Ashley Van Haefton's double standard?, a stressful position Options

[carbuncle]

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:

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: Thu 22nd December 2011, 5:47pm

[mbz1]

See his reason for keeping another one

I believe if we compare with [[:Category:Trafalgar Square|Trafalgar Square]], we can find more images of the unique Nelson's Column compared to all images of the human penis for which we may estimate that around 5 billion times many more exist on the planet. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

[It's the blimp, Frank]

I guess Obama just signed a new law that legalizes the use of stressful positions.

[thekohser]

...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".

Wow, if a casual mention of his image deletion history merits a charge of "deliberate and personal harrassment (sic)", then I wonder what he thinks of this!

If Ottava's guilty of "harassment", then Ashley is guilty of "hairassment".

This post has been edited by thekohser: Thu 22nd December 2011, 9:30pm

[Peter Damian]

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.

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: Wed 25th January 2012, 7:51pm

[HRIP7]

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.

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.

[thekohser]

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.

[Web Fred]

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.

[HRIP7]

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.

[thekohser]

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?

[timbo]

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

[Web Fred]

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?

Yourself.

[Fusion]

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]

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.

...........asks the man with the billboard for an avatar.

Somey made that for me, you ungrateful savage.

[Selina]

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.

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"

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.

...........asks the man with the billboard for an avatar.

Somey made that for me, you ungrateful savage.

I really doubt that...

[thekohser]

Somey made that for me, you ungrateful savage.

I really doubt that...

Do you really doubt that, Selina? You think I'm just making up something as "fact", that Somey designed the Wikipedia Review "advertar"TM that graces my posts here? You think I was just imagining the dialog that took place between Somey and me around January 28, 2008?

How much would you like to bet on it, Selina?

[EricBarbour]

Give it up, Greg, not worth the trouble.

(Why are you letting WebHamster troll you?)

[Selina]

webhamster? I think that's possibly the lamest insult I've heard

[Web Fred]

webhamster? I think that's possibly the lamest insult I've heard

Which one? I have more. I have better ones. I choose not to waste them on a self-serving American gobshite.

[Detective]

webhamster? I think that's possibly the lamest insult I've heard

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.