Mcrazychick's "user" photo bugs Jimbo..., ....didn't they have worse in Bomis??? Options

[the fieryangel]

User:Mcrazychick adds a personal photo to complete her user profile, which then gets removed by Jimbo.

Jimbo then explains why he did this :

== 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)

She then says "Ciao, Bello" and adds a "retired" notice to her user page.

The image is then put up 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, including this recording of a woman having an orgasm by none other than User:Jimbothegreat and this delightful animated image of an ejeculating penis.

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....

[LamontStormstar]

thefireangel posted it on photobucket http://s254.photobucket.com/albums/hh102/w...riends_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.

This post has been edited by LamontStormstar:

[Yehudi]

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? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[the fieryangel]

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? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/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...

This post has been edited by the fieryangel:

[Poetlister]

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.