• Has the Dark Unseen Hand of Cowardly Censorship struck at the Freedom of Speech and Heretical Parody ... ?

Someone has ... without giving any notice ... closed the flickr.com account I used wiping out all the cartoon illustrations of Wikidrama posted on this forum and avatar.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/31316934@N03/

Incidentally, "I blame rlevse" - which is what the account was called last - has been blocked from being re-registered.

If there is the support for me to continue, individuals consider the criticism to be fair and in the public interest, could I request from the forum administration an acceptable independent hosting where this is not possible?

Frankly, putting "we artistes" in the hands of corporate Molochs like Yahoo is hardly a secure option.

Thank you.

I have to admit I'm surprised. They weren't obvious copyvio, I assume. I wonder what possible justification Flickr used?

Here is the list of acceptable image-hosting sites -- you have many options. If the one you prefer is not on the list, PM Somey, Hersch, or myself and we will evaluate adding it. I may not always appreciate your humour, but I see no reason for preemptive censorship.

They weren't obvious copyvio and they were certainly a lot less pornography, or otherwise, or other flickr accounts.

I don't suppose the customer service of Yahoo/Flickr feel in anyway bound to tell me who reported the account, or why ... but one has to expect a Chilling Effect letter or email going around in the background.

Frankly, why should Yahoo/Flickr give a toss? A simple counsel's, or attorney's, letter would have given them sufficient excuse ... putting aside the thought that, surely, a proportion of Yahoo/Flickr customer service folks are bound to Pee-dia adherents, and humorless.

Its strange how they give you no notice nor warning.

What is hosting arrangement at wikipediareview.com? At least if the counsel's letters arrive, you will get to see them before pulling any offensive images.

I would, of course, agree that some of the images were a little rouge but the issue they and many others raised were poignant and ethical.

Maybe Jimbo or one of his underlings pulled strings? Flickr would give you a warning first to take down the images before doing something as drastic as that.

Not really a subject for discussion, but let's say that we've dealt (successfully) with take-down notices before. That does not represent an unconditional commitment to host anything in particular. Please refer to our Posting Rules, and also to the Forum Terms and Rules.

Just in case there is any doubt ... by "we artistes" I did mean it as self-deprecatory humor.

I'd love to find out who or what happened. How many parodies of Arnie, pirated copies of porno girls etc are out there? This was all strictly not-for-profit.

• Could it have been the image of the Tiptoety's Police Cadets friends?


I do not suspect this as yet but I would say that Jimbo's "personal power" - based on the reputation of all the work his free laborers have put in building up the Pee-dia - would be enough if he were to "have a word", as we have read in other cases.

It is not as if they have been noticed. "Having a word" could well mean sending a letter from the offices, or having the counsel fire off a legal threat.

But, who knows ...? Perhaps porn and cartoon star 'Ron Jeremy' just took offence at being associated with endorsing the Wikipedia without his permission.

If anyone on the inside cares to let us know ... please do. I am sure that many would be interested to know whether the tentacles now reach other websites.

Hmmn ...

or all that stuff about the New York Israeli Consulate financially sponsoring "leading Wikipedian" and penis photographer David Shankbone, sending him to Israel and forwarding his professional interests by introducing him to the Jewry great and good at their power breakfasts!?!

All of a sudden, the clouds darken ... whose toe have I stepped on!?!

Is there some other site where we could view these images?

Well, to be honest, I am not too upset at their loss. I had to rework them to a higher resolution anyway.

They were really only rough sketches of ideas ... but good ideas.

What is a shame is the visual mess their omission from this forum makes, and the time and energy which will be required to replace them all in their old positions.

Its interesting ... the admins of this site were first compromised by some wiki-shill trying to steal IP address off images view, and so they had to limit images from private hosting accounts. Someone had made a script that logged IPs, so that they could identify WR readers. Nice ...

Now Flickr.com obviously becomes too insecure a place for serious review.

Unless I 'know' what has gone on, I would not like to suggest ... but, at the same time, I would not trust them in the hand of some big, fat unaccountable corporate moloch again.

I'll speak to the admins of this site but perhaps it is time to go "pro" with them.

• What do folks think? Were they good or acceptable enough to warrant a domain of their own?

I rather enjoy your style CoC.

The Baryon Number of the WikiSphere is Zero

And another conjugate pair undergoes annihilation.

One might say, at 6-foot-2-inches height, that I'm "big", but I've never been called "fat". I'm quite "accountable". Not quite "corporate", being that Wikipedia Review has only a PA entity registration and a business checking account, but is not formally incorporated. I don't even know what a moloch is, so I doubt I am one.

All that being said, do you think you'd like to give Wikipedia Review a try as a hosting site?

I think we ran into some flak about it being an "auto-host" for images on WR postings, probably because users could conceivably plant their own IP tracking widgets on pages they create on Wikipedia Review, and (frankly) I'm not 100% clean regarding "spying" on IP addresses, especially those whom I determine may be attempting to critique or confound Wikipedia Review.

In summary, I'd be in your corner, legally, if you were to publish your visual artistry on Wikipedia Review... and, I think you already knew that, Cock-up.

What say Wikipediareview? Can Wikipedia Review be added as an acceptable host?

Frankly,

a) I am neither technically capable of planting 'IP bugging devices' nor so inclined ... there really is more to life than server logs.
b) there is so much shit flying around in the dark corners of the internet - especially around the biliouspedia - that we all have to accept any internet host has to keep a half an eye on such things.
c) big corporations with 'kill all' T&C's are not safe hosting.

And I fully appreciate that any individual only has so much of a stomach to deal with malicious lawyer's letters, especially when they are not getting paid to do so.

I can see how to add a poll to these post so may I ask the question ... so, who had the flickr account erased?

1) Jimbo or his minions
2) Rlevse
3) Ron Jeremy's fluffer?

It has always been the role of parody and satire to draw the darkness out into the light.

Obviously everyone trusts Greg but there are other people using that site.

Not so fast. When I feel threatened, I spill IP addresses like beads from a broken necklace!

It's up to the Review's ownership and management. I suppose we could arrange some sort of "pact" or (Moulton?) "social contract" about how I'd handle meta-data from any of Cock-up's artistic images, but it's hard to say how this one will play out.

I smell a rat. Some Wikipedia admins and admin-wannabes have been known to attempt shutting down criticism of Wikipedia on unrelated websites. It is merely a facet of their arrogant and myopic mindset that the rules of Wikipedia should be enforced all throughout the Universe.