User talk:Hobson's Second Choice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is what happens when you turn down an offer of sex from a bitter, jaded, and confused broad who tips the scales at a deuce and a half:
-Notice the snide tone in her voice. Reality is beckoning but she cannot bring herself to face the cruelties of the truth: She's just a fat lonely bitch!!!
Darling,
Your edits are still not NPOV, and as they are still not NPOV, they will be removed. If you're not going to read the relevant policy, I will summarise in that you cannot call Hilary Clinton a misandrist without saying that this is the opinion of someone notable (and even so it belongs on the page about Hilary), you cannot compare feminist skepticism of misandry to Holocaust denial without saying that this is the opinion of someone notable, you cannot qualify or quantify those who hold any view without reference or proof.
If you're going to want to contribute here, you're going to have to read at least a small part of how we do things around here. Your first port of call should be to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and make sure you understand it. Because whether you think that I'm being flippant or not (I'm not), and no matter what names you call me, if the edits don't conform to that one policy, they will be removed.
And if it's not by me, it'll be by someone else.
- Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view: without bias, representing all majority- and significant-minority views fairly. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable".
Dysprosia 09:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Notable to whom? Is that statement not rife with POV? Hilary Clinton is seen as the postergirl for misandry by Masculists. That's Rush, Schnitt, Hannity, et all. Are they notable enough for her?
Contents |
[edit] Christopher Reeve
Please see the talk page over at Christopher Reeve.
I'm sure there is a never-ending list of possible jokes that could be included. At some point, by including even a fraction of them we would have expanded the article by 3 or 5 times in length. Then there would have to be a process of selecting the "best Christopher Reeve being paralyzed jokes" and getting the list "down to size". And argument over which and how many and whether they were good enough and on and on.
And just what would that have to do with the person, Christopher Reeve, the subject of the article?
If you have to go on at length about the phenomenon of people making jokes of every conceivable situation, I'm sure there's an article about that here, or you could create one.
And where does that really intersect with this article?
In the mention that the phenomenon has been seen following the accident and its outcome. And how much more more than that statement is needed? Which is why I say the joke list damages the article.
Shenme 04:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Please stop adding the list of jokes to the Christopher Reeve article. It isn't needed, and it looks unprofessional. The article already explains the phenomenon in enough detail without turning into a jokebook. — sjorford (talk) 08:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- As above, please stop re-adding the list. --Muchness 04:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- HSC, I would like to suggest that you revert this edit and consider discussing the topic at Talk:Christopher Reeve#Humor section. Several people have reverted your attempts to add the list of jokes to the Christopher Reeve page, and they have explained their reasoning on the talk page. Repeating the same, or essentially the same, edit to an article many times without reaching consensus on the talk page first, is not productive. By using the talk page to explain and discuss the changes, you can prove that you are civil and acting in good faith. Once you have reached agreement with the other editors, then you can carry out that agreement on the actual article.
Per your comparisons [1] [2] [3] of addings the jokes to Christopher Reeve compared with describing Hitler's actions, here's the difference as I see it. When one describes what Hitler did, they are not doing what he did; they are describing it. When one repeats a joke about a person with a disability, they are actually telling the joke, not just describing the fact that someone else has told it. I'd like to also rephrase this another way. It is generally acceptable to describe what Hitler did, such as "Hitler killed people." However, it is not acceptable to demonstrate what Hitler did; such as getting a gun, killing a couple of dozen people, and saying "Now, see how atrocious that was? Now you understand how bad of a person Hitler was." In this latter case, the demonstrator has themselves committed murder.
Consider this description: "Jokes about Christopher Reeve include plays on the words 'walk', 'neck', 'horse', and 'chair'; as well as drawing vivid, even morbid, pictures of his physical limitations." Describing the jokes in this manner points out the problem, but does not itself ridicule anyone. Quotes of the actual jokes do ridicule, and help to further spread the injustice. If a reader needs access to specific examples, perhaps some of the words in the description could be external-linked to the actual jokes; but even then, by providing easier access to the original joke, this aids in its dissemination. We describe Hitler's actions to discourage others from doing the same thing he did; the goal of describing jokes which are considered inappropriate should be the same -- to discourage others from telling those jokes.
