Wikipe-tan, lolicon FTW Options

[EricBarbour]

WARNING: NOT SAFE FOR WORK
http://r34.booru.org/index.php?page=post&s...&tags=wikipedia
Now Jimbo can seriously complain

THAT's what I was looking for.
There are some artists doing Wikipe-tan porn, but they usually post on sites that charge for admission.
Probably because they are embarrassing to, yet often used for masturbation purposes by, WP fanboiz.

Someday, someone will write a big fat textbook about the phenomenon of "Booru" imageboard sites.
Or, more likely, a long, incoherent Wikipedia article.

[carbuncle]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikipe-tan in swimwear.jpg
Image isn't the best of quality and is of little educational value. In addition it depicts a pre-teen girl in swimwear, a form that is not usually acceptable. I appreciate we have a policy of "not censored" but this image is not used in any educational context or to demonstrate any particular style of image. In addition within Wikimedia it appears only to be used within project namespace in association with Wikipe-tan pages ErrantX (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

* Delete. Tasteless and useless, unusable for any legitimate "mascot"-style use, and clearly no educational value. Outside project scope. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oddly, this deletion nomination is by the same person who just before said this at ANI:

Ok, just to clear this up; there is no real concern in my mind over Wikipe-tan being a "sexualized image of a prepubescent girl". I'm not really a fan of the image, but the suggestion in that deletion thread seems to be that she verges onto the wrong side of child porn. Or that people who like such an image are in some way disturbed (or worse). My expert opinion on this is that there is no issue; Wikipe-tan is about as far from Child porn as you can get, and the people who enjoy such imagery are, psychologically speaking, nowhere near to pedophiles. If we are to get technical imagery like this is usually intended to evoke the tragic innocence of youth (personified by a girl or effeminate male) - tragic because you quickly lose such innocence. It's supposed to be beautiful rather than creepy, and the image some people obviously have of guys furiously masturbating to pseudo-CP is way off base This is an unfortunate side effect of a society where the social crime of paedophilia is (rightly) treated with extreme disdain. My point being that concerns over sexualisation and "worshipping" of this image are unfortunate, not based in any form of factual reality. Although I entirely understand and sympathise with such thinking. Leaving Tarc a note about cooling off. --Errant (chat!) 09:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

[Tarc]

Be it furries, otherkin, soulbonders, or lolicon-lovers, these types sure do get their collective dicks in a pickle when someone treads on their holy ground.

[Silver seren]

Thanks for considering furries and otherkin to be separate. I appreciate that.

[Zoloft]

Thanks for considering furries and otherkin to be separate. I appreciate that.

Everything has its place in the hierarchy of weird. I include myself in that hierarchy, under 'writer.'

[Tarc]

I mean, it's still degrees of freakiness (no offense ), but simply "dressing up as" vs. "Holy Shit I am the Living Reincarnation of..." is leagues apart, yea.

Anyways, barring a supremely ballsy admin ) or an Office Action™, it appears that the main -tan page there is going to stick.

[bi-winning]

Out of the mouth of babes you get truth.

It's funny because it's true. Except who the hell is Joe???

[carbuncle]

It's funny because it's true. Except who the hell is Joe???

"Uncle Joe" Stalin, whose ghost haunts WP, causing edit conflicts and SVG rendering problems.

[bi-winning]

It's funny because it's true. Except who the hell is Joe???

"Uncle Joe" Stalin, whose ghost haunts WP, causing edit conflicts and SVG rendering problems.

Damn communists.

I withdraw all my IP property from the ATM machine. Keeps it safe from Wikipedia.

[Doc glasgow]

Does this image serve to create a "sexist environment"? Is it inappropriate?


It is up for deletion here.


Discuss....



(Sorry, don't know how to upload the image directly here, can someone else do it?)

[thekohser]

Discuss....

Derrick Coatzee was the first to vote "Keep".

This is Derrick Coatzee. Recognize the Erik Moeller-style grin?

Derrick Coatzee would welcome self-avowed pedophiles to Wikipedia.

Derrick Coatzee also thinks it's okay to steal high-resolution images from other organizations.

Class dismissed.

[Doc glasgow]

.

Derrick Coatzee also thinks it's okay to steal high-resolution images from other organizations.

It's OK, the NPG have been stealing from Wikipedia in return.

[thekohser]

.

Derrick Coatzee also thinks it's okay to steal high-resolution images from other organizations.

It's OK, the NPG have been stealing from Wikipedia in return.

Once I strike someone over the head with a mallet, I am not likely to be surprised if they should hit me back with a stick. Especially if they initially had a sign on them that reads, "Do not physically strike me with any objects," but my sign says, "It is permissible to hit me with a stick, but please attribute your blow in writing before striking me."

[lilburne]

.

Derrick Coatzee also thinks it's okay to steal high-resolution images from other organizations.

It's OK, the NPG have been stealing from Wikipedia in return.

Problem is you don't have copyright on any of that.

