Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. A Train take the 15:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

User:Markaci/Nudity

I found this page whilst clearing up another piece of template vandalism which resulted in pictures of a big cock and balls being on a few hundred Wikipedia articles. This gallery survived a prior AFD (which is here) back in January, as no consensus. It's a gallery of all the rude pictures on Commons, none of which feature in articles, plus some pictures on Wikipedia which do feature in articles. Putting aside all thoughts on Common's policies which allow pictures of (snicker) willies and (giggle) boobies to be kept, regardless of value or use, this serves absolutely no benefit to Wikipedia. Yes, it's on user space, but it serves no positive benefit to Wikipedia. It's also vandal bait. I heartily agree that Wikipedia is not censored; this is not a censorship issue, so, please, don't suggest that as a reason to keep this page. Nor is it a copyright issue, as all fair use images are piped, rather than featured in the gallery, and I don't believe the page should be deleted because of that. No, the page ought to be deleted because it serves no purpose other than to feature lots of pointless images that various trolls have gotten away with uploading to Commons, and it exists solely to make a rather childlish point - 'look how uncensored we are!'. User subpages are for article work, not hosting lots of amusing pictures of genitalia. Most are not used on articles. Proto:: ► 11:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Added comment - it's also pretty much a duplicate of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Gallery (my favourite project - motto, "I want you all to see lots of pictures of my cock! And you have to! WINC WINC WINC WINC!") Proto:: ► 12:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
You omit to say that Markaci's page came way before the project (and was probably one of the reasons for it), and that it is way more complete, and is way more well-known among Wikipedians. -- Marcika 13:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Oh, if it's well known, then it must be ok, right? Proto:: ► 16:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
You miss the point: If it is well-known (and it is, certainly among admins and old-time users) and has not been deleted in two or three years, there might be the slightest chance that it might have been regarded as being useful for some purpose... - Marcika 12:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply


The lists below are partial list at the moment (only part way through the B's)...

  • The following images are linked only from user pages and pages in Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship:
  • Delete - pointless, not going to help the encyclopaedia, irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a webhost for porn, among other things. Moreschi 11:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, although these pages seem to be MfD resistent. Maybe Markaci is a sock for Cyde: see User:Cyde/Weird pictures which survived its 2nd MfD on November 26, 2006. — Doug Bell  talk 11:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    Yeah, but note that the MFD on Cyde's porn collection was a 'speedy keep' as it was created by a single purpose account, yet will still ensure the page has magical MFD immunity for at least six months (the GNAA used to do that). Proto:: ► 11:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    I would be very careful of accusing experienced and old-time wikipedia users of being sockpuppets. Such allegiations detract from the power of your argument. (And Markaci is not me either, incidentally.) -- Marcika 13:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    I would be very careful about putting words in my mouth. Where did I say this? Proto:: ► 16:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    I am sorry for that, Proto, I got mixed up up with your comments and Doug Bell's. (And Doug, I am afraid the joke is not evident from your comment itself...) -- Marcika 01:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    As I stated in my edit comment, the sock puppet reference was a JOKE. Sorry for the confusion. — Doug Bell  talk 21:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, here are some reasons recycled from the last debate two years ago, by a variety of users(users who voted Keep then were Trovatore, Drini, Ibaranoff24, Janizary, Chris_73, Thparkth:, TheMidnighters, Hansnesse, Vizcarra, Descendall, JanSuchy). You may ignore the copyvio arguments (as neither the page nor the images are), but pay close attention to the censorship argument, as censorship is exactly the purpose Proto has in mind, even if he denies it. -- Marcika 13:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    • (huge list of comments from last MFD, none of which were raised as points in this MFD anyway moved - read the last AFD, rather than cut and paste it all in here to obfuscate the issue) Proto:: ► 16:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
      Censorship is exactly the purpose Proto has in mind, even if he denies it ... gosh, I haven't seen the Chewbacca defense in a while. This is nothing to do with censorship, it's due do with actual value to the encyclopaedia versus the cons of having such a troll magnet. Does it contribute, at all, to building a better encyclopaedia? It does not. So why's it here, other than to prove the usual pathetic point about Wikipedia being uncensored?
