User talk:Friginator/Archive 3

Everything should be fine now. I'm not sure why it was removed from the article, but I restored it. --Friginator

Hi Friginator. I have restored File:Fc-04 darkseid.jpg. Please remove the deletion tag from the page once you have added the file back to its respective article. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• The actual vote where the majority of opposition was established: [1] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have protected the page from editing for a week. Additionally, I would like to reinforce AzureFury's note above. This is settled policy on the particular page, that inclusion of the name here is not OK. Edit warring to restore it is technically a blockable offense. I am protecting the article for a week to let things calm down rather than impose restrictions on you or anyone else for having done so - but ongoing edit warring over the name inclusion is not OK. This has to stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars Kid

• Hey,

I edited the List of Internet Phenomena to take the name off Star Wars Kid.

I now understand why you reversed the edit; you obviously know the guidelines of Wikipedia

more than I.

Do you mind editing the Star Wars Kid page to include his name, as you can also explain to everyone on the talkpage the reason.

Thanks

Thompson.matthew (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Um, NO.

The warning above and at

Talk:Star Wars kid

applies and also to the Internet Phenomena article / list.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• So what are you trying to say? Should the name be included or not included?

138.217.236.119 (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Not. See
  WP:BLP1E policy and other considerations are in effect. This has been subject to previous reviews and a solid consensus to remove the name stands. Georgewilliamherbert (talk
  ) 06:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly I'm powerless to do anything in this situation, but I would like to make it clear that I still see no reason to censor a man's name from his own biographical article. No one has been able to give me a solid reason. Every explanation is just a link to a long, meaningless discussion or a policy that could be interpreted a thousand different ways. No coherent answers have been given. I had no idea that administrators could even enforce decisions like this on Wikipedia, which is supposed to be an open, unbiased collection of known information, not an unreliable caste system where a vague definition of consensus or a nudge in a different direction is enough justification to override common sense. And censoring my comments on the subject is simply not appropriate when I am not in violation of any policy. Much of the censorship in this situation seems to be about proving a point or intimidating editors, rather than improving Wikipedia. And if his name is going to be censored on the

List of Internet Phenomena, the item in question shouldn't be in the "People" section. That should be a list of actual peoples' names. We don't list presidents under names like "Tricky Dick" or "Honest Abe," so replacing facts with arbitrary labels shouldn't be done either. Friginator (talk

) 02:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Please read the on-going discussion on the talk page for explanations of why other editors have agreed that the name shouldn't be used. If you revert to include the name in your talk page comment again, you may end up being blocked for disruption. Instead, please join in the actual discussion or if you don't feel that you can make a difference, it might be better to just take the page of your watchlist so it doesn't keep annoying you. Shell ^babelfish 03:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• I respect your opinions, though I disagree with them. Please return the courtesy by respecting the opinions of others that
  disruptive to [[WP:POINT|prove a point]. --Slp1 (talk
  ) 03:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for hearing me out, but I am doing nothing disruptive of any kind. I am only keeping other editors from editing my own comments. This has nothing to do with my personal opinions or consensus. I do not want my words changed, and there is no good reason to change them. There is no policy to validate the censorship of harmless opinion. Friginator (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• See the
  WP:CENSOR concern if we don't use his name on the talk page. AzureFury (talk | contribs
  ) 04:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not using his name on the talk page. I'm just trying to make sure my words aren't altered. I used it once and you're acting as if I'm intentionally saying his name over and over to cause some sort of disruption. And once again,

WP:BLP doesn't contain anything relevant to this discussion. Friginator (talk

) 04:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• By repeatedly replacing the name even though a number of other editors have removed it and tried to discuss it with you, you are being disruptive. Things you may be missing in a cursory read of the BLP policy include: "to any Wikipedia page" (i.e. talk pages, even user talk pages are not exempt), "with regard for the subject's privacy", "it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment.", and "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." These are the bits of the policy that other editors have been trying to point out to you. You're certainly welcome to disagree, but if so you need to discuss changing/updating the policy, not just ignore it. Shell ^babelfish 05:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not censor my comments without good reason or sound explanation. Of course I have read the policy that has been cited over and over again. That doesn't make it right. No one has explained to me how any of the policies cited applies to this. Saying his name (which is public knowledge, and appears in multiple sources) in a comment on my talk page isn't aiding in anyone's victimization. None of this is. I find it very, very unlikely that someone naming him on just one comment on just one site could cause him actual harm when his name has been posted all over the internet and the news. He's a well-known internet celebrity. His name appears in court documents that have been released to the public. How is avoiding his name like the plague here changing anything? Friginator (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry its come to this. I understand that you may not agree with the policy but other editors have made numerous lengthy comments both here and on the article talk in an attempt to explain things. Just because other sites or sources have done something doesn't require Wikipedia to handle the issue in the same manner. It might help to read the new FAQ on the talk page and see if that helps your understanding.

  Despite the notes from other editors warning you, you've continue to re-insert the name here, so I've blocked you for a period of 24 hours. Since the violation is occurring most frequently here, I've had to restrict your talk page access for now - if you'll indicate that you will stop re-posting the name(even if you don't understand or agree), I'll be happy to unblock you. Shell ^babelfish 05:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I posted my message above and then went to bed, and I am also sorry to see that it has come to this. In a group project like this, individual opinions can be respected, but community consensus needs to be respected too. Multiple editors, administrators (and even two incoming arbitrators!) have indicated that posting the name is inappropriate and unnecessary anywhere on WP per BLP. You have every right to disagree, but repeatedly restoring the name to your comments, when there are BLP concerns and when the name adds nothing to your argument, is indeed

being disruptive to prove a point

. If you disagree with the consensus about this matter or the various policies and guidelines, work to change them. A much more productive course in the long-term.

I imagine you know this, but you if you want to be unblocked then you can email Shell_Kinney from her talkpage; or you could email [email protected] . For the former, you'll need to enable email in "My preferences" first; many WPians have a dedicated account gmail or hotmail account for the purpose. --Slp1 (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Friginator. You have new messages at Fastily's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Category:Biblical figures portrayed in Jesus Christ Superstar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  bot
  , and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.