Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ Editors _ Mcrazychick's "user" photo bugs Jimbo...

Posted by: the fieryangel

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mcrazychick&diff=next&oldid=177991468, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mcrazychick&diff=prev&oldid=178618986

Jimbo then http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mcrazychick&diff=178619160&oldid=178594398

QUOTE

== I removed the image from your userpage ==

Don't put it back. And you are on very thin ice here. I recommend to all admins that you be blocked very quickly in case you cause any trouble at all. This is a project to create an encyclopedia, not your personal playground.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales|talk]]) 00:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mcrazychick&diff=178652043&oldid=178619160 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mcrazychick&diff=178652096&oldid=178618986

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mcrazychick#Image:Boyfriends_work.jpg_listed_for_deletion

Now, I do not believe for a second that the photo posted was that of the user in question, but Jimbo's self-righteous response comes off as rather smug for a former porn site operator. Plus, everybody knows that Wikipedia is not censored and that you can see much worse in the mainspace and commons, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Orgasm_1.ogg and this delightful http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ejaculation_educational_ani_short.gif

Is Jimbo starting to get a bit conservative in his moral views or is this another thing that Mike Godwin has started to enforce?

In any case, the attitude change here is pretty interesting....


Posted by: the fieryangel

Looking at her http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20071214063202&target=Mcrazychick, this is an obvious sock puppet of somebody. "Her" first edit is to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mcrazychick&diff=prev&oldid=177833191http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Remiwasx&diff=prev&oldid=177833569
And then http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Misza13&diff=prev&oldid=177834146

QUOTE

== Question ==

I have noticed you have been deleting a whole lot of pages recently, how do you do that? And how would i? thank you,

[[User:Mcrazychick|Mcrazychick]] ([[User talk:Mcrazychick|talk]]) 06:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


Still, I find the whole thing pretty amusing....

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Jimbo Wales)
"There is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute." --Jimbo Wales


It sort of begs the question of what else falls under the broad rubric of "material likely to bring the project into disrepute."

Posted by: the fieryangel

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 18th December 2007, 4:17pm) *

QUOTE(Jimbo Wales)
"There is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute." --Jimbo Wales


It sort of begs the question of what else falls under the broad rubric of "material likely to bring the project into disrepute."


Good point.

In case this is deleted, the image was also added to commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Boyfriends_work.jpg

Posted by: guy

If it's in Commons then of course there's no point in having it on Wikipedia as well. And while Jimbo's writ no doubt runs on Commons too, they're unlikely to delete a photo purely on his say-so.


Posted by: the fieryangel

QUOTE(guy @ Tue 18th December 2007, 9:16pm) *

If it's in Commons then of course there's no point in having it on Wikipedia as well. And while Jimbo's writ no doubt runs on Commons too, they're unlikely to delete a photo purely on his say-so.


It was moved to commons from Wikipedia since it was considered to be useful.

I suppose that, yes, it is indeed useful...but I'm too polite to say what it's useful for....

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 18th December 2007, 8:53am) *

and this delightful http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ejaculation_educational_ani_short.gif


This just cracks me up.

If it was obtained from some institute........ maybe. But the disgusting horror of some user (mister Shadow69, a SPA) adding this online in some kind of sick voyarism move.......


Ugh.

Posted by: the fieryangel

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Tue 18th December 2007, 9:43pm) *

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 18th December 2007, 8:53am) *

and this delightful http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ejaculation_educational_ani_short.gif


This just cracks me up.

If it was obtained from some institute........ maybe. But the disgusting horror of some user (mister Shadow69, a SPA) adding this online in some kind of sick voyarism move.......


Ugh.


What I find the most amusing is the fact that it's an animated gif, so he's been ejaculating on WP constantly since the .gif was uploaded.

What is truly scary is that there are multiple people who had done this for the good of the project...When Wikipedia is finally defined as a cult, this is going to be pretty important evidence as to how far people were brainwashed....

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 18th December 2007, 2:50pm) *

What is truly scary is that there are multiple people who had done this for the good of the project...When Wikipedia is finally defined as a cult, this is going to be pretty important evidence as to how far people were brainwashed....