      • Thank you for trying to discredit my argument by name-calling... Pray, isn't it possible that your statement "User subpages are for article work, not hosting lots of amusing pictures of genitalia" might be interpreted as slightly biased towards censorship of nudity to get a "proper encyclopedia"? -- Marcika 12:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Sorry, but screaming 'censorship' every time someone tries to remove junk is pathetic. If it doesn't help the encyclopaedia, it shouldn't be here. Proto:: ► 19:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    If someone had uploaded hundreds of unused photos of bricks to commons, and put a gallery to them in their userspace on Wikipedia, would we permit it? Of course we wouldn't. And what's the difference? "Wikipedia is not censored!" is often used as a non sequitur to let Wikipedia user space to be used to host hilarious pictures of pee pees and poo poos. The other comments you put up in what can only be an attempt to obscure the argument are similarly irrelevant non sequiturs. Proto:: ► 16:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
      • "Wikipedia is not censored" is a basic tenet and means just that. If you have a problem with depiction of nudity ("pee pees and poo poos" in your language), then stay away from such images/articles/userpages.
      • Pictures are not hosted in userspace and can (and should) be deleted if not used in articles.
      • Picture galleries of any pictures (which have not been deleted and thus are potentially useful for the encyclopedia) are (1)not performance degrading, since they are just links, (2) useful for weeding out the pictures which truly should be deleted (like 990 out of 1000 brick JPEGs, for instance), (3) useful to select which picture to include in an article. Thus they contribute to build a better encyclopedia. -- Marcika 12:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
        • I have no problem with nudity. It has its place in the encyclopaedia. Sub galleries created purely to make a point are not it. Proto:: ► 19:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral per arguments raised by the old debate, however I don't see a need for it so my stance is neutral. James086 Talk | Contribs 15:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- violates WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:POINT. And yes, it's childish. I thought free speech had nobler goals than to allow people to jerk off to pictures of naked babes. Bi 16:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    Doesn' violate WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, as it is only a collection of links to other WP content. Doesn't violate WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, as there is no personal opinion on that page, just a collection of links to other WP content. And non-censorship is about giving pictures of "naked babes" equal rights to the pictures of "bricks" or "swastikas". Finally, I cannot imagine anyone jerking off to this collection of classical statues and artwork, sterile closeups of penes and breast and drawings of sex positions, with the web having millions of purpose-built porn pages just for that purpose... -- Marcika 12:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  1. WP:NOT#WEBSPACE -- as Proto points out below, it's a circular con.
  2. WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:POINT -- If the page gives no "personal opinion", then what other use does it has in Wikipedia at present? If the page does give a "personal opinion", then doesn't it breach WP:POINT?
  3. Totally wrong on the last count -- you're confusing the process of free speech with its intended function. What did the Founding Fathers of the United States, for example, believe to be the function of free speech? Here's what Thomas Jefferson said:
    • "The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."
    • "Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."
    • "We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."
