|
|
|
Ashley Van Haefton's double standard?, a stressful position |
|
|
carbuncle |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
|
A user named Tuxdiary uploaded some pictures of their penis to Commons, as one will do. For reasons which aren't apparent -- but should probably be irrelevant -- they then decided they didn't want pictures of themselves ejaculating available on Commons anymore. So they asked for the images to be deleted. This sparked an argument between two trolls, Ottava Rima and Fred the Oyster (AKA WebHamster (T-C-L-K-R-D)
and a bunch of other sockpuppets). Then Ottava accidentally said something interesting: QUOTE User:Fae had an image speedy deleted by user request. Hundreds of others have also. We delete both text and images. Just because someone puts forth a release does not mean that we are permanent host or that the material has to be hosted anywhere. I don't think you understand how Commons operates. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC) It is not acceptable to make random DRs a forum for you to lobby against me. Your comment is highly inappropriate. --Fæ (talk) 08:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Lobby against you? At no time did I say the speedy deletion was incorrect. You are making false claims about my comments yet again. Are you really looking to be blocked? Because you don't seem to get that you can't just make up things like that. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Quoting my name here on a sex related deletion request that has nothing to do with me, I have not even commented on and with regard to an unrelated deletion that I have made no comment about on Commons is not appropriate. This appears to be deliberate and personal harassment. --Fæ (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Sex related discussion? According to your other posts, these are just educational images. Odd how you create some sort of double standard. You were a recent case of a speedy deletion by user request. If you don't like that, why request it? It was your action and it is a public action. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
To be fair, despite the thread title, Van Haefton has not said that this image should not be deleted, only that mentioning the analogous deletion of his image is "deliberate and personal harrassment". This post has been edited by carbuncle:
|
|
|
|
Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
A slightly comical discussion here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_tal...agina_juice.jpg . I haven't looked at the image yet. Urp, don't look. QUOTE Did you keep this image for real? It is clearly out of scope and should be deleted as garbage. Artem Karimov (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Our scope is images which are potentially educational and are freely licensed, plus a few exceptions for WMF images. Sex is within scope, humans having sex is in scope. It's decent quality (not good, but not awful), and it's freely licensed. Please explain why you feel this is outside our scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Mattbuck, would you be against a name change for this file? I'm not sure that this is an obvious example of 'doggy-style' or that 'vagina juice' is meaningful either. With a more accurate file name it might seem a teensy bit less inflammatory. --Fæ (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Go ahead. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
How about Vaginal intercourse, lubricated? I'm not used to thinking about how to express such things in plain English. --Fæ (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Something like that yes. The term lubricated is a bit of a misnomer here, because from the current image name I think the implication is that any lubricant is simply vaginal juices, but it will suffice. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
This post has been edited by Peter Damian:
|
|
|
|
HRIP7 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined:
Member No.: 17,020
|
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 25th January 2012, 7:48pm) A slightly comical discussion here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_tal...agina_juice.jpg . I haven't looked at the image yet. Urp, don't look. QUOTE Did you keep this image for real? It is clearly out of scope and should be deleted as garbage. Artem Karimov (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Our scope is images which are potentially educational and are freely licensed, plus a few exceptions for WMF images. Sex is within scope, humans having sex is in scope. It's decent quality (not good, but not awful), and it's freely licensed. Please explain why you feel this is outside our scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Mattbuck, would you be against a name change for this file? I'm not sure that this is an obvious example of 'doggy-style' or that 'vagina juice' is meaningful either. With a more accurate file name it might seem a teensy bit less inflammatory. --Fæ (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Go ahead. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
How about Vaginal intercourse, lubricated? I'm not used to thinking about how to express such things in plain English. --Fæ (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Something like that yes. The term lubricated is a bit of a misnomer here, because from the current image name I think the implication is that any lubricant is simply vaginal juices, but it will suffice. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Here is a webcitation archive of the image (NSFW, obviously), just in case someone on Commons has the good sense to delete it.
|
|
|
|
HRIP7 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined:
Member No.: 17,020
|
QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Wed 25th January 2012, 8:32pm) QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 25th January 2012, 8:20pm) I'm beginning to think that maybe a subversive goal of Wikimedia Commons is to disgust people so much (with horridly-lit, extreme close-up biological images of zero artistry or grace) that they will be repulsed by the mere thought of sexual intercourse, and thus the human race will die out, and that will be the ultimate revenge of the nerds.
