in to say that it's trivia whether 1.5, 3, or 6 million were killed.

It looks to me as if Hersch is saying what LaRouche thinks, without actually saying he agrees with it. We might assume that he does, but he's being clever and not nailing his colours to the mast.

One wouldn't spread stuff one didn't like.

What I don't get, unless it's some sort of irony I'm not au fait with, is why he would use a Jewish pseudonym whilst at the same time pushing the rhetoric of an anti-semite.

[GlassBeadGame]

Now stop being a cunt and deliberately trolling for a reaction.

What you are doing isn't wanted, needed or necessary.

If you want a bigger and more reactive audience why don't you practise your hi-jinx over at the OTHER PLACE.

The cracy place?

They're repeating what was largely done here and they're getting the same results. In fact, Peter didn't get too far, as predicted by Glass Boy.

We therefore do not consider you to be person ‘affected’ by the registration of Wiki UK Ltd and therefore entitled to request a review of our decision to register the charity or to request its removal.

I just look over there. I did nail it. Not just right, but exactly right. The commission found Petey-Bee has no standing in the matter. Exactly as I said. He is a busybody and an inter-meddler. Of course over there they spin it as the charity commission made fools of themselves. Ass-licker par excellence, Dogbiscuit, goes so far as claiming it a victory because WMF had to waste money on an attorney because of Petey-Bees frivolous claim. I'll take my victory dance here because I don't post there and they don't seem to "recall" that I predicted this outcome.

[Tarc]

I'll take my victory dance here because I don't post there and they don't seem to "recall" that I predicted this outcome.

That's generally how douchebags are treated, yes.

[GlassBeadGame]

I'll take my victory dance here because I don't post there and they don't seem to "recall" that I predicted this outcome.

That's generally how douchebags are treated, yes.

Given that criticizing Gomi and H for supporting Petey-Bee in his intramural dispute with his fellow Wikipedians at WMF-UK was the immediate cause of their banishing me to the "whine cellar" I feel justified in acting like a dick in pointing out I was right.

That along with pointing out that nobody in their right mind would publish the drivel that was composed in the quasi-secret "book" forum. Seems I was two for two.

[Detective]

We therefore do not consider you to be person ‘affected’ by the registration of Wiki UK Ltd and therefore entitled to request a review of our decision to register the charity or to request its removal.

Who exactly would be a person ‘affected’ by the registration of Wiki UK Ltd? Suppose you went to them with proof that you had nasty things in a BLP about you, or your child had been disturbed by pornography? Would you be affected by Wikipedia? I'd have thought so. Would you be affected by the registration of Wiki UK Ltd? No, because they didn't cause it and it was of course beyond their power to do anything about it.

This post has been edited by Detective: Sat 19th May 2012, 4:59pm

[GlassBeadGame]

We therefore do not consider you to be person ‘affected’ by the registration of Wiki UK Ltd and therefore entitled to request a review of our decision to register the charity or to request its removal.

Who exactly would be a person ‘affected’ by the registration of Wiki UK Ltd? Suppose you went to them with proof that you had nasty things in a BLP about you, or your child had been disturbed by pornography? Would you be affected by Wikipedia? I'd have thought so. Would you be affected by the registration of Wiki UK Ltd? No, because they didn't cause it and it was of course beyond their power to do anything about it.

Such a person would have better and more direct remedies than going after the charitable status of the group. I think the harm would need to be something like having property appropriated by the charity in its formation or someone promised membership rights/services that never came though. It is not a good thing to allow broad challenges to charitable status. In both US and UK civil society is very pluralistic and many activities of nonprofits might give offense to someone out there somewhere. But a diverse non-profit sector is still a good thing.

[Tarc]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images (T-H-L-K-D)

After closely examining the arguments put forth in each section, we have concluded that the status quo of the Muhammad article should largely be retained. For proposal 1, we found there to be no consensus to put any type of hatnote in the article. In the discussion of question 2, we found that there was the strongest consensus to put a calligraphic depiction of Muhammad in the infobox. With regards to the placement of other figurative images, we found that the current status quo -- of using figurative images of the highest encyclopedic value to illustrate important events in the subject’s life -- had the most support. This was accompanied by a general sentiment that figurative images were not necessary before the “Life” section, but would certainly be necessary after that point. However, editors should remember that calligraphic representations are the most common, and should not add images, especially figurative ones, without a clear encyclopedic reason to do so. Furthermore, there was a clear consensus to avoid any quota of figurative or calligraphic image, and to let the text of the article dictate the images used. There was no consensus for how the principle of least astonishment should apply to Muhammad.

Just as I called it quite awhile ago, the status quo is upheld.

A nice, shiny



to Somey and AssBeadGame. Better luck next time, fuckwits.

[Fusion]

Just as I called it quite awhile ago, the status quo is upheld.

I think that never was there any doubt as to the outcome. Indeed given those who were likely to take part it was easy to foretell. What has been discussed in this thread is what ought to happen in a sensible world. That they are different says much about WP, no?