These, my friend, are the goals of free speech I was talking about. Will a gallery of naked babes result in good and just government? Will a gallery of swastikas give you an informed public who knows the facts about Germany? You're turning free speech from a means to an end, into an end in itself -- and ridding it of all its meaning. That's childish. Bi 11:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There's all kinds of stuff in user space that doesn't add any actual value to WP. It's tolerated unless there's an actual affirmative reason to remove it. No convincing reason has been offered. -- Trovatore 19:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete. This gallery would be fine if the images were used in articles. Keeping this gallery would set a horrible precedent: imagine if I uploaded a few thousand images of trees onto Wikipedia, wasting a gigabyte of webspace, just to put them in a gallery? — Dark Shikari talk/ contribs 00:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment deleting the page under discussion would not save any significant amout of space on the server. The page doesn't have the pictures, just their ASCII names. If you want to save space on the server, you need to get the images deleted, not the page. That's an orthogonal issue. -- Trovatore 01:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. This page is only a liability. I've actually put one of the notorious images hosted locally for deletion at WP:IFD. MER-C 02:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is not a censorship issue. Rather, this page serves no legitimate purpose and is thus an unnecessary drain on the servers. Jpe ob 04:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Nominator has forgotten to add the latest deletion nomination 7 weeks ago which was closed with No consensus and referred further discussion about these pages to the policy discussion section at Wikipedia talk:Galleries. Here is the verdict by the closing admin:
    The result of the debate was keep, as no consensus. Closing comments: This really should have been taken to the policy level for wider community input, since this effort may be used to set standards by setting a precedent, as well as drawing one from the /Work Gallery AfD which I somewhat controversially closed as delete. This goes outside the scope of discussion of miscellany entries for deletion in this case, since the userspace and webspace usage prohibition guideline/policy are too vague on this issue. I note that John Reid had created Wikipedia:Galleries five hours before this AfD was listed, so five days later (well, actually less than four, but who isn't counting?), I am directing your attention to its pertinent Wikipedia:Gallery#Userspace_galleries section. P.S. And don't you even dare think of touching User:Kitty!! El_C 09:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I agree with him, and would like to point out that if userpages like this are deleted, we should also delete all these "juvenile" pages with "lots of childish images" of pussies as well... -- Marcika 15:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I can think of two useful purposes for the page:
  1. a resource for people looking for images to illustrate articles on sex, art history, or anatomy.
  2. an collection of images that are likely to be sex-cruft all in one place, making it easy for a concerned editor to do a periodic sweep for all the "Here is a picture of my p33n for the sake of knowledge" that would otherwise accumulate off in the corner.

Really it's no different from the category "nudity" over at Commons, except that it includes images from more places. It's useful for the same reasons. DanB†DanD 18:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply

  • I can think of more reasons to get rid of it:
  1. a resource for trolls to find pictures of genitalia to put in templates
  2. it provokes some people (hey, I know they shouldn't be so uptight, but they are) - it's only there to provoke, and it's the definition of making a point to disrupt Wikipedia.
  3. hosting unused images (and many of them are unused, and are not on Commons) is against WP:NOT - Wikipedia's not a web space provider. Nor should Commons be (its policies state as much), and this page tells Commons that the image is in use, providing justification for it to stay on Commons when a usage check is run. It's a circular con - the image is hosted on Commons, so it's okay to use on Wikipedia. The image is on Wikipedia, so it's okay to keep on Commons. Proto:: ► 19:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  4. Proto:: ► 19:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but take images that are only used in userpages to IFD. If a troll wants to find a picture of a penis then they can just go to Penis, so saying this is troll food... doesn't make sense. If it provokes some people, well fuck them. Seriously, there is no disruption from a user page that someone would have to seek out to look at, and is titled in such a way that you know what's on it. People have lots of weird subpages, like those silly wikistress ones (why a whole subpage..). I understand that we shouldn't be stupid with user pages, but this is just a userpage with images that are already here. A subgrouping, that the author, and other editors, can honestly use for finding such images. If the images are a problem, then delete the images. I don't have a major attachment to such a userpage, but there's no good reason to delete it. I don't buy the vandal bait bit, when such images are found in the articles themselves. Again, delete the non-article images, keep the page. -- Ned Scott 09:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I think I can support that. Bi 11:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, folks Wikipedia's not censored. ( → Netscott) 09:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    Not the issue, folks, and irrelevant to the debate - please actually read why the page has been brought to MFD. Proto:: ► 13:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment frankly, I don't buy it, Proto. It seems pretty clear from the remarks of the party to delete -- including you -- that the page's sexual nature is part of their motivation. -- Trovatore 05:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
        • It's clear to me that you want to keep the page so that you can jerk off to it. Can you at least give a better argument than outright denial? Bi 11:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
          • Comment you're making my point for me, Bi. If your concern is whether people want to use the page for its sexual interest, then your aim is precisely censorship. -- Trovatore 16:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
            • I never said it's my concern, I said it's your concern. Can you at least have the decency not to create such silly strawmen? As I said above, this whole thing's childish -- nude pictures aren't going to give you good government, which is the goal of free speech in the first place. Bi 11:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: useful to legitimate editors looking for illustrations, not just to vandals and trolls. That it includes pictures not yet used anywhere else is a plus, not a minus, since it allows editors to avoid duplicating other articles' content. Not such a drain on resources, as it doesn't "host images" (see source, what it really contains is text, just like a links page); and see MediaWiki developer Simetrical's comment above on the whole resource-drain non-issue. If all "vandal bait" should be deleted, we might as well shut down Wikipedia. The core of this complaint is the beginning of the third sentence: "It's a gallery of all the rude pictures".... If it were a gallery of different kinds of fish, or trees, or architecture, I truly doubt we would be having this conversation. No (other) useful purpose? Maybe just looking at it keeps some of our less helpful brethren too busy to be active nuisances for a while, reducing the burden on our anti-vandalism crew. – SAJordan talk contribs 15:00, 11 Dec 2006 (UTC).