(b London, May 1617; d London, July 1694). English painter. He was the son of James Wright, a tailor, and from 1636 to 1641 was apprenticed to the Edinburgh portrait painter George Jamesone. In the early 1640s he left Scotland for Rome, where he painted his earliest known portrait, Robert Bruce, 1st Earl of Ailesbury (Tottenham House, Wilts, Marquess of Ailesbury priv. col.).

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/john-wright#ixzz1HXyTsy7n

The above is from "Oxford Grove Art"

Born in May 1617, he was the son of a tailor names James Wright. Between 1636 and 1641 John Wright was apprenticed to George Jamesone an Edinburgh portrait painter. He travelled from Scotland to Rome in the 1640s, and there he produced his earliest known portrait: Robert Bruce, 1st Earl of Ailesbury (currently in Marquess of Ailesbury's private collection in Tottenham House).[1]

And the above is from our own good Doc.

[Silver seren]

That image just made me laugh. Dear god, that's creepy. Is that like the butch lesbian version of Wikipe-tan?

[Doc glasgow]

Problem is you don't have copyright on any of that.

(b London, May 1617; d London, July 1694). English painter. He was the son of James Wright, a tailor, and from 1636 to 1641 was apprenticed to the Edinburgh portrait painter George Jamesone. In the early 1640s he left Scotland for Rome, where he painted his earliest known portrait, Robert Bruce, 1st Earl of Ailesbury (Tottenham House, Wilts, Marquess of Ailesbury priv. col.).

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/john-wright#ixzz1HXyTsy7n

The above is from "Oxford Grove Art"

Born in May 1617, he was the son of a tailor names James Wright. Between 1636 and 1641 John Wright was apprenticed to George Jamesone an Edinburgh portrait painter. He travelled from Scotland to Rome in the 1640s, and there he produced his earliest known portrait: Robert Bruce, 1st Earl of Ailesbury (currently in Marquess of Ailesbury's private collection in Tottenham House).[1]

And the above is from our own good Doc.

My information came from the Grove Art dictionary, which was acknowledged in the footnote. There's only a certain number of ways of recording that information.

The NPG acknowledged no source whatsoever and indeed claimed the work as its own. It also used a far more sophisticated version of the text, which I created from information from multiple sources. So, yes, in any fair estimation I DO own the copyright. The NPG are, naturally, free to use it under the Wikipedia CC licence - but they are required to acknowledge the source.

[lilburne]

Problem is you don't have copyright on any of that.

(b London, May 1617; d London, July 1694). English painter. He was the son of James Wright, a tailor, and from 1636 to 1641 was apprenticed to the Edinburgh portrait painter George Jamesone. In the early 1640s he left Scotland for Rome, where he painted his earliest known portrait, Robert Bruce, 1st Earl of Ailesbury (Tottenham House, Wilts, Marquess of Ailesbury priv. col.).

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/john-wright#ixzz1HXyTsy7n

The above is from "Oxford Grove Art"

Born in May 1617, he was the son of a tailor names James Wright. Between 1636 and 1641 John Wright was apprenticed to George Jamesone an Edinburgh portrait painter. He travelled from Scotland to Rome in the 1640s, and there he produced his earliest known portrait: Robert Bruce, 1st Earl of Ailesbury (currently in Marquess of Ailesbury's private collection in Tottenham House).[1]

And the above is from our own good Doc.

My information came from the Grove Art dictionary, which was acknowledged in the footnote. There's only a certain number of ways of recording that information.

As such there is no WMF copyright on the text at all. It resides totally with Grove Art and for all you know they well have an arrangement with the NPG, or the NPG may well have provided Grove Art with the original text.

The NPG acknowledged no source whatsoever and indeed claimed the work as its own. It also used a far more sophisticated version of the text, which I created from information from multiple sources. So, yes, in any fair estimation I DO own the copyright. The NPG are, naturally, free to use it under the Wikipedia CC licence - but they are required to acknowledge the source.

Again you do not have copyright on the text. Cobbling together bits of text from various sources does not give you copyright, unless you are claiming copyright by dint of sweat of brow, which is of course exactly what you have denied that the NPG is entitled to do.

[Doc glasgow]

Dcoetzee and the "OMG no censorship" strike again - I mean we must save the kiddie-porn.

Disgusting.

[The Joy]

Dcoetzee and the "OMG no censorship" strike again - I mean we must save the kiddie-porn.

Disgusting.

How long before he finds this thread and accuses opposers of being part of an "off-wiki conspiracy by anti-Wikipedians to destroy Commons and Wikipedia?"

[Alison]

Dcoetzee and the "OMG no censorship" strike again - I mean we must save the kiddie-porn.

Disgusting.

Think that's good? Wait till you see the request three threads down; a petition to undelete all of banned editor Midnight68's/TGComix' little-girl-panty-fetish pics that he drew himself. Because the project really needs more poor-quality upskirt pics of children and their underwear