Corax

User talk:Corax/archive
User talk:Corax/archive2

Bleh

Thanks, Corax, I've taken care of it (for now). · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 02:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT

Do you seriously believe that the organisations you have added to the pedophile category are "pedophile organisations"? If so, you haven't read their programmes. If not, you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point about the category - it may well be overly vague in its remit, but this disruption is not permitted on Wikipedia. Warofdreams talk 00:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What I believe or what my opinion is doesn't really matter (see WP:NPOV).

The difference it makes is as to whether you are adding the category mistakenly, or in bad faith.

What matters is the criteria set down on the category page. Adhering to it is not making anymore of a point than is inserting a relevant and documented fact into an article.

If you think the criteria is so overly broad that it includes organizations which do not belong, change the criteria -- don't blame me.

It is a little more complex than that. As Wikipedia:Categorization states,

"If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article? If the answer...is no, then the category is probably inappropriate." I hope you will agree that this precisely describes your use of categorisation for these articles. Warofdreams talk 00:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Revealing the private information of others is frowned upon at wikipedia. Do not do it again or you will blocked. FeloniousMonk 19:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is the written policy on this? Or are you just blocking me arbitrarily? Corax 19:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Block

Corax, you've been temporarily blocked from editing for posting another user's personal information. Please note that if you do this again, the block will be indefinite. You're welcome to e-mail me to discuss this using the link on my user page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

We can discuss this here. Where is the policy on personal information -- especially when that personal information is all but openly stated on the editor's user page? Corax 19:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The policy is, don't play silly games with other peoples personal info, if you want to be unblocked William M. Connolley 19:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, where is this policy stated? Or are you just making it up on the spur of the moment? Corax 19:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read the following excerpt from Wikipedia's harassment policy:

Posting of personal information

Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether the information is actually correct) is almost always harassment. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor or not.

If this doesn't clear things up, nothing does. 19:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

See also, Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Posting personal details

• Users who post personal details about other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely, depending on the severity of the incident and whether the blocking admin feels the incident was isolated or is likely to be repeated. .

This is the second time this user has posted personal info. -Will Beback 19:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You are lying. Corax 20:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see you indicating any remorse or acknowledgement of error. Do you realize that what you did is a major violation of Wikipedia policies? -Will Beback 21:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I know that now. When notified that it was against policy, I reverted the text to re-include the non-offensive material that was deleted, then reverted out the personal information. Then was I blocked. Go figure. Corax 22:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Who are they claiming you outed? Does the person care? Is the person anonymous on Wikipedia? Hermitian 22:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Katefan. I have no idea if she cares. And she is semi-anonymous. Corax 23:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like admins are just gaming Wikipedia because they don't like the NAMBLA article. They need to TELL THE WIKITRUTH :) Hermitian 23:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but nothing new there. As you said before: when it comes to math and science, Wikipedia is an awesome resource; but when it comes to social science and politics, Wikipedia has the accuracy of Oprah. For example, we've spent -- what? -- three months now trying to convince these people that NAMBLA is a gay/LGBT organization, a fact that they have protested vehemently. At the same time, the article about LGBT rights drops the name Jeremy Bentham (the famous utilitarian philosopher) as an early proponent of gay rights. But wait -- a quick glance at Bentham's famed essay shows that he wasn't talking about adult men screwing adult men. No! He was talking about Greek pederasty or what is today known as ephebophilia. So on the one hand, we have gays editing the encyclopedia to pursue their political agenda, pretending that the praise of pederasty issued by the great minds of the past was in fact really a lauding of modern-day "egalitarian" homosexuality. While on the other hand, they have fought tooth-and-nail to distance themselves from a traditionally pederast organization like NAMBLA. The deceptiveness behind these edits is breath-taking, yet anyone with the brains to point this out is discredited as pushing a "POV" -- or worse, the editor is blocked under some silly pretext. Then these fuzzy-sweatered, politically tonedeaf assimi-gays wonder why the AMerican public isn't buying the gay marriage argument. Ha. The self-indulgent charade of modern-day "gay rights" is transparant. Corax 23:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Corax, I have no idea what any of the NAMBLA issues are and can assure you that your block is entirely unconnected to your editing. My only concern is that you not post the personal details of any Wikipedia editor anywhere on- or off-site. If people want to be named, they'll do it themselves, and if they don't, we mustn't. If you made a genuine error because you didn't realize the seriousness of it, and if you give your word that it won't happen again, then I'm prepared to unblock you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your forthrightness. As I stated above, when I was notified that posting personal information was a violation of Wiki policy, I moved to reinstate the text of my comments that was deleted, and in the next edit to strip the content of the offending passages. Corax 23:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's fair enough. If I can have your word that you won't post any more personal details of Wikipedians on or off-site, then I'm willing to unblock you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the present infraction was the product of ignorance, it is safe to say that I will not violate the policy again. Corax 00:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm just being silly, but when I saw the Katharine Hepburn quote on Katefan's user page, I just assumed it was a gay guy who was a big fan of Katharine Hepburn, like Terrence Stamp in that Priscilla movie. I generally don't spend a lot of time trying to figure out who's behind the bits I see on my monitor. Hermitian 00:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Corax, I don't mean to press you but I really do need you to give your word that you won't reveal personal details of any Wikipedian on or off-site. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already told you that I won't. Corax 00:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