    If it were a gallery of different kinds of fish, or trees, or architecture, I truly doubt we would be having this conversation - that's exactly right. If it were a gallery of all the commons images of trees or cars, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Because it would have been deleted without a moment's thought. Yet as soon as anything utterly encyclopaedic happens to involve nudey pictures, anyone who wants to get rid of it is a censor, or a prude. Proto:: ► 11:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I think your assertion here is just factually false. I have never seen any such galleries in user space deleted. If you know of an example, please provide it. -- Trovatore 16:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. I'm perplexed by this, too. Why would or should we delete some user's gallery of images of bricks or fish or haystacks? — BrianSmithson 22:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Oh please there are plenty of users who hold galleries in their user pages and user subpages, even Cyde. It actually doesn't matter what kind of pictures these are, as long as they are not fair use images put up on the user namespace, which is not an issue anymore. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment As regards content, that is quite right, but I wonder whether we ought to understand as well-settled the idea that community does not disfavor user pages or subpages that, whilst composed of encyclopedic content, don't appear to serve any particular encyclopedic content. I suppose that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cyde/Weird pictures two weeks hither might dispose that question, but there have been several other MfDs that go toward a contrary proposition. Michaelas10 is right, in any event, that the only relevant questions are (a) whether the community disapproves generally of user pages of productive contributors that comprise principally non-encyclopedic content and (b) whether, should the community so disapprove, there is nevertheless some tangential encyclopedic purpose served by the page (or at least by the images thereof that are used or likely might be used in mainspace). Joe 19:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is silly. No one's forcing anyone to look at people's userspace. -- BrianSmithson 06:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As far as I'm concerned, established users keeping galleries in their userspaces is fine. – Lantoka ( talk) 09:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, and the complaints about the images not being in articles are bogus, because they're on commons, which is there to be a repository of media, not just images currently used in wikipedia. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 12:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep per Brian Smithson. Just H 16:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Wikipedia has bigger fish to fry than slightly kooky userpage annexes. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep in accordance with Brian Smithson and Lantoka. -- Afed 14:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. Dwain 15:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Markaci/Nudity_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1146420242"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. A Train take the 15:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

User:Markaci/Nudity

I found this page whilst clearing up another piece of template vandalism which resulted in pictures of a big cock and balls being on a few hundred Wikipedia articles. This gallery survived a prior AFD (which is here) back in January, as no consensus. It's a gallery of all the rude pictures on Commons, none of which feature in articles, plus some pictures on Wikipedia which do feature in articles. Putting aside all thoughts on Common's policies which allow pictures of (snicker) willies and (giggle) boobies to be kept, regardless of value or use, this serves absolutely no benefit to Wikipedia. Yes, it's on user space, but it serves no positive benefit to Wikipedia. It's also vandal bait. I heartily agree that Wikipedia is not censored; this is not a censorship issue, so, please, don't suggest that as a reason to keep this page. Nor is it a copyright issue, as all fair use images are piped, rather than featured in the gallery, and I don't believe the page should be deleted because of that. No, the page ought to be deleted because it serves no purpose other than to feature lots of pointless images that various trolls have gotten away with uploading to Commons, and it exists solely to make a rather childlish point - 'look how uncensored we are!'