This sounds like a fake website that Kitboga would make up for scambaiting.

some mf really threw an entire hog carcass into a blender and said “yea let’s sell that as food. Great.”

“Dead animal in my dead animal? Revolting.”

I didn’t know what a meth den smells like until I saw this picture of Kid Rock.

“Too bad [some shit I just made up with no empirical evidence].”

sitting in a wall-e chair chugging Alfredo sauce

This is an unfair and libelous depiction of my utopia where I sit in a Wall-E chair chugging Alfredo sauce with, I’ll thank you to remember, fettuccine noodles mixed in.

I want a world where I can use those things without doing irreparable damage to my body and mind. I can fantasize about them when divorced from the practicalities.

I do want the Wall-E chairs, but I would never actually accept them. It’s like how I want a 20-liter bucket of fettuccine Alfredo, but I would never accept and eat one.

My pool is as boundless as the sea,

My love as deep; the more I give to thee,

The more I have, for both are infinite.

Once Egypt’s wives stole chancla techniques from Latin America and repurposed them for use with thick, leather sandals, they became unstoppable.

laugh track

At random:

• We maintain a nuclear bomb of a party trick for nerds, which is a list of unusual Wikipedia articles.
• We have our own newspaper.
• If you go to “View History” on an article, there’s a link called "Page Statistics that does what it says.
• We keep a list of perennially discussed sources which can often be a decent litmus test for source quality.
• We explicitly have stricter guidelines for sourcing in medical articles.
• There’s a specific guideline about living people notable only for one event.
• Many single-sentence species articles you see were generated years ago by a bot. Any formally described eukaryotic species is automatically considered notable enough for its own article.
• Wikipedia has portals which act as landing pages for different subjects.
• Administrators aren’t glamorized or self-important like is often aasumed outside Wikipedia. They have a mop badge, are voted in, have strict codes of conduct,, and only number about 800. When people complain about admin abuse on Wikipedia, 99% of the time in my experience it’s sounded like a regular user (who, with few exceptions, has every right to do this) didn’t like their edit and reverted it – but they assumed that was an administrative act.
• Wikipedia has varying levels of protection for articles. Extended protection, requiring an account with 500+ edits and 30+ days old, is the highest one you’ll normally see for highly controversial topics like Donald Trump, ongoing international conflicts, etc. The exception to this is the Burger King Whopper, which was extended protected for nearly a decade after Burger King tried to abuse Wikipedia for a commercial and caused a tsunami of vandalism.
• There are awards.
• I think everyone should try Wikipedia’s sister projects at least once. The English Wiktionary, for example, is a fantastic everything-to-English dictionary.
• A huge chunk of our species images comes from iNaturalist.
• Thanks largely to one insane editor, Wikipedia is the greatest single resource on New York City architecture ever created, and I would bet my life to a pack of chewing gum on that.
• The “Did You Know?” list on the front page isn’t just random facts. An article can only be nominated to be there seven days after it’s created, expanded by 5x, or promoted to Good Article status (99% of the time it’s the second or third). So usually, clicking on the article, you’ll find a niche subject that someone very recently put a ton of passion into researching and writing.
• There’s a beginner-friendly Q&A forum called the Teahouse.
• Most media used on Wikipedia is hosted on our sister project, Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia itself. Exceptions are usually fair use material.
• There are new page patrollers who can clear new articles for indexing by search engines.
• There are three types of article deletion: speedy, proposed, and articles for deletion (AfD).
  • Some articles meet very narrow criteria and should be deleted as soon as possible without discussion, in which case an editor can nominate them to be checked by an admin.
  • A proposed deletion, or PROD, happens when an editor tags an article as such and leaves an explanation. Anyone can remove the tag for any reason, and a PROD can never be placed on that article again. If the tag remains up after seven days, an admin will read the PROD and decide if it’s valid.
  • Articles for deletion (AfD) is what you’d probably think of. Someone nominates an article for deletion, and for at least seven days (often more if there’s no consensus, and rarely less per a snowball clause), the article is discussed – usually on the grounds of notability. It’s not a vote, but people do summarize their argument as “Keep”, “Delete”, “Merge”, “Redirect”, etc. The discussion is reviewed by an administrator who has (basically) final say and has to decide on the most compelling argument in terms of guidelines and policies – although it’s very rare for them to noticeably break with the overall discussion.
  • Articles deleted by PROD or speedy deletion can be readily recreated, while those discussed at AfD cannot – those need to overcome the discussed concern.

Is there a rule against using filtered images?

No,* although I was referring to why the image as-is wouldn’t be used. Images sometimes undergo minor editing for things like color correction, watermark removal, etc. It’d be preferable if the original image didn’t have the red eye, but the correction isn’t a huge deal. The poor lighting is the much more severe issue.

* There are different levels of “rules” on the English Wikipedia. I’d categorize them into “policies with legal considerations”, policies, guidelines, the Manual of Style, and norms.

