Talk:Jack Thompson (activist)

More images?

This article feels like it's all text. Is there a chance we can add an image or two? Maybe a box shot of one of the video games that generated controversy, or a picture of the allegedly violent gameplay? 4.130.140.178 (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point, all we have now is a picture of Thompson himself. The problem will be creating or finding something for which we can craft a valid fair use rationale to be used on this page, as most video game content is of course copyrighted. And personally I have no idea how to get a screenshot of gameplay, we'll need to find someone who can manage that as well. I think it is doable though. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Pixelante again

I have nominated this redirect, which points here, for deletion. Last time it ended as "no consensus" due to only me and one other user participating. At the moment there are once again only comments from me and the same other user as last time, some fresh voices would be helpful in finding a consensus on what to do with this redirect. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 18#Pixelante. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

there was one "keep" and no "delete" (aside from the person who suggested it who didn't actually put there vote in), so you deleted it? I'm sorry but WHAT THE FUCK? 99.255.58.85 (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussions aren't a straight vote count. Deleting the redirect is perfectly valid until this article actually mentions Pixelante in some meaningful way. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it isn't a straight vote count, BUT THE VOTE WAS 1-0 in favour of keep. At that point it should at least be extended so that more votes can come in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.58.85 (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

So, by that line of reasoning, because I didn't add a bolded word at the beginning of my remarks they don't count? And one person arguing to keep is enough even if their arguments are weak and there is no mention of the term in the target article? Are you sure you understand what is meant when we say it is not a vote? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Facebook lawsuit

This section begins with "Despite his disbarment", but the disbarment isn't relevant there. He's making a pro se claim, not representing someone else's claim. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed. You are quite correct, and in fact this was already discussed in the past but some people don't seem to recognize the distinction. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It crept back in yet again last week, and I've removed it again and added a hidden comment to try and prevent it being added yet again. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Gaming Community's Opinion

I know this sounds really silly and infantile, but is it worth mentioning Jack Thompson scored number two on Screwattack's "Top Ten Douchebags In Gaming"? 202.161.29.213 (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

==I think that antagonizing Thompson with articles like that would be fantastic as he HAS been a Douchebag (most would say that this is a synonym for scumbag, shitbag, or cu*t) figure to gamers for as long as I can remember. But I don't think the moniker (or my calling him a cu*t) would be deemed 'Wikipediable' :-)

Yeah, deliberately antagonizing the subject of an article would obviously be a huge violation of the idea hat we have a neutral point of view and since that is one of the philosophical underpinnings of this entire project I would wholeheartedly agree that we shouldn't do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

'Bizarre' Filings?

I've actually had a run-in with Jack, so it might not be fair for me to decide, but I have seen some of his papers in the Florida Bar suit, and bristle at the use of the word "bizarre" in what is purportedly a neutral article. Bouldergeist (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The man was disbarred for filing frivolous lawsuits. I think bizarre is a pretty mild way of expressing how wacky some of them were. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And most importantly, it's how the Florida Supreme Court described his filings. That IS part of being neutral. Ravensfire (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)