. User subpages are for article work, not hosting lots of amusing pictures of genitalia. Most are not used on articles. Proto:: ► 11:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Added comment - it's also pretty much a duplicate of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Gallery (my favourite project - motto, "I want you all to see lots of pictures of my cock! And you have to! WINC WINC WINC WINC!") Proto:: ► 12:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
You omit to say that Markaci's page came way before the project (and was probably one of the reasons for it), and that it is way more complete, and is way more well-known among Wikipedians. -- Marcika 13:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Oh, if it's well known, then it must be ok, right? Proto:: ► 16:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
You miss the point: If it is well-known (and it is, certainly among admins and old-time users) and has not been deleted in two or three years, there might be the slightest chance that it might have been regarded as being useful for some purpose... - Marcika 12:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply


The lists below are partial list at the moment (only part way through the B's)...

  • The following images are linked only from user pages and pages in Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship:
  • Delete - pointless, not going to help the encyclopaedia, irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a webhost for porn, among other things. Moreschi 11:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, although these pages seem to be MfD resistent. Maybe Markaci is a sock for Cyde: see User:Cyde/Weird pictures which survived its 2nd MfD on November 26, 2006. — Doug Bell  talk 11:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    Yeah, but note that the MFD on Cyde's porn collection was a 'speedy keep' as it was created by a single purpose account, yet will still ensure the page has magical MFD immunity for at least six months (the GNAA used to do that). Proto:: ► 11:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    I would be very careful of accusing experienced and old-time wikipedia users of being sockpuppets. Such allegiations detract from the power of your argument. (And Markaci is not me either, incidentally.) -- Marcika 13:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    I would be very careful about putting words in my mouth. Where did I say this? Proto:: ► 16:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    I am sorry for that, Proto, I got mixed up up with your comments and Doug Bell's. (And Doug, I am afraid the joke is not evident from your comment itself...) -- Marcika 01:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    As I stated in my edit comment, the sock puppet reference was a JOKE. Sorry for the confusion. — Doug Bell  talk 21:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, here are some reasons recycled from the last debate two years ago, by a variety of users(users who voted Keep then were Trovatore, Drini, Ibaranoff24, Janizary, Chris_73, Thparkth:, TheMidnighters, Hansnesse, Vizcarra, Descendall, JanSuchy). You may ignore the copyvio arguments (as neither the page nor the images are), but pay close attention to the censorship argument, as censorship is exactly the purpose Proto has in mind, even if he denies it. -- Marcika 13:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    • (huge list of comments from last MFD, none of which were raised as points in this MFD anyway moved - read the last AFD, rather than cut and paste it all in here to obfuscate the issue) Proto:: ► 16:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
      Censorship is exactly the purpose Proto has in mind, even if he denies it ... gosh, I haven't seen the Chewbacca defense in a while. This is nothing to do with censorship, it's due do with actual value to the encyclopaedia versus the cons of having such a troll magnet. Does it contribute, at all, to building a better encyclopaedia? It does not. So why's it here, other than to prove the usual pathetic point about Wikipedia being uncensored?