Please. There's a lot of weirdos different kinds of people who would love to have their privates-in-action online on the 8th most visited site in the world. Imagine the voyeurs notarity that garners.

The cult didn't make this guy do it. He would have done it somewhere else if not here.

Its just that here, he can call it art encyclopedic content.

Ha.

Joke's on us.

Posted by: the fieryangel

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Tue 18th December 2007, 9:57pm) *

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 18th December 2007, 2:50pm) *

What is truly scary is that there are multiple people who had done this for the good of the project...When Wikipedia is finally defined as a cult, this is going to be pretty important evidence as to how far people were brainwashed....


Please. There's a lot of weirdos different kinds of people who would love to have their privates-in-action online on the 8th most visited site in the world. Imagine the voyeurs notarity that garners.

The cult didn't make this guy do it. He would have done it somewhere else if not here.

Its just that here, he can call it art encyclopedic content.

Ha.

Joke's on us.


http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Publicgirluk

Was she on the level or was it a practical joke? In any case, there's still plenty more where that came from on WP...

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 18th December 2007, 1:06pm) *
http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Publicgirluk

Was she on the level or was it a practical joke? In any case, there's still plenty more where that came from on WP...
It turned out that the photos purporting to be her were of a Swedish porn star. Whether she was in fact PublicgirlUK is unknown, but very doubtful.


Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 18th December 2007, 9:53am) *

... and this delightful http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ejaculation_educational_ani_short.gif


Wasn't it just December 7th that Jimbo was reported to have said that teachers who block access to Wikipedia are "bad educators"?

I wonder, at which grade-level does a teacher blocking access to the ejaculating animated image continue to be a "bad educator"? Is this image okay for fifth-graders, Jimbo? How about third-graders? First grade, maybe?

Maybe I should perform a legal test and expose my teenage niece to this image, while videotaping for YouTube her reaction to it. Then, you all could watch as my wife videotapes me being carted off to jail on a felony charge of exposing a minor to pornography. Then, we could monitor how bravely Jimbo, Sue, Mike, FloFlo, Erik, JzG, Durova, Gerard, and Calton all fight for my "right" and my niece's "right" to have unfettered access to "free knowledge". Do you think they would pay for my lawyer and maybe come to court to testify on my behalf?

Greg

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 18th December 2007, 3:35pm) *

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 18th December 2007, 9:53am) *

... and this delightful http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ejaculation_educational_ani_short.gif


Wasn't it just December 7th that Jimbo was reported to have said that teachers who block access to Wikipedia are "bad educators"?


....... I'm looking for words where the punchline is "bad ejaculators", but it isn't coming through......

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 18th December 2007, 3:35pm) *

Maybe I should perform a legal test and expose my teenage niece to this image, while videotaping for YouTube her reaction to it. Then, you all could watch as my wife videotapes me being carted off to jail on a felony charge of exposing a minor to pornography. Then, we could monitor how bravely Jimbo, Sue, Mike, FloFlo, Erik, JzG, Durova, Gerard, and Calton all fight for my "right" and my niece's "right" to have unfettered access to "free knowledge". Do you think they would pay for my lawyer and maybe come to court to testify on my behalf?

Greg


Huh. Sorry Greg. They'd be cheering in on the other side of the court room. (not to mention your nieces parents) unsure.gif

AND Durova woud send (irrelevant) emails to the District Attorney claiming you tried to elicit illicit relations with her. You just KNOW she would. smile.gif

Posted by: the fieryangel

Well, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Boyfriends_work.jpg, they decided to delete it. So, you guys will have to go elsewhere to oogle a young girl (of age??) with shaved pubes....