• Policies are widely accepted Wikipedia standards everyone has to abide by like “verifiability”; the ones with legal considerations are even more serious like “libel”.
• Guidelines, like “offensive material”, are best practices supported by consensus that editors weigh when making decisions. Often more specific than policies.
• The Manual of Style does what it says on the tin and answers your question about red-eye correction. It’s concerned with nitty-gritty technical stuff like when to use certain punctuation, how long a lead section should be, etc. Everything everywhere must abide with few exceptions, although the MoS is so extensive that things slip through the cracks all the time – usually inconsequentially.
• Norms are informal standards outside of policies and guidelines that editors (sometimes only in a specific subject field) usually agree on. As a specific example, most major cities of the world have a collage showing different landmarks, but this isn’t written anywhere. Wikiprojects (collaborations over a specific field, e.g. astronomy) often have their own best practices for their specific fields. And there are “essays” – which are opinion pieces editors can easily link to that often describe norms (they don’t have to; they can just be an editor’s pet peeve) but which aren’t binding. A classic example of the essay is about “coatrack articles”.

I actually can’t speak to Reich’s experience, as I hadn’t heard about this before; the only information I could find on it is this Reddit post which states somebody tried to upload his incompatibly licensed photo from IMDb. The citation in this image is to a members-only Game Changer video.

The steps are straightforward and should go as follows:

• Make sure the image you’re going to use can be licensed under a compatible license – generally CC BY-SA, CC BY, or CC0 (public domain). If somebody else took it, make sure you have their consent to freely license it. Written consent is preferable if you’re afraid it could be challenged.
• Make sure the image is better than the original if one already exists. If you’re doing this in good faith, this next part probably shouldn’t apply, but: make sure it doesn’t violate guidelines on promotion, (superfluous) vulgarity, etc.
• On Wikimedia Commons, add metadata to the image such as the date taken, the author, etc. then publish it.
  • In the case where you’re uploading your own headshot which you intend to use on Wikipedia, the description should probably state that you, the user, are also the subject (especially if the author is someone other than you).
• Now to get it onto Wikipedia, you’ll swap the current infobox image out for the one on Commons by just changing the string in the ‘image’ parameter of the infobox template.
• On a technical level you’re done, but on a social one, Wikipedia does also require COI disclosures and heavily discourages editing about yourself, so it’s a good idea to go to the talk page and clarify that you’re the subject, that you changed the image, and why you changed the image (if one existed before).

So to your question: I can’t really say, because it doesn’t seem like a difficult process, and I don’t know how/if Sam Reich’s experience deviated from it.

Edit: TIL we have an actual guide for this.

Like everything on Wikipedia, it’s a communal thing that’s decided by consensus based on preference and guidelines. In this case, here are reasons why the image wouldn’t be selected over the existing one:

• The image in the OP likely isn’t released under a compatible free license (rule of thumb is that CC BY-SA is the most strict you can use). As the subject is living or suitable free alternatives exist (in this case, both), it cannot be argued as fair use (even if it were fair use, the image’s resolution would be heavily scaled down). This would preempt anything else and immediately disqualify it.
• The current image has only Ratner center frame against a plain background, whereas the image in the OP has Ratner off to the side with three other people against a cluttered background. A portion of Ratner’s face is hidden behind a woman’s hair, whereas most of it is captured in the current image.
• The image in the OP has distracting digital markup – block censorship and an unnecessary red circle around Ratner’s face (the red circle would be left to the caption, something like “Brett Ratner (right)”).
• The lighting in the OP is much worse than in the current image and even gives the subject red-eye.
• The OP image is both lower-resolution and captures less of the subject’s detail.
• The image in the OP would violate neutral point of view (NPOV) by nature of intentionally using an image whose depiction of the subject is worse in every way just to get him in frame with Jeffrey Epstein.

For a living person, the considerations are mostly what you’d expect for any other application, namely: is the copyright compatible? is it neutral? does it capture the subject well? is it well-composed? it it high-resolution? since the subject is alive, is it fairly recent in order to capture how they look now? does it capture how the subject typically looks and/or something the subject is known for? Here’s what the Manual of Style has to say on image selection broadly.

Hi. Longtime Wikipedia editor here to be a buzzkilling fogey and say “no” – and not even (just) for the reason you think. AMA about Wikipedia infobox images.

He looks like the bastard child of Ron Swanson and Tom Haverford after a three-week coke binge.

Well when you put it that convincingly, assuming women’s vaginal odor is supernaturally pronounced and something everyone you meet is unrealistically preoccupied with and disgusted by – a belief plausibly tied into childhood trauma – doesn’t sound like body dysmorphia at all.

I’ll put up the DSM-V’s criteria here which are similar to the ICD-11’s.

I don’t see anything else better describing this ©*, and it evidently causes significant distress (B), because a) they’re saying it does, and b) this mindset would obviously be highly distressing.

(A) is slightly complicated by the fact that, in this paranoia, she thinks she’s the exception among women. It’s still a deeply negative, unhealthy preoccupation with a body part that she thinks she’s constantly judged by others for but in reality probably never has been; I think any psychologist would recognize this as a minor variation on typical BDD.

* There might be comorbid gender dysphoria, but that doesn’t fully explain this specific paranoia.

This sounds like body dysmorphia, to be blunt.

AutoZone fucked my dad. (It’s the first retail estblishment that came to mind.)

Well except “no” because the shortening is just an added bonus from the main benefit which is to make it generally more accurate. “My PC” unfixes it.