      • Thank you for trying to discredit my argument by name-calling... Pray, isn't it possible that your statement "User subpages are for article work, not hosting lots of amusing pictures of genitalia" might be interpreted as slightly biased towards censorship of nudity to get a "proper encyclopedia"? -- Marcika 12:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Sorry, but screaming 'censorship' every time someone tries to remove junk is pathetic. If it doesn't help the encyclopaedia, it shouldn't be here. Proto:: ► 19:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    If someone had uploaded hundreds of unused photos of bricks to commons, and put a gallery to them in their userspace on Wikipedia, would we permit it? Of course we wouldn't. And what's the difference? "Wikipedia is not censored!" is often used as a non sequitur to let Wikipedia user space to be used to host hilarious pictures of pee pees and poo poos. The other comments you put up in what can only be an attempt to obscure the argument are similarly irrelevant non sequiturs. Proto:: ► 16:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
      • "Wikipedia is not censored" is a basic tenet and means just that. If you have a problem with depiction of nudity ("pee pees and poo poos" in your language), then stay away from such images/articles/userpages.
      • Pictures are not hosted in userspace and can (and should) be deleted if not used in articles.
      • Picture galleries of any pictures (which have not been deleted and thus are potentially useful for the encyclopedia) are (1)not performance degrading, since they are just links, (2) useful for weeding out the pictures which truly should be deleted (like 990 out of 1000 brick JPEGs, for instance), (3) useful to select which picture to include in an article. Thus they contribute to build a better encyclopedia. -- Marcika 12:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
        • I have no problem with nudity. It has its place in the encyclopaedia. Sub galleries created purely to make a point are not it. Proto:: ► 19:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral per arguments raised by the old debate, however I don't see a need for it so my stance is neutral. James086 Talk | Contribs 15:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- violates WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:POINT. And yes, it's childish. I thought free speech had nobler goals than to allow people to jerk off to pictures of naked babes. Bi 16:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    Doesn' violate WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, as it is only a collection of links to other WP content. Doesn't violate WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, as there is no personal opinion on that page, just a collection of links to other WP content. And non-censorship is about giving pictures of "naked babes" equal rights to the pictures of "bricks" or "swastikas". Finally, I cannot imagine anyone jerking off to this collection of classical statues and artwork, sterile closeups of penes and breast and drawings of sex positions, with the web having millions of purpose-built porn pages just for that purpose... -- Marcika 12:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  1. WP:NOT#WEBSPACE -- as Proto points out below, it's a circular con.
  2. WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:POINT -- If the page gives no "personal opinion", then what other use does it has in Wikipedia at present? If the page does give a "personal opinion", then doesn't it breach WP:POINT?
  3. Totally wrong on the last count -- you're confusing the process of free speech with its intended function. What did the Founding Fathers of the United States, for example, believe to be the function of free speech? Here's what Thomas Jefferson said:
    • "The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."
    • "Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."
    • "We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."
These, my friend, are the goals of free speech I was talking about. Will a gallery of naked babes result in good and just government? Will a gallery of swastikas give you an informed public who knows the facts about Germany? You're turning free speech from a means to an end, into an end in itself -- and ridding it of all its meaning. That's childish. Bi 11:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There's all kinds of stuff in user space that doesn't add any actual value to WP. It's tolerated unless there's an actual affirmative reason to remove it. No convincing reason has been offered. -- Trovatore 19:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete. This gallery would be fine if the images were used in articles. Keeping this gallery would set a horrible precedent: imagine if I uploaded a few thousand images of trees onto Wikipedia, wasting a gigabyte of webspace, just to put them in a gallery? — Dark Shikari talk/ contribs 00:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment deleting the page under discussion would not save any significant amout of space on the server. The page doesn't have the pictures, just their ASCII names. If you want to save space on the server, you need to get the images deleted, not the page. That's an orthogonal issue. -- Trovatore 01:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. This page is only a liability. I've actually put one of the notorious images hosted locally for deletion at WP:IFD. MER-C 02:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is not a censorship issue. Rather, this page serves no legitimate purpose and is thus an unnecessary drain on the servers. Jpe ob 04:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Nominator has forgotten to add the latest deletion nomination 7 weeks ago which was closed with No consensus and referred further discussion about these pages to the policy discussion section at Wikipedia talk:Galleries. Here is the verdict by the closing admin:
    The result of the debate was keep, as no consensus. Closing comments: This really should have been taken to the policy level for wider community input, since this effort may be used to set standards by setting a precedent, as well as drawing one from the /Work Gallery AfD which I somewhat controversially closed as delete. This goes outside the scope of discussion of miscellany entries for deletion in this case, since the userspace and webspace usage prohibition guideline/policy are too vague on this issue. I note that John Reid had created Wikipedia:Galleries five hours before this AfD was listed, so five days later (well, actually less than four, but who isn't counting?), I am directing your attention to its pertinent Wikipedia:Gallery#Userspace_galleries section. P.S. And don't you even dare think of touching User:Kitty!! El_C 09:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I agree with him, and would like to point out that if userpages like this are deleted, we should also delete all these "juvenile" pages with "lots of childish images" of pussies as well... -- Marcika 15:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I can think of two useful purposes for the page:
  1. a resource for people looking for images to illustrate articles on sex, art history, or anatomy.