Oh well, there's http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Brazilian_waxing_02.jpg NSFW

Posted by: jinxmchue

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 18th December 2007, 3:35pm) *
Maybe I should perform a legal test and expose my teenage niece to this image, while videotaping for YouTube her reaction to it. Then, you all could watch as my wife videotapes me being carted off to jail on a felony charge of exposing a minor to pornography. Then, we could monitor how bravely Jimbo, Sue, Mike, FloFlo, Erik, JzG, Durova, Gerard, and Calton all fight for my "right" and my niece's "right" to have unfettered access to "free knowledge". Do you think they would pay for my lawyer and maybe come to court to testify on my behalf?

Greg


Funny you should say that. On the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ejaculation#Why_all_the_penis_pics_and_movies.3F, a parent left this comment:

QUOTE
My 12 year old daughter had this page bookmarked. You all should be ashamed of yourself. I did a little research and found pages having anything to do with a penis have multiple explicit pictures on the page. Curiously, almost all the page relating to the female anatomy are without pics and have diagrams instead, as should be for an encyclopedia. If heterosexual perverts were posting they would post female genitalia, right. With this information, one must conclude that there are many women out there that are dying to post male members for each other to look at, or the more logical explanation is that gay perverts have overtaken Wikipedia. Please do not use the argument that watching a man ejaculate is educational. If it is then so is a video of a woman being penetrated or menstruating. It's kids nature to be curious and look, so it is my duty to try to draw the line to keep these perverts from presenting pornographic material on a supposed educational site. I have retained a lawyer and a computer network engineer and have every intention of prosecuting everyone involved with the objectionable images on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.145.7 (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


And, of course, the usual "use Wikipedia at your own risk" and "there's objectionable content here" warnings are thrown up in defense of the exhibitionism.

Posted by: jinxmchue

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Wed 19th December 2007, 3:35am) *
Oh well, there's http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Brazilian_waxing_02.jpg NSFW


That's not the half of it.

ALL FOLLOWING LINKS NSFW OR ANYWHERE ELSE

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sex

Nope. Still not at half.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia

Still not even close. Pick and choose from here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sex (Whoops. Repeated myself. Can't remember what I originally intended here. Oh, well.)

This editor apparently does nothing but post pornographic pictures of himself and others:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Richiex

Posted by: the fieryangel

QUOTE(jinxmchue @ Fri 21st December 2007, 11:55pm) *

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Wed 19th December 2007, 3:35am) *
Oh well, there's http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Brazilian_waxing_02.jpg NSFW


That's not the half of it.

ALL FOLLOWING LINKS NSFW OR ANYWHERE ELSE

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sex

Nope. Still not at half.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia

Still not even close. Pick and choose from here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sex

This editor apparently does nothing but post pornographic pictures of himself and others:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Richiex


Hey, let me get one thing straight; I'm not a prude. I enjoy this sort of thing myself from time to time. I have no problems with looking at sexually charged images.

It's just this:

Sometimes, in spite of having been "around the block a few times" myself, Wikipedia shocks me.

If I were an innocent child who knew nothing of this stuff, I have no idea how exposure to this sort of thing would affect him or her.

The point being, if this is really about helping children, especially poor children in Africa <ahem>, wouldn't it be normal and...responsable to take their psychological welfare into account and at least add some sort of "rating system" for this kind of content?

I mean, there was a time when the "ejaculating penis" image probably would have sent me into a psychiatrist's office....many, many years ago...but I still remember that being possible...

Posted by: LamontStormstar

Anyone have copies of her userpics. She had several and all are now gone.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

lol

Posted by: jinxmchue

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Fri 21st December 2007, 5:24pm) *
If I were an innocent child who knew nothing of this stuff, I have no idea how exposure to this sort of thing would affect him or her.

The point being, if this is really about helping children, especially poor children in Africa <ahem>, wouldn't it be normal and...responsable to take their psychological welfare into account and at least add some sort of "rating system" for this kind of content?


Exactly.

And besides, anyone with half a brain can tell that these images aren't about being encyclopedic. They're about perverts getting their kicks off of millions of people looking at pictures of their hoo-has and whatnots.

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 18th December 2007, 2:53pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mcrazychick&diff=next&oldid=177991468, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mcrazychick&diff=prev&oldid=178618986


It's good that Jimbo doesn't follow the principle of "assume good faith". Now if only he'd stop telling others to do so.

