Sales event you can't miss

Start comparing new models.





============================================================================================================================ *And how do we assume good faith when images known to cause offense are being defended, especially when its not as if they can't be found on any one of a 1000 websites. Reposting them serves no value other than give the poster and its defenders a warm fuzzy "we're don't censored" feeling. Except that you do.* Reposting serves historical value, as i already pointed out. Would you argue that the adding the depictions of gods, prophets and other religious figures throughout the centuries serves no encyclopedic purpose? Why is the external availability of those image's on 1000's of other sites a reason against including them? Man could equally argue that their broad availability means that another site containing them doesn't generate a problem. Equally i would again point out that we are building an encyclopedia, which is an unbiased compendium of knowledge. If we start pre-filtering topics and content on a WP:ITBOTHERSME< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ITBOTHERSME > basis we will soon have gaps everywhere because people tend to take offense from many things. What offenses are valid enough to warrant removal? Where is the borderline between "Acceptable" and "Non Acceptable"? And again i politely ask that you cease with these personal attacks as they serve no purpose whatsoever. What do you wish to achieve? Do you intend for me to take you and your opinion serious while considering their implications, or do you prefer that i cast them aside as personal attacks? But if you are truly arguing that you deem the inclusion of these images personal attacks without any value, then i think there is little we can discuss - if you don't even believe that they might have historic value, there is no way to compromise. *The goatse images was removed for stated reasons that could equally be applied to almost any of the controversial images. That those reasons aren't applied to the other images smacks of hypocrisy.* Then what stops you from nominating these images under the same criteria? If those images classify for the same reasons the same actions should be taken - simple as that. My own views on censoring are identical for any topic - be it goatse, Muhammed, Christians, Atheists, and so on and on. If i would change alter them for certain topics it would be a clearly biased action after all. * And the defenders of these images aren't doing just that? Scrap the muslim connection just explain to this Atheist why it is imperative to display the "Piss Christ" image, when "photograph of plastic christ on cross in jar of urine " describes exactly why the work was found offensive. Just explain why the actual image is necessary and whilst you are about it explain why it is so much larger than the normal use of an image to illustrate an article?* My intention here is to have a friendly, sensible argument that may or may not reach some form of agreement (Its a mailing list, so consensus cannot really be formed here). It is natural that one defends his own stance, but trough friendly conversation at least some compromise should be reachable. As for the image on "Piss Christ": I would argue that if something sparks controversy, we should be detailing what the controversy is about. The inclusion of the image gives the reader an impression as to whether something was deemed offensive. Also, keep in mind that we are not filtering content simply because it is deemed offensive - after all, who defines what is offensive? Offensiveness inherently relies upon a judgment, and judgments are inherently PoV. As i said again and again - we should thread lightly with such images, and make sure that they are *only* in article's where a reader should expect such an illustration. If Muhammed would be on the Islam page the image should be removed. If Piss-Christ would be on a christianity article, it should be removed. As for the image size - i didn't exactly decide it should be that large, but i agree there is no reason at all to size it up. I believe that it might origionally have been upsized for layout reasons, so that the "reception" section would be entirely next to it. Since it is preferable to allow the selection of thumbnail sizes trough "My preferences" i simply shrunk the image to its preferred size. But tell me - why didn't you simply do this yourself when you made that observation? Thumb's are certainly preferable, so i don't think that changing it would count as controversial. ~Excirial On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 1:36 AM, < wiki ... @phizz.demon.co.uk > wrote: Excirial wrote: *Do you have some special browser button that enables blocking of selected images before visiting a page? Or are you advocating the global blocking of all images?* See the FAQ section on Talk:Muhammad< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad >, which contains an easy method to hide the images trough CSS, which is a permanent setting that works for all browsers. Since we are discussing that exact page, i thought you would have seen it on the talk page as it is quite prominent. Apologies for not mentioning it earlier. That only works for people with accounts that have already been offended, that speak English, that have managed to find the FAQ, and that are computer literate. IOW out of the billion or so target audience for offense, about zero. *So why isn't goatse.cx embedded on the shock site page. Gerrard says that its because there might be copyright issues but that hasn't been a problem in cases of the Mohammed images that the ace group are complaining about:* I already linked the relevant discussion above, and i have equally commented on it. To quote myself: "See this discussion< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_March_29#File:Goatse.fr_homepage.png , though it may be easier to read the summary that is available on the article talk page < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goatse.cx >. In essence the image was removed under WP:NFCC, with a sidenote that we could not reliably determine who the person being displayed on the photo was, which caused privacy concerns (As in displaying pornographic content of someone who hasn't given clear endorsement for doing so)". In other words, the image more or less suffers from a BLP issue - and you might also note that it wasn't removed because it was deemed offensive. What a complete load of twaddle. NFCC has not stopped the use of Piss Christ, nor has it stopped the use of any of the controversial Mohammed images. In all those cases a textural description of the image would suffice. The person in the goatse image is unidentifiable, and the image has been on the web for 10 years. Where are the privacy concerns? So I'm still calling bullshit, as it looks that thin justification was simply found to remove that image. *So I think I'm going to call you on being totally hypocritical on the issue of "the knowledge needs of the larger group outweigh the issues of the smaller group", because it is quite simply untrue.* If you believe that such statements will strengthen the argument you make, please do go ahead think of me like that. Personally i would argue that such comments aren't helpful at all because they only serve to create enmity between other parties, and because they scream "AGF" And how do we assume good faith when images known to cause offense are being defended, especially when its not as if they can't be found on any one of a 1000 websites. Reposting them serves no value other than give the poster and its defenders a warm fuzzy "we're don't censored" feeling. Except that you do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_March_29#File:Goatse.fr_homepage.png Besides this you might actually want to read the deletion discussion on the Goatse.sx images, so you can see the reason of the verdict for yourself - and you might actually see a reason why i am not exactly being hypocritical. The goatse images was removed for stated reasons that could equally be applied to almost any of the controversial images. That those reasons aren't applied to the other images smacks of hypocrisy. Regardless of whether or not this convinces you, i would ask that you keep it friendly. Comments such as the one you just made, along with the previous one further up (*Unless there is evidence to the contrary I'm inclined to believe that *you* have taken a knee jerk islamaphobic stance climbed up a flag p[ole and are currently waving your knickers in the air. I'm interested to see just how you are going to get yourself back down with a modicum of dignity.*) simply aren't productive. Besides, if we start labeling each other it will simply result in less sensible discussion, and more "Digging one's heels in the soil". And the defenders of these images aren't doing just that? Scrap the muslim connection just explain to this Atheist why it is imperative to display the "Piss Christ" image, when "photograph of plastic christ on cross in jar of urine " describes exactly why the work was found offensive. Just explain why the actual image is necessary and whilst you are about it explain why it is so much larger than the normal use of an image to illustrate an article? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foun ... @lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foun ... @lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Hi Gopalakrishnan, The email is pretty good. On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 02:08:48PM +0530, Gopalakrishnan Subramani wrote: Whatever technology you are using or mastered, you should know at least one nice scripting language like Python or Ruby to solve your own problems. You Python is a general purpose programming language. People have some reduced view of any language which is termed as scripting language, which is sad and gives on oblique view of the language. So, use the term 'general purpose programming language' which suits it better. Also, point to www.python.org for more information in the email. -- Senthil The man on tops walks a lonely street; the "chain" of command is often a noose . _______________________________________________ BangPypers mailing list Bang ... @python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers