@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) As you can see, a block by a rude and incompetent admin has made sure I cannot respond to you on Jimbo's talk page, but the reply to your point I would have made there is: Unless you know for sure that Kim Jong-un is going to visit Russia anytime soon, if at all, then no, it's not reasonable, because that's the only source of free images of his father that Wikipedia has. And given the whole point of the NFCC is to persuade people to take the steps to create free iamgery themselves - it hardly seems likely that the Foundation intended the foreign policy decision making of North Korea to be any part of that equation at all. Krypto9 (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
@Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) Pinging you Jimbo, just in case you don't notice that admins are silently blocking people who come to your talk page with requests/queries about Wikipedia. Krypto9 (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Krypto9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Where to begin with such an abusive and incompetent block? Let's start with the obvious - being a sock is not grounds for immediately blocking. Let's also ponder the much vaunted but frequently ignored concept of 'assume good faith' - and the fact the cowboy admin who blocked me for being an "obvious sock of someone" didn't even bother to ask me first if I was or not, or even have the common courtesy to tell me he had blocked me. Krypto9 (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
For someone who says 'Let's also ponder the much vaunted but frequently ignored concept of 'assume good faith' ', comments like "cowboy admin" and "rude and incompetent admin" certainly show a distinct lack of good faith - and aren't going to get you unblocked: indeed, your comments above just makes it clear, if it wasn't already, that this is indeed an account that was created to avoid scrutiny. The Bushranger One ping only 21:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Krypto9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Can I please have this out of policy and wholly bad faith block reviewed with someone who knows what they're doing, and can actually read and understand what another person writes in their unblock request? It's beyond idiotic to be told that you're "obviously" here to evade scrutiny because you're mad at being blocked for "obviously" evading scrutiny. Seriously, just how stupid do you have to be to get the job of admin on Wikipedia? If I am not going to be unblocked just because I'm mad at being blocked for no good reason, then just say so - don't pretend like there is any other reason for this block other than your hurt pride at being yelled at for doing such a poor job in the first place. Krypto9 (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is not your first account. I am turning off talk page access and you can post using your other account, or post an unblock message there if you are blocked on that account. Peripitus (Talk) 11:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) / Mark Miller (talk · contribs). Yes, contacting people to see if they will give you an image is a possibility, but can you please note that this is a long way from the arguments Masem and others have been using, which have been no more nuanced than 'he gets photographed a lot, so a free image is bound to turn up eventually'. It's also quite unrealistic when it relies on you being a friend of the person - I'm sure you can understand why most Wikipedia volunteers who aren't named Jimmy Wales who contact press agencies or profesional freelancers to ask them if they would like to give away for free what they presumably expended a lot of time and effort in creating, don't get any response at all. Can you also note that this is hardly the first time anyone has thought of contacting copyright holders for donations - it hasn't been a successful tactic for several years, and I'm sure you have better things to be doing than personaly sourcing free imagery for all the currently blank articles on Wikipedia about extremely important people, like the current leader of North Korea. As for Dennis Rodman, is he really going to want to help Wikipedia illustrate the article about his friend? Not if he reads it I wouldn't have thought. Krypto9 (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
@Cullen328 (talk · contribs) You would probably understand better if you took the time to think about just who those people are who are taking the photographs at these various meetings with Kim Jong-un. They are not Wikipedia volunteers, they are not citizen journalists, they are not members of the public. They are professional photographers, either freelancers, or employed by a press agency or an official body. The reasons why those people (or more accurately, the people who own the copyright of their work in the case of employees) aren't likely to just give away their work, are pretty obvious, no? If it was that easy to obtain photographs from those sorts of sources when there is absolutely nothing in it for them at all (quite the reverse in the case of commercial press/photo agencies), then Wikipedia would be a whole lot better illustrated than it is currently. Maybe if US government works were not public domain, maybe if you looked to see just how many Wikipedia articles rely on that for all of the their images, maybe then you might appreciate the gravity of what you're trying to claim is just an issue of practicality in situations like this. Krypto9 (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)