There are other articles which describe the injustices done to people with disabilities. Some of these could be added to the See Also list in this article. Perhaps you could contribute to those articles. However, I caution against quoting of inappropriate jokes anywhere in Wikipedia for the reasons already given above.
Thank you for listening. *Charm ©† 07:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Leaving comments on User and Talk pages
HSC, when leaving comments for another user, please add them to the user's "User talk" page, not their "User" page. For example, with this edit, you commented on User:Muchness instead of User talk:Muchness, which is where such comments belong.
Also, when adding a comment, please make sure you are adding the comment to the bottom of the User talk page, not replacing the entire page with your comment. An example of where you replaced an entire page with your comment, instead of adding it to the bottom, is here.
A couple of ways you can do this are (1) when you edit the page, scroll down to the bottom of the window and add your comment there, without deleting the text that is already there; or (2) when you click to edit the Talk page, click the [+] between "edit this page" and "history". This automatically adds what you type to the bottom.
Thank you. Charm ©† 06:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Sensenbrenner2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sensenbrenner2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jim Sensenbrenner
Please refrain from posting slanderous, untrue material. If you're posting something controversial, put up a source as well. --BaronLarf 01:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Do not replace existing images in articles with replacement images where the intention of the swap is either to provoke, offend, or push a POV agenda. Such actions can be seen as vandalism. You risk being blocked from editing Wikipedia for such an action.
Please stop. If you continue to remove content from pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --BaronLarf 20:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lou Dobbs
It is inappropriate to add POV and unsourced assertions such as that Dobbs is "American media's foremost nativist"—this is not a statement of fact, but rather a subjective characterization. Equally inappropriate is the claim that "many believe" his clashes with his former producer to be because of his "deep-rooted anti-semitism." You then stated that Dobbs has denied these assertions and cited to an external link in a footnote. The link's story, while describing the conflict with his producer, contained no reference to Dobbs addressing or denying any claims, nor did it even suggest that anyone believed he was an anti-semite. That edit of yours was misleading to say the least. Please observe our policy of maintaining a neutral point of view in the future, and make sure that you do not imply that a factual assertion is supported by a source when it is not. Postdlf 22:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] BaronLarf
I know you think. baronlarf's a dick, but don't vandalize his page. Just remind him of WP:DICK. Chris Ccool2ax 23:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Block
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. --BaronLarf 23:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:Jel.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jel.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] License tagging for Image:Juan.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Juan.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RATT
Again, the previous Hall of Fame assertions were extremely POV and completely unsupportable. There's simply no way to demonstrate the the bad is "guaranteed" admission, a fact the bulk of the current article admits in detailing mainstream critics' frequent dismaissal of much of its work. Also, what is the legitimate source for the band being of "continuing importance and influence over rock music and the United States|American music industry"? On the former claim, one or two bands claiming they like RATT's sound doesn't qualify, otherwise every band could claim similar influence. Where is the source from objective rock journalism, or the multiple sources to multiple successful and productive current bands that nod toward RATT as an influence? Also, even if sourced, the claim will most likely have to be qualified, i.e., "RATT's early music continues to be influentital for..." or "RATT's music continues to be influential for the rising generation of metal bands." For the latter claim, precisely how is RATT continuing to influence the music industry today? Have they reimagined the album format, brought legions of new fans to a small genre, returned the genre to its roots in live performance, pioneered downloading, etc.? Finally, the claim that the band is "rivaled" only by Nirvana, GnR, Metallica, and Def Leppard appears tremendously vague and incredibly overblown. First, rival in what way? In terms of influence or historical importance, the band isn't even close to being regarded alongside Nirvana. In terms of album sales in the 80s, Def Leppard far outstrips them; in terms of album sales today, Metallica far outranks them. In fact, to claim that the band is "only rivaled" by this handful of bands implies that RATT sits atop a hill onto the peak of which that the other mentioned bands occasionally nudge their way. It appears you've had problems in the past in terms of NPOV, and been blocked twice before for failing to adhere to the community's rules. I sincerely hope we're not headed down that road again. --Patchyreynolds 17:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Jel.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jel.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Muchness 02:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