Posted by: LamontStormstar

thefireangel posted it on photobucket http://s254.photobucket.com/albums/hh102/wikiwakiwoo_photo/?action=view¤t=180px-Boyfriends_work.jpg

Well, I personally recognize that picture. A number of years back, several poses of this woman from that very photshoot used to be in my own private porn collection because I thought they were pretty good quality pictures, although I deleted them about a year ago because I got bored with them. I also did not have that specific picture because I hate porn where the woman's legs are cut off.

But anyway, Jimbo might the right choice. This picture was obviously just stolen porn and Jimbo may have even recognized it from browsing porn, too. I really don't download porn that often so since I had it, this woman's photoshoot pictures must have been distributed a lot and so a lot of people likely recognized the pic uploaded to wikipedia as porn.

These images have been on the net porn circuit for quite a while now.

The one uploaded though was altered to make it look like a photograph. First, they screwed up the light and dark shading and second they added a time stamp that I believe said 2007 though I can't read it (though the pictures have been on the net since maybe 2002). The original pictures on the porn circuit were large and better quality than this altered-to-look-crappy-quality-and-homemade one and her legs and butt (they had angles of her from the back, too) which were cut off were really some of the best parts of the porn if anyone is doubting my taste.

Posted by: Yehudi

QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Sat 22nd December 2007, 10:17pm) *

A number of years back, several poses of this woman from that very photshoot used to be in my own private porn collection

Did we need to know that? tongue.gif

Posted by: the fieryangel

QUOTE(Yehudi @ Sun 23rd December 2007, 2:49pm) *

QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Sat 22nd December 2007, 10:17pm) *

A number of years back, several poses of this woman from that very photshoot used to be in my own private porn collection

Did we need to know that? tongue.gif


Well, it does prove that the image was lifted, so I guess that comment is useful.... but not useful as in why this was transfered to Commons.

I have to tend to agree that quite a few of these images are merely there for people to get their jollies AND allow to them to rationalize that they're building an encyclopedia while they're getting their rocks off...

Posted by: Poetlister

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Mon 24th December 2007, 8:50am) *

Well, it does prove that the image was lifted, so I guess that comment is useful.... but not useful as in why this was transfered to Commons.

Transfers to Commons are a bit hit and miss, but basically it means someone likes the pic so much that he or she expects it to be useful on other projects.

Posted by: jinxmchue

QUOTE(Poetlister @ Mon 24th December 2007, 8:06am) *
Transfers to Commons are a bit hit and miss, but basically it means someone likes the pic so much that he or she expects it to be useful on other projects.


Or they liked the pic so much after wacking off to it that they wanted to make sure others got the chance, too. Seriously, exactly what use is there in a picture of semen on a woman's neck? Ah, but that's what happens when you run a website with little to no common sense or good judgment. Anyone can post and justify just about anything under Wikipedia's loose definition of "encyclopedic."

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(jinxmchue @ Tue 25th December 2007, 8:33am) *

QUOTE(Poetlister @ Mon 24th December 2007, 8:06am) *
Transfers to Commons are a bit hit and miss, but basically it means someone likes the pic so much that he or she expects it to be useful on other projects.


Or they liked the pic so much after wacking off to it that they wanted to make sure others got the chance, too. Seriously, exactly what use is there in a picture of semen on a woman's neck? Ah, but that's what happens when you run a website with little to no common sense or good judgment. Anyone can post and justify just about anything under Wikipedia's loose definition of "encyclopedic."


Except, be sure to understand that "Carolyn Doran" and "The Family & Workplace Connection" and "Norman Technologies" are not encyclopedic, then you're okay.

Greg

Posted by: Poetlister

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 25th December 2007, 2:19pm) *

Except, be sure to understand that "Carolyn Doran" and "The Family & Workplace Connection" and "Norman Technologies" are not encyclopedic, then you're okay.

Or of course anything started by User:Newport.

Posted by: LamontStormstar

I think whoever put it on commons deserves to be blocked. They obviously did it to cause trouble.