User talk:Brandoj

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Rhobite 04:19, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gamaliel 04:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

-- Ok guys, the only reason I added that picture is b/c i feel it is far more expressive of his home and personal interests than is a flavorless image of him giving a crowd a thumbs up with his wife. Would you rather me go for a picture of him on a bike or windsurfing? If you are up this guy's anus keep it to yourself, this is a community area after all.


 * It was disruptive of you to upload it on top of an existing image, and put in a silly caption. If you really think the football image should go in the article, please bring it up on the talk page. Please keep in mind that we're attempting to write a serious encyclopedia. This isn't a message board for laughing at funny pictures. If you replace the image again you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Lest you accuse the community of partisanship, we came down strongly against including the picture with George W. Bush making a "chimp" face. Rhobite 04:48, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll simply add it to the page without overwriting the existing image - I did not pay close enough attention to that picture's dependancies. I think the corrected caption is sufficient, "John Kerry plays football on the campaign trail in 2004." As to the humor value, again, I'm unsure what you mean. The article already clearly discusses other personal hobbies and sports interests, and indeed this was one sport in particular that he made multiple attempts at photo-oping during his campaign. Whether a serious reader would find it so funny as to detract from its inherent informative nature, i seriously doubt - and again, i believe it is far more expressive of his personal interests than him and his wife thumbing a crowd. George Bush "chimp" faces are just gratuitous (unless they were under a section entitled presidential humor) - and i doubt seriously if the community cracked down on a picture of George Bush playing football or some other sport when displayed in reference to personal interests.


 * You've been blocked for editing for vandalizing the article with that silly picture. You're welcome to come back after the block expires if you edit productively. Rhobite 05:03, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked you from being an ass. You may no longer vandalize this page with your edits. Come back when you can be less dismissive of relevant pictures as "silly"

When Blocking Should NOT Be Used

The list above is widely considered to be an exhaustive list of the situations that warrant blocking. Blocking should not be used in any other circumstances, unless there is exceptional widespread community support.

Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute, and self-blocking to enforce a Wikiholiday or departure are specifically prohibited, although the latter was somewhat common earlier in our history. Likewise, users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict.

Sysops should not block themselves (to enforce a "vacation" on themselves, for instance) because the resultant "autoblock" may affect other users (see Effects of being blocked, below), unless they know what they're doing (i.e., they have a static IP).

I guess I lost this content dispute by getting blocked


 * You vandalized the article after you were warned. What did you expect would happen, ice cream and puppies? Rhobite 05:21, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

You think that adding a more expressive picture of the guy's home and personal interests is "vandalism." Now obviously if someone is blinded by administrative power, they might not see how anybody can disagree with their viewpoint -- but in any event i think the reasons for adding the picture were appropriate and well reasoned, and certainly constituted a content dispute as explicitly forbidden as a reason for blocking.

I have also noticed that the current picture under the home life & interests section is an unobjectionable picture of him on a hunting trip -- would this have been disallowed if I had done it?

vs.

I guess the real problem is that the page wasn't really a community edited item, but rather a conduit for censure by admin. The only way I can get something changed is trial and error?