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

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Whambo in '84.gif

The resolution really sucks! This graphics editor is capable of far better work than this mediocre crap. Please overwrite with a version that shows your true skills. Canoe1967 (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any more resolution and I'd be tempted to show more bellybuttons. There is a crowd of people, hmm, maybe a belly-button-fest-protest. :) delete ! boo ! hiss ! Penyulap ☏ 07:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. Withdraw as nominator after response from creator.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like to see it deleted, because it is finished, I know that sounds strange, but it's like a maṇḍala sort of thing, or art is a living thing, once it's finished growing and changing, it dies. I mean, look at the original concept of slapping someone with a fish, when John Cleese and his crew did it, it had something, but look at the institutionalisation of it now, the humour has been trampled into the dust under the concrete and oil stains of the highway of bureaucracy. Penyulap ☏ 08:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Metoo.gif
Images must not unfairly ridicule or demean the subject. He's not done up as a jet pilot slaughtering women and children, doesn't have the body of an octopus, isn't saying anything damn stupid either. COM:IDENT is not even a policy, it's a guideline.
So please, you embarrass yourself by not reading a dictionary first, but aside from that, on what planet is this considered to be 'negative' ? oh yes, planet you said so. Perhaps a 2 minute google of parodies of Jimbo Wales will show just what negative is. With no shortage of trolls on the project, phobias, people with their mouse in one hand and most photographed subject in the other hand, any serious work is too good for this place. I've already said it, and will say it again too good for commons, delete. Penyulap ☏ 04:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, I don't feel embarrassed. I'm sure you are right that there are worse images but that doesn't mean Commons should retain this one. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep make the trolls work for their dinner. Nothing wrong with this image. His mom wouldn't shriek in horror at those eyebrows. The look on Jimbo's face doesn't make nuns feint. Penyulap ☏ 01:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete. Still possible copyvio. --McZusatz (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
well it's PD, so it needs no attribution, and I've expanded the description in case you'd like to go looking for it. Penyulap ☏ 10:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on a second, all of the sources ARE given. I was under the impression from the diff given that the logo wasn't there, however a closer look at the diff shows that it IS there and IS attributed. Penyulap ☏ 12:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well? if it is supposed to be a copyvio, what part of it is supposed to be a violation ? more information please. Penyulap ☏ 09:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While the Parody clearly places Jimbo into his leadership capacity and is therefore a Parody of either his leadership (at a stretch) or the intended parody of wiki administration in general, I would think this page and this page may give light to the question of what Jimbo thinks of Parody. I don't know if there are others, I didn't look, and gave up asking on his talkpage when he was evasive or disinterested (I prefer to think of it as stage-fright that held his tongue :) whatever) I hardly see how Wikipe-tan could pull this one off, you just need any old face, somewhat like in 1984. Doesn't need anything else special about it, and isn't derogatory or unfair because it doesn't need to be at all, just needs to be a face on the screen and that's all it is, a copy of the face in '84 (not even wearing lipstick like in that link given). Penyulap ☏ 05:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: No real consensus to delete the file. In-use personal files fall within Commons' scope. FASTILY 08:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

