Talk:Jack Thompson (activist)/Archive 11

message: Last night the picture was changed once again to the color over the B/W one, because the B/W was removed for not having a reference. I'm not fully up to date on wiki policy on this, nor how to permanently fix it, but if someone with more knowledge about such things can, is it possible to revert back to the B/W picture? It really does look much better. SanderJK 01:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My objection to the current (color) photo is that it's such a low quality image. It's low resolution and very unprofessional-looking, IMHO.  I'd rather go without a picture than the shitty color one there now.  --ElKevbo 01:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately the black and white image was deleted since it did not contain source or copyright information.  For more information on the requirements for images, see the image use policy.  You might also find how to upload images and the full list of image licensing tags helpful.  If a better picture can be found that is released under a free license, feel free to upload it, or I'd be happy to help explain the process. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 02:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand why we removed the b&w photo.  I just don't like the one we currently have. :)  --ElKevbo 03:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I did a little looking around and I'm having a difficult time finding anything for Jack Thompson thats under a free license.  Given the number of parody photos I found of him, I can understand why he wouldn't have released one, so I doubt that we are going to be able to go that route.  However, I did find two images  that are better quality than the screenshot and I believe a fair-use case could be made for either image.  The first was a photo used to promote his profile with Ambassador Agency (a firm who hires out speakers), is smaller than the orginal photo (and could probably be cropped further) and certainly shouldn't do anything to dilute his public image.  The second is the cover of his book, which would probably be better in an article about his book as the fair-use claim would be more reasonable. In any case, my vote would be for the first image - any other thoughts? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 02:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That first photo a really great find, Jareth.  I think we may have decided against using the book cover earlier.  I don't know the fair-use rules at all, but if the Ambassador Agency photo is for promotional purposes, doesn't that put us on good footing?  At the very least, it's better in quality than the TV news screenshot, which I'm not a big fan of. --Maxamegalon2000 03:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the first photo has my vote, over both of the others we've been using. Shows him pretty much as he looks now and is nice quality even for it's size. Good find.--Ryan Acheson 12:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Which picture?

message: Kansas TV April 26, 2006
http://www.ksnw.com/news/stories/12495578.html
http://www.ksnw.com/news/stories/video/12495578.html
He says the same can be said for countless other suspects including the Columbine shooters. That’s why, when Thompson saw what happened in Riverton, he says he immediately contacted authorities and gave them an affidavit telling them his knowledge about video games.
"They took that affidavit and went to the homes of some of the suspects and found some of the games I suggested they would find," said Thompson.
Thompson said authorities found Ghost Recon and other tactical fighter games. The Attorney General’s Office, which is overseeing the investigation, will not comment on any evidence or Jack Thompson’s involvement in the case.
Stars & Stripes May 5, 2006 (Middle east edition pg 14) (it's an AP story)
http://estripes.osd.mil/bin/download.php?filename=MID20505&edition=mideast
According to one of the boys' mothers, they used a warrant aimed at "violent video games", and seized "Legend of Zelda", two Spiderman games, and a copy of "Quicken".
Whoops, forgot to sign it. :) Jabrwock 18:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. So does this minimal involvement go in the article somewhere? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've found the article on the AP newswire via LexisNexis, so if we want to include it we can cite this AP source. Hegeman, Roxana. “Mother speaks out in defense of son in school shooting plot.” The Associated Press State & Local Wire, May 4, 2006. I don't know if it's important enough, though.  I knew about the interview but didn't add it before, but seeing as  his account conflicts with other national reports, that could warrant a  brief mention.  --Maxamegalon2000 00:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't it's important enough to include here.  This is already a pretty long article and I just think it would really add much.  If you disagree, go ahead and throw something out there to see if it sticks.  Or propose a draft here in Talk.  --ElKevbo 01:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That could easily (but not necessarily) wander into Original Research.  --ElKevbo 04:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also the question of the trustworthiness of the mother.  Yeah, I think we should wait until he lies on national television and the police contradict him.  -- Maxamegalon2000 04:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll keep an eye out to see what the police say they found. Which likely won't be for a while. Jabrwock 22:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of statements during Kansas TV interview? 

message: One of the many valid criticisms of the old article was that for a while it didn't even get his birthdate right, thanks to some vandalism that had gone undetected. Now you guys have managed to change it to an incorrect date again. How embarrassing. --Michael Snow 05:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While a valid complaint, it is minor.  At least it was corrected this time after there were two different dates of birth shown (most likely caused by converting to the numerical date format.)  --Sigma 7 18:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthdate 

message: I think that some one should include what gamers think of Mr. Thompson Xykon 04:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Impossible. Many gamers have different attitudes towards him; you get the mums who occasionally plays tetris that agree with him </stereotype>, gamers who really couldn't care less about what he say's, gamers who haven't even heard of him, gamers who hate him, and even those who believe that he shall endure a thousand terrifying deaths in the melancholic post-death domain of surreal inferno, while faceless horrors laugh at his dying soul with silent screams of unholy mirth. Twelve-year-olds, in other words. 86.141.179.242 19:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, as a gamer, am having to stop myself from adding to this page, because what I would add is definitely not from a NPOV. I personally want to add a death date to the article. "Died: Hopefully very soon, for the sake of humanity". But still, I think that there needs to be counterpoints to his statements reflecting the portion of gamers who know about him and the issues at hand added. I'm just not the one to do it. R.H._Jesus_Freak40 01:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some one might want to include this 

message: http://www.freetalklive.com/files/thompson.mp3
Honor of being the first guest to ever hang up on them... They were kind of hammering on him though, but he was equally interrupting them. First tries to equate violent video games with obsenity (so there's just a moral justification to restriction), but then changes tact and tries to equate them with alcohol, stating a health issue. Jabrwock 16:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FreeTalk Radio interview 

message: You'll need access to WebPACER, but it's case #06-CV-20945, Southern District of Florida (Miami)
Thompson v. Florida Bar - Cause: 18:0241 Conspiracy Against Citizen Rights
* 4/11/06 1 COMPLAINT filed
* 4/13/06 2 MOTION by Jack Thompson for mediation
* 4/25/06 3 MOTION by Florida Bar to dismiss the complaint
* 4/25/06 4 MOTION by Florida Bar to dismiss the complaint
* 5/4/06 5 MOTION by Jack Thompson to recuse judge
* 5/8/06 6 RESPONSE by Jack Thompson in opposition to [5-1] motion to
recuse judge
* 5/9/06 7 ORDER granting [5-1] motion to recuse judge and refer the
matter to Chief Judge Zloch for any appropriate action he
deems necessary; cause is dismissed; all pending motions
are denied as moot
* 5/9/06 -- CASE CLOSED. Case and Motions no longer referred to
Magistrate.
* 5/10/06 -- Case reopened
* 5/17/06 8 NOTICE of voluntary dismissal by Jack Thompson
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabrwock (talk • contribs)  16:15, 26 May 2006
:This is a good start, although there seems to be some information missing (e.g. between 5/4/06 and 5/8/06, there's opposition to recuse the judge, but it is not directly referenced in that timeline.).  Otherwise, there's no problem.  --206.24.48.1 01:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure why it's missing that part. Possibly because only the final outcome (the ORDER) is relevant to the case record, other than JT's RESPONSE... But I'm not familiar with how PACER records things. Jabrwock 15:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Then are there any sourcing problems with adding this information to the article?  I must confess I'm not a legal type so I wouldn't know.  Kasreyn 06:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm not sure how we cite legal documents, and I'd be more comfortable if the edits were made by someone who has actually read the documents, rather than the rest of us.  Unless the news picks this up, of course.  --Maxamegalon2000 18:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Florida Bar lawsuit dropped