  2. an collection of images that are likely to be sex-cruft all in one place, making it easy for a concerned editor to do a periodic sweep for all the "Here is a picture of my p33n for the sake of knowledge" that would otherwise accumulate off in the corner.

Really it's no different from the category "nudity" over at Commons, except that it includes images from more places. It's useful for the same reasons. DanB†DanD 18:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply

  • I can think of more reasons to get rid of it:
  1. a resource for trolls to find pictures of genitalia to put in templates
  2. it provokes some people (hey, I know they shouldn't be so uptight, but they are) - it's only there to provoke, and it's the definition of making a point to disrupt Wikipedia.
  3. hosting unused images (and many of them are unused, and are not on Commons) is against WP:NOT - Wikipedia's not a web space provider. Nor should Commons be (its policies state as much), and this page tells Commons that the image is in use, providing justification for it to stay on Commons when a usage check is run. It's a circular con - the image is hosted on Commons, so it's okay to use on Wikipedia. The image is on Wikipedia, so it's okay to keep on Commons. Proto:: ► 19:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  4. Proto:: ► 19:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but take images that are only used in userpages to IFD. If a troll wants to find a picture of a penis then they can just go to Penis, so saying this is troll food... doesn't make sense. If it provokes some people, well fuck them. Seriously, there is no disruption from a user page that someone would have to seek out to look at, and is titled in such a way that you know what's on it. People have lots of weird subpages, like those silly wikistress ones (why a whole subpage..). I understand that we shouldn't be stupid with user pages, but this is just a userpage with images that are already here. A subgrouping, that the author, and other editors, can honestly use for finding such images. If the images are a problem, then delete the images. I don't have a major attachment to such a userpage, but there's no good reason to delete it. I don't buy the vandal bait bit, when such images are found in the articles themselves. Again, delete the non-article images, keep the page. -- Ned Scott 09:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I think I can support that. Bi 11:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, folks Wikipedia's not censored. ( → Netscott) 09:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    Not the issue, folks, and irrelevant to the debate - please actually read why the page has been brought to MFD. Proto:: ► 13:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment frankly, I don't buy it, Proto. It seems pretty clear from the remarks of the party to delete -- including you -- that the page's sexual nature is part of their motivation. -- Trovatore 05:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
        • It's clear to me that you want to keep the page so that you can jerk off to it. Can you at least give a better argument than outright denial? Bi 11:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
          • Comment you're making my point for me, Bi. If your concern is whether people want to use the page for its sexual interest, then your aim is precisely censorship. -- Trovatore 16:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
            • I never said it's my concern, I said it's your concern. Can you at least have the decency not to create such silly strawmen? As I said above, this whole thing's childish -- nude pictures aren't going to give you good government, which is the goal of free speech in the first place. Bi 11:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: useful to legitimate editors looking for illustrations, not just to vandals and trolls. That it includes pictures not yet used anywhere else is a plus, not a minus, since it allows editors to avoid duplicating other articles' content. Not such a drain on resources, as it doesn't "host images" (see source, what it really contains is text, just like a links page); and see MediaWiki developer Simetrical's comment above on the whole resource