Commons:Deletion requests/File:Whambo in '84.gif

File:Whambo in '84.gif

Out of scope. Comparing Jimmy Wales to a fictional murderous and ruthless dictator is neither kind, nor is this in use as a political parody of some sort, indeed we have better illustrations for this educational purpose at Category:Political parody. Fæ (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Keep – Per my comments at the Santorum discussion and the "Moratorium on user-generated art about living people" discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Delete - One cannot in good faith support retention of this and deletion of the Wales/Pricasso imagery. We're either going to hold all of these childish sorts of things up to COM:IDENT's "Images must not unfairly ridicule or demean the subject" standard or we're going to hold none of them to it. That this particular one is an amateur-hour cut n paste....I wouldn't even goes far to say "Photoshop", more like "MS Paint"...job is all the more reason for deletion. Tarc (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Delete Not in scope. (We miss the creator here; a good friend of me.) Jee 03:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

 Comment The basis for the request is bad guessing from a consistently bad guesser. Fae, I always try to encourage you in a positive way wherever I can, despite other editors consistent observations that you have poor curating skills. Remember this image with no apparent educational value on earth ? I put my imagination to the test coming up with things it MIGHT be used for, although, well, I don't think I'd be able to find anyone who would be convinced you know what is educational after looking at images like that, but I try to encourage you in a positive way. Political parody ? well, I guess you're stretching your imagination there aren't you, and good luck on that one. However, just because you think up some category that probably doesn't apply and think 'hey the category I just invented is incorrect' doesn't mean that you automatically list the image for deletion. You should try to have a quick look at what all the other editors think. Some have said it's a personal image, some have said it's Jimmy in art, some say it's 1984, some say wiki humour. Looking at those categories, I think we can see they have a point. Which is better for the category Jimmy in art ? I have no idea, but note these images are there.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

I'm not saying it's better or worse than other images in this non-imaginary category, I'm simply observing that is where OTHER editors have placed it. I'm glad they find my personal work useful. For the non-imaginary category of 1984, it competes with a picture of the author of the book, rather than a character from the book, but that category is quite sparse on art and is full of maps. Hmm, I don't know, but then again, it's a case of what many other editors already think and not what I think, as they have categorized the image themselves.

While some people have said there are some offensive images on commons, it can't possibly be because the 1984 image is something that you personally think is offensive, because you Fae, staunchly defend keeping ALL, even deeply offensive images, on commons.

I also don't think other editors value your judgement in things like 'kindness' Fae, as I recall, you make consistent fake anti-semitic and homophobic attacks against multiple other editors, and spend time enthusiastically participating in pages which have no other purpose except to attack other editors. I can give you diffs and examples if you like, it's no trouble at all. I just mention it because you brought the subject of 'unkind' up, and three times in your three failed requests for adminship the community has overwhelmingly said that your poor judgment is a serious problem.

@ Tarc The image wasn't created using anything as unprofessional as photoshop or whatever the other one was, those programs have an appalling reputation in the industry.

My friends are aware I'm a big fan of Gimp and Blender, both of which I used to sketch this '84 work. Blender is the primary tool for drawing movies like Elephants Dream and many others. However, no use anyone holding their breath for anything else Jimbo, as his reactions to even innocent works that feature him as a subject have been rather lack-luster, so there are too many better subjects and things to do. My work adorns the talkpages of many wiki editors, and reaches out onto the net too.

I got quite a giggle the other day running into my "what the...".gif the other day on the net, twice, first time, it was helping define oxymoron, lol. WOW I talk a lot.

So, someone thought up a category that it doesn't fit in. Hey, who can't do that >]ping[< Category:goldfish. It doesn't belong in category goldfish. Yeah, I think people can go on all day with dumb-ass categories it doesn't belong in, that's not the categories that multiple editors have placed it in. As for 'not kind', well the community said three times that Fae is the last person they want judging what is kind or unkind, so whoever wants to follow that leader, good luck to you, you're in the minority. Plus, he just can't help tampering with other people's votes, ever. (sigh). The image was only meant to be for internal humorous use, but it's nice to see many times in the past that people find it intriguing. As the people who do have a sense of humour are driven away from the project, and as Jimbo's sense of humour has always been at least 'well hidden', I guess there is less and less need of it. Make room for more smashed windscreens and number plates eh. Penyulap ☏ 11:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

TLDR. darkweasel94 12:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Twitter-sized summary, lots of editors have thought of lots of ways to categorize the image. When Fae tried, and could only copy what the artist put as a description, he double-guessed himself. So as he can't think of an actual category, all other editors and their efforts in categorizing the image count for naught apparently, then the image can't be categorized or useful. Penyulap ☏ 12:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Keep Whether it is well deserved or not (I will make no comment one way or the other), the perception that Jimbo Wales is a dictatorial ruler, that he makes harsh and arbitrary judgements, that he applies policy unevenly based on his personal viewpoints, and that he is treated with cult-leader-like reverence by Wikimedians are all frequent themes of discussion both within and outside of the Wikimedia community. This is a legitimate social commentary, and therefore is within Commons' scope. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Delete per my comment in the last DR. (still possible copyvio because one source image whambo.jpg does not exist on commons and is not linked to any other webpage) --McZusatz (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Delete - it amuses me muchly, but I think this can be deleted as being user-created artwork with no educational purpose. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Delete Unused, and unlikely to be ever used in an encyclopedia article. --Conti|✉ 13:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Being usable for an encyclopedia article is not a necessary condition for being in scope (although it is a sufficient condition). Just saying. darkweasel94 23:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Keep This is unlike the whole Pricasso imbroglio in that it is beyond dispute that this is taking a shot at Jimbo, but it is also different in that it is clearly about harmless humor alluding to common complaints regarding the culture of Wikipedia. No one would suggest this is some sort of malicious harassment. We allow this sort of inside-baseball stuff on other projects, like all them humor essays on Wikipedia, so I fail to see why these sorts of images should be any different.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Keep, per the unanimous decision in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. -- Cirt (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment Can someone explain why we need user generated works like this given it is politics internal to the project? Even getting past the self-licking ice-cream cone issue, I can't image any other organization that would support its members creating a hostile work environment like this. Perhaps if the author was notable in his/her own right or the work was notable due to prior publishing exposure then we could look at keeping it, otherwise it is out of scope. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The sole point of the DR is getting people to follow the largest public disgrace to the project in an exercise to show what an open, tolerant community wiki is, by being intolerant of any comment that suggests otherwise. Hello IRONY.

Mattbuck is the reason there is so much less professional high quality contributions from myself, see my talkpage, and Fae and Mattbuck have little else to do except troll, as they did with the attack-page they together created previously. Like the attack page, which has no other purpose except trolling, this DR has no other purpose . Very public disgraces like this one, which is being followed elsewhere on the internet, is just another in the long line of public disgraces that Fae has dragged the project into.

It is perfectly obvious in this case, as half the opposes are ignoring the policies which welcome works like this, and the other half are imagining policies which do not actually exist, and both halves are imagining maliciousness in the work which simply does not exist. This is a perfect case for the public to be pointed to and say "See, THAT is the sort of behavior which fucked up wikipedia and commons". Yep. All my professional work has been embargoed because of the abuse directed at me by Mattbuck, and here he is continuing with commons unable to regulate itself. Classic public example in the making. Penyulap ☏ 05:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)