All right. I feel you're playing word games now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I often feel that all of Wikipedia's problems could be solved if we could just teach people the difference between "feelings" and "facts." Hermitian 01:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know what you're talking about. You asked me if I was going to violate this policy in the future, and I explained that I would not. If you don't want to lift my block prematurely, then I will wait 19 more hours. It's not that big of a deal. Regards, Corax 00:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Have developers been alerted so that they can remove the claim from the Wikipedia archives? Serious allegations of a defamatory nature have to be removed because archives can be assessed by ordinary members, which means that simply saying "oh its not on the page now" is no excuse if the allegation can be read in the archives. BTW Corax, you may not know but while Wikipedia is legally covered in US law, a poster of information isn't. If the personal information posted is in any way (1) defamatory, or (2) endangers someone, you personally could be sued by them. So it is in your interests to make sure whatever claim you made is removed entirely from Wikipedia records. Given that you have already been blocked for its posting, you would probably face an indefinite ban if ever repeated by you. Some users have received an indefinite ban the first time they posted information. A 24 hour ban by Wikipedia standards was extremely lenient. The matter is extremely serious. Your actions, even if unintentionally, placed you in danger of being sued and in serious danger of never being able to edit Wikipedia ever again. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Another admin has deleted the remark, which was in no way defamatory or accusatory. Even if it were, suing a Wikipedia username would be difficult -- and since my IP# is not traceable to my meat-space identity, that's what any potential litigant would be reduced to. Thanks for your concern, but the issue is dead. Corax 02:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that was done, but just check whether it was simply an admin deleting it from the text, or a developer deleting it from the archives. It needs to be the latter. The Foundation has a policy of providing all information at its disposal in the event of a legal case ever arising for defamation due to a user's edits. Obviously I didn't see what was written so had no idea how serious or otherwise it was, or whether it was defamation. But I thought it wise to alert you in case it could get you into trouble. The complication is of course that what to you or I might seem impossible to litigate over might seem otherwise to some lawyer. Comments where information is revealed about a person choosing not to reveal that information here are a legal minefield to be avoided at all costs. Hopefully the whole issue will now blow over and you can get back to editing, once that block expires. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The content was moved then deleted. Again, even if I accused katefan of committing a variety of nasty crimes, and Wikipedia turned over IP logs, a case would never get off the ground. The logs would not reveal my identity. In any case, I am not the kind of person to defame others through wild speculation, or to engage in potentially libelous and legally actionable behavior. Regards, Corax 02:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that while Wikipedia considers the posting of any personal information about a user a very serious offense, the Wikimedia Foundation will happily roll over for anyone contemplating a lawsuit, and provide them with anyone elses registration data and access logs? If this is true, I think it should be more widely advertised. Where exactly is the Wikipedia Privacy Policy located? Do you have a URL? Hermitian 02:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The grounds on which Wikipedia will release information, according to the board, are

1. In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement
2. With permission of the affected user
3. To the chair of Wikimedia Foundation, his legal counsel, or his designee, when necessary for investigation of abuse complaints.
4. Where the information pertains to page views generated by a spider or bot and its dissemination is necessary to illustrate or resolve technical issues.
5. Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers
6. Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public.

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

So five reasonable reasons, followed by a catch-all "in our sole descretion" type clause. Hermitian 03:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Another of our favorite anti-NAMBLA trolls appears to make a mountain out of molehill, and pile on. You take what is apparently an inadvertent slip of personal information about someone who almost has their entire biography on their user page, and magically, and based on absolutely no evidence but your own wishful thinking, now have people suing each other, and you're rambling on and on about "serious allegations of a defamatory nature." Good Grief, after the Justin Berry thing I swore I'd never come back to this intellectual cesspool. Why must I keep learning the same lesson over and over again. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Hermitian 01:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully Corax has a better grasp of reality and Wikipedia policy on the issue than you. Frankly, if you are thinking of leaving, good riddance. Your contributions on this page have been to your usual standards. I can't say lower because that would be impossible. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I could go back to the NAMBLA talk page archives, and post a litany of your delusional and hysterical whinings that have no basis in any reality the rest of us inhabit, and are completely non-responsive to whatever issue was being discussed at the time. Wikipedia is not the place for your personal psychotherapy. You need to "move on." Hermitian 02:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Corax, I'm going to assume good faith and take your assurances on board. I've unblocked you early. Happy editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Nambla.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Nambla.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Moh-jesus.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Moh-jesus.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Peach-herb.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Peach-herb.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)