On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Fred Bauder <fredb...@fairpoint.net> wrote: > Well, do you need a picture to explain a dildo?
Well, at least it is helpful for foreign readers to some extent to have an illustration, File:Franz von Bayros > 016.jpg is more or less art, but File:Félicien Rops - Sainte-Thérèse.png > which is used on three Wikipedias to illustrate the use of a dildo has > some real problems with being offensive to Catholics (Of course Japanese > or Chinese Catholics don't matter, but they do). but, as a Japanese and orthodox-church goer, so more or less out of conflict of interest, I agree it is unnecessarily offensive to create such images. Just for illustration in general, it wasn't necessary to render an existing figure. Of course, I don't support to delete artworks specially hundred older ones as porns, used on projects for illustration in particular. >. Much better to use a > photo of the woman using a dildo or at least an eye-witness report > published in a reliable source. The image could, of course, be used > appropriately to illustrate an article on caricatures or something about > anti-catholicism. > > Fred Bauder > >> The foundation appears to be of the impression that Jimbo is merely >> attempting to encourage scrutiny, and removing clear cases. >> >> This is not true. Jimbo has speedy deleted, without discussion, >> historical >> artworks and diagrams, often edit warring with admins to keep them >> deleted, >> and has made a statement that he refuses to discuss his deletions until >> after he has finished deleting them all, which would only compound the >> problem. >> >> Examples: >> >> Artworks from the 19th century, by notable artists: >> >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File%3AF%C3%A9licien_Rops_-_Sainte-Th%C3%A9r%C3%A8se.png<- >> Wheelwarred with three different admins to try and keep it deleted. >> >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File%3AFranz_von_Bayros_016.jpg<- >> Wheelwarred with two admins this time. >> >> ---- >> >> Diagrams intended to illustrate articles on sexual subjects, in wide use >> on >> Wikipedia projects for that purpose: >> >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File%3AWiki-fisting.png<- >> Edit warred with three admins >> >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File%3AWiki-facial.svg >> >> ---- >> >> Further, when challeged on these, he said that he refused to engage in >> any >> discussion on the deletion of artwork *until he was done deleting all of >> them* >> >> From >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=38891861&oldid=38891748 >> >> "I have redeleted the image for the duration of the cleanup project. We >> will >> have a solid discussion about whether Commons should ever host >> pornography >> and under what circumstances at a later day - June 1st will be a fine >> time >> to start.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo >> Wales#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:31, 7 May 2010 >> (UTC)" >> >> >> How are such images to be found, after's he's gone and deleted them all? >> Are >> we really to sift through every single deletion several months later, to >> find the things that shouldn't have been deleted in the first place, and >> which, thanks to the Commons Delinker bot, have been automatically >> removed >> from the articles they were used in? >> >> Out of Jimbo's deletions, at the very least a third of the deletions >> related >> to diagrams and historical artwork in wide use on Wikipedia projects. >> This >> despite his initial claim ( >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=38820363&oldid=38819608) >> that he'd only be dealing with things that violated the law that >> started >> the controversy. >> >> If the board are not aware, there was, about a year ago, a controversy >> related to images of Muhammed, in which Muslim readers - for whom such >> are >> horribly offensive, due to rules against depiction of the prophet - were >> politely informed that we could not delete material simply because it >> offended someone, as Wikipedia sought to show all of the world's >> knowledge. >> Jimbo's actions make that consensus deeply problematic. >> >> There is a petition for Wales' founder flag to be removed, which has >> gained >> widespread support since his actions. ( >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Remove_Founder_flag ) >> >> >> -A. C. >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
