User talk:Dbachmann: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) |
Suckabloke (talk | contribs) sp |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
: Every single one of your arguments above seems to be predicated on the assumption that the picture is innately offensive, whereas a large minority of editors have voted it suitable for inline display. You also argue that the disruptive effect can be mitigated by taking a step that would reduce the utility of the image. This is unacceptable for any encyclopedic image. We have a thumbnail facility in the image tag for performing the task of reducing the size, if and when it is needed. The way to tackle abuse of Wikipedia is to stop the abusers, not remove information from the website. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
: Every single one of your arguments above seems to be predicated on the assumption that the picture is innately offensive, whereas a large minority of editors have voted it suitable for inline display. You also argue that the disruptive effect can be mitigated by taking a step that would reduce the utility of the image. This is unacceptable for any encyclopedic image. We have a thumbnail facility in the image tag for performing the task of reducing the size, if and when it is needed. The way to tackle abuse of Wikipedia is to stop the abusers, not remove information from the website. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
||
*** '''Traurig aber wahr''': |
|||
=='''Tony Sidaway (likes it up his RUMP side a'ways!) is very preoccupied with this sort of subject, obviously!'''== |
|||
Revision as of 11:38, 13 March 2005
- archive1: 19:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) – 18:26, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- archive2: – 04:10, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- archive3: – 08:23, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- archive4: – 09:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- archive5: – 2:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
size matters?
this is ridiculous. The balance of usefulness to annoyance of this image is tilted so much towards annoyance that it's simply reckless to claim it should be as big as possible. I'm sorry but I cannot believe that you defend this disruptive and probably copyvio'd image in all honesty. If we cannot get rid of it if some people are so much in love with it, or with getting their way, reducing its size is the least we can do to reduce its potential for abuse. dab (ᛏ) 11:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Every single one of your arguments above seems to be predicated on the assumption that the picture is innately offensive, whereas a large minority of editors have voted it suitable for inline display. You also argue that the disruptive effect can be mitigated by taking a step that would reduce the utility of the image. This is unacceptable for any encyclopedic image. We have a thumbnail facility in the image tag for performing the task of reducing the size, if and when it is needed. The way to tackle abuse of Wikipedia is to stop the abusers, not remove information from the website. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Traurig aber wahr: