User talk:Jamarr81

Welcome!

If you need any help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. We're so glad you're here! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

February 2024

Since you've admitted to using a sockpuppet to get around your block, I've blocked your sockpuppet and extended your block to a week. If you persist in this behavior or return to edit warring again, the next block will be a lot longer. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hammersoft. This was a confirmed joe-job.[1] I'd encourage you to reverse these actions. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you to reverse the actions. Technical evidence makes it clear that Rramaj18 (talk · contribs · block log) was an account created and operated by Architect 134 (talk · contribs · block log), an LTA and troll, in order to trick administrators into blocking Jamarr81 (talk · contribs · block log), indefinitely, for something Jamarr81 did not do. The complaint by Sangdeboeuf was reporting a deception. Your action in extending the block was based on a false premise. You have been trolled, blocking Jamarr81 for "Abusing multiple accounts" is a mistake, and I'm asking you to fix your mistake in light of the new facts and correct the record. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I [deeply and regretfully apologize for my uncouth presumptions and behaviors towards you] and cleared your block. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

Hello! Your image was inserted successfully on the page Gender bias, but because it appeared to be irrelevant to the article or violated the image use policy, it has been reverted or removed. Please use your sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Wikipedia generally doesn't use WP:AIIMAGES. Belbury (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Unfortunately, WP:AIIMAGES itself has no references or sources to support its positions. This must be a brand-new policy? This quote does seem apropos: "other categories of exceptions may arise through further community discussion."

In researching this more, I came across the Ban all AI images? discussion. The consensus there appears to be a bit more nuanced than a "blanket ban on AI images" or "the only exception allowed being self-referential." Notably, almost half of the participants were opposed to a ban, and among those in support, several noted allowable exceptions for non-biographical, non-factual images, including simple diagrams and concepts, as long as there are no copyright violations. The consensus against AI images was largely limited to biographical and factual concerns. A blanket ban was only supported by a couple participants out of ~70.

This particular image is a simple, minimalist visual depiction of gender-bias from a historical trope (blue vs pink), and all copyright has been freely waived. Since there is not a blanket ban, and there was a clear consensus for exceptions, including simple conceptual depictions, it seems like this image should stand? This image is in the public domain and aligns with the spirit of Wikipedia. {{u|Jamarr81}}^🗣⸎ 18:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the policy came in earlier this year. I agree it's still rather a vague one.

I would question the image that you'd added even if it was hand-drawn, though. I'm not sure what the closed eyes, back-to-back facing and the coloured words are actually trying to convey to the reader. A photograph that depicted a stereotype described in the text might be more useful. Belbury (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize this was already on Wikipedia, but the AI-generated image depicts a familiar trope: Gendered associations of pink and blue. To me, this is clearly and unambiguously conveyed in the AI image as a sort of dichotomy between our subconscious and the implications of color versus gender, but perhaps this is only relevant to my own culture. Now that I am aware of this page, we could reuse the lead image from there, at least in the short term until a more nuanced understanding of this policy is available. That said, personally, the visuals in that picture are more overly generic/irrelevant (running on the beach) and don't convey the "figurative concept" of gender-bias as well as the AI image, but I will grant that the description explains it well. {{u|Jamarr81}}^🗣⸎ 18:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That beach image actually seems like it could be a good illustration of gender bias, in that the viewer is likely to make an assumption about the children's genders just from their clothing colour and hair length. Belbury (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, great point. Indeed, that subtlety helps convey the notion even better. 😅 {{u|Jamarr81}}^🗣⸎ 19:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S_Marshall, apologies for the random tag, but since you were the closer for Ban all AI images? I was hoping you could shed some light on this (tangential) topic and my interpretation, for future consideration. As I describe above, it does not appear to me that the (multi-layered) consensus called for an effective ban on AI images, outside of self-references, in practice so long as it is limited to reasonable use-cases; but should I be interpreting it more as a blanket-ban outside of explicit AI-image contexts? {{u|Jamarr81}}^🗣⸎ 19:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, and thanks for pinging me!

The community's concerns are various but generally, where an image has been generated with AI assistance, the community's most tolerant of diagrams and other files that represent things in a more abstract way, and least tolerant of photorealistic images that might be mistaken for pictures of real places and people. I recommended a further discussion should take place to clarify this more, but it hasn't happened yet.

I am not the AI-generated image manager. But I wouldn't personally see your AI-generated image as the kind of thing the community wanted to ban outright. It's clearly diagrammatic and abstract in nature, and it's my personal view that if you reached a talk-page consensus to include it in one particular article, then that would be permitted, at least for the time being.

I do think Belbury raises other good and valid objections to using it, though.—S Marshall T/C 22:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding and clarifying! {{u|Jamarr81}}^🗣⸎ 01:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]