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

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....

Looking at her contributions, this is an obvious sock puppet of somebody. "Her" first edit is to add a porn picture of herself...the second was to add a "welcome" message on somebody's user page.
And then she tries to "play dumb" and fails:

== 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....

"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."

This post has been edited by Moulton: Tue 18th December 2007, 3:18pm

"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 here.

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.

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....

and this delightful animated image of an ejeculating penis.

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.

and this delightful animated image of an ejeculating penis.

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....

This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Wed 26th December 2007, 9:14pm

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.

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.

This reminds me of the "PubligirlUK" incident....

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...

This reminds me of the "PubligirlUK" incident....

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.

... and this delightful animated image of an ejeculating penis.

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

... and this delightful animated image of an ejeculating penis.

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......

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)

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

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Tue 18th December 2007, 9:52pm

Well, after a huge discussion, 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 lots more where that came from... NSFW

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 talk page for the article on ejaculation, a parent left this comment:

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.

This post has been edited by jinxmchue: Fri 21st December 2007, 10:41pm

Oh well, there's lots more where that came from... 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:...butions/Richiex

This post has been edited by jinxmchue: Sun 23rd December 2007, 5:18am

Oh well, there's lots more where that came from... 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:...butions/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...

This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Fri 21st December 2007, 11:25pm

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

lol

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.