TLDR. darkweasel94 12:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
  •  Delete Unused, and unlikely to be ever used in an encyclopedia article. --Conti|✉ 13:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
  •  Keep, per the unanimous decision in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. -- Cirt (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sorry mate, you must be under the mistaken impression we have all been here long enough to understand, or care about, your personal dramas. Answer the fucking question directly and stop with the rambling diatribes. Either that or go join Cirt on the Tamarian home planet because I can't understand what you two get on about. Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The DR will make another lovely public disgrace for critics of the project to enjoy. It's like crying wolf over cry wolf.image. Or trolling someone by writing troll in their blocklog. What part of 1984 politics won't apply here if it's deleted ? HA! who is writing the jokes that wiki has become. Wiki is so banally predictable I could vomit. Sociopaths have no imagination whatsoever, look it up. That's what makes the infestation of trolls and their behavior so predictable, along with the ever-falling new editor numbers. When there is no creativity left, there is only the death of the project.
You have a question ? I think you had lost the readers attention when you got to your 'self-licking ice-cream cone issue[s]'. As for getting an answer, your version of asking nicely could use a little polish. Penyulap ☏ 14:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I asked if you as the author and uploader were notable? As others have said, this file appears to have been created with a purpose in mind that is indeed legitimate satire. My concern is should we keep every file that is satirical just because the commentary is legitimate, as opposed to only those that are either notable as coming from a third party source (online magazine, news, etc) or where the artist is notable in their own right. I also have a concern that every time an editor has a beef with another participant in the project they use their familiarity here to use the site to settle scores or take digs at them. I am not saying that is the case here, as I don't know the history, but we have seen this type of behavior elsewhere. As you can hopefully see I don't care about external perceptions, I care about doing what is right in the long term for this project. If external audiences can't see that Commons is working to address some long term complaints about the "fuck-you" culture here then so be it. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're in the wrong venue to invent new policy and you know it. Go to the VP/VPP.
Wrong person. A browse through my work shows a great deal of skill and creativity, especially according to my colleagues on wiki. I also have a reputation for the firm belief that all critics, trolls, assholes and the like have no part to play in history, or as a subject of my work. They'll be forgotten by history and by me, (I have a hard time to recall their names as it is). If an artist makes the mistake of including morons in their work, then chaos ensues. Like throwing cash into a crowd or lollies to kiddies, including assholes in art makes the trolls get all excited and come out of the woodwork. Polandball is a cautionary tale along those lines.
I don't know Jimbo from a hole in the ground. Jimbo was included in my work originally for two reasons, one, it was a request. Without it being a request in the first place from someone who has done more than a thousand or something Did-you-knows, and who-knows how many articles for en.wiki, there would never have been any Whambo's. Two, Jimbo was a public figure, or at least I thought so at the time, as a public figure, commentary is considered par for the course. Today I wouldn't consider Jimbo to be popular or well-known, people get forgotten. I think he came up with a good idea originally, but the public has lost all interest in wiki and it's founder as something new and interesting. It's a ship of trolls (ship of fools) in the public eye and speaking highly of wikipedia in public is a social faux pas that says you have no freaking idea about the workings.
I've asked Jimbo what he thought of my musings, which I would expect any normal person who is the subject to find funny, but I never got any meaningful or clear response out of him. He's never expressed any dislike of my work, and his lack of humor about my art and poor response to it has been criticized by others. I'd consider it to be wasting my time to include him in anything further, and have thought so for a LONG time. He's not in the same category as trolls though, he could ask me and change my mind, whereas there is nothing trolls can do in order to be included in my art. But it would take some convincing on Jimbo's part, as he has shown he can't handle attention very well on the public social stage imho, and I don't have time for drama.
The whambo series is old history, some people seemed to find it interesting in the past and have said so, but I'd hardly call it a popular work of mine, not by a long shot. Any random award I make has had a far better reception and lifespan.
  • Considering the consistent, long-term and current attempts at trolling and bullying by Fae and Mattbuck, their attack page/personal attacks and abuse of admin tools and so on, the idea that I'd be uploading anything to commons that has a commercial value, like Sailors of Minas Geraes is absurd.
  • This nomination is just another failed attack by the pair of them. While they both have a public reputation across the Internet as being two reasons why Commons/wiki is/are failing, you can't help but think, "Hey, what a fucked up image to choose to troll Penyulap with" because it's a perfectly harmless, fair commentary about what many many people think the project is coming to on it's darker days, and the people most responsible for ruining the project are the exact ones using that exact image to produce that exact deplorable environment. I ask, who could write better irony ? 1984 was characterized by a belligerent regime that couldn't handle either critique or whimsy (like satirical whambo-artworks).
  • Fae picking this image as an attempted troll is almost as bad as the image he chose to feign an anti-semitic attack. as a personal attack against me. {insert another comment about the IRONY} I knew he was gay at the time, a lot of my friends are gay, but I didn't know he was a jew at the time, so claims I could actually care were -FAIL. Even my Gay, Jewish, and Gay AND Jewish (both) colleagues didn't believe a word Fae said. This image, a personal attack against Jimbo ? don't make me laugh. Well people, it's another false claim by the king of false claims who aggressively opposes any new policies to remove actually offensive images from commons. Penyulap ☏ 21:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep In scope per Sven Manguard and The Devil's Advocate. INeverCry 20:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Out of Scope, as self-upload by a non-notable artist. The work is also non-notable given it is not used in the main space of any project nor elsewhere on the internet. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Non-notable personal "art" (sic), created just to make a point. No educational use, except as a honey pot to catch trolls. Yann (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Whambo_in_%2784.gif&oldid=112740785"