Personally I find your self-aggrandizing, continual attempts to advertise and constant paranoiac bullshit to be far more disgusting than that image. I don't know ... I thought Greg was on to something there.
|
|
|
|
timbo |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 102
Joined:
Member No.: 21,141
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 25th January 2012, 7:30pm) QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Wed 25th January 2012, 3:32pm) Personally I find your self-aggrandizing, continual attempts to advertise and constant paranoiac bullshit to be far more disgusting than that image.
What am I "advertising", CL? ...........asks the man with the billboard for an avatar. t
|
|
|
|
Fusion |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 346
Joined:
Member No.: 71,526
|
QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Thu 26th January 2012, 9:19am) QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 26th January 2012, 3:30am) What am I "advertising", CL?
Yourself. That is clearly a misunderstanding. Mr Kohs is not advertising himself. He is just making us all aware of his existence. This is a public service, since obviously anyone unaware of him is at a serious disadvantage. [I'll send you the bill later, Greg.]
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(Fusion @ Thu 26th January 2012, 8:12am) QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Thu 26th January 2012, 9:19am) QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 26th January 2012, 3:30am) What am I "advertising", CL?
Yourself. That is clearly a misunderstanding. Mr Kohs is not advertising himself. He is just making us all aware of his existence. This is a public service, since obviously anyone unaware of him is at a serious disadvantage. [I'll send you the bill later, Greg.]Thanks, Fusion. I like your use of the gray type, too. Add another $5 for that. QUOTE(timbo @ Wed 25th January 2012, 10:36pm) ...........asks the man with the billboard for an avatar.
Somey made that for me, you ungrateful savage.
|
|
|
|
Selina |
|
Cat herder
Group: Staffy
Posts: 1,513
Joined:
Member No.: 1
|
QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Wed 25th January 2012, 8:14pm) QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 25th January 2012, 7:48pm) A slightly comical discussion here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_tal...agina_juice.jpg . I haven't looked at the image yet. Urp, don't look. QUOTE Did you keep this image for real? It is clearly out of scope and should be deleted as garbage. Artem Karimov (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Our scope is images which are potentially educational and are freely licensed, plus a few exceptions for WMF images. Sex is within scope, humans having sex is in scope. It's decent quality (not good, but not awful), and it's freely licensed. Please explain why you feel this is outside our scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Mattbuck, would you be against a name change for this file? I'm not sure that this is an obvious example of 'doggy-style' or that 'vagina juice' is meaningful either. With a more accurate file name it might seem a teensy bit less inflammatory. --Fæ (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Go ahead. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
How about Vaginal intercourse, lubricated? I'm not used to thinking about how to express such things in plain English. --Fæ (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Something like that yes. The term lubricated is a bit of a misnomer here, because from the current image name I think the implication is that any lubricant is simply vaginal juices, but it will suffice. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Here is a webcitation archive of the image (NSFW, obviously), just in case someone on Commons has the good sense to delete it. ick. Seems the kind of guy who makes "video nasties" QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 26th January 2012, 1:42pm) QUOTE(Fusion @ Thu 26th January 2012, 8:12am) QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Thu 26th January 2012, 9:19am) QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 26th January 2012, 3:30am) What am I "advertising", CL?
Yourself. That is clearly a misunderstanding. Mr Kohs is not advertising himself. He is just making us all aware of his existence. This is a public service, since obviously anyone unaware of him is at a serious disadvantage. QUOTE(timbo @ Wed 25th January 2012, 10:36pm) ...........asks the man with the billboard for an avatar.
Somey made that for me, you ungrateful savage. I really doubt that...
|
|
|
|
Detective |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined:
Member No.: 35,179
|
QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Thu 26th January 2012, 8:43pm) QUOTE(Selina @ Thu 26th January 2012, 8:30pm) webhamster? I think that's possibly the lamest insult I've heard (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) Which one? I have more. I have better ones. I choose not to waste them on a self-serving American gobshite. Which American gobshite? Selina is not American; she is at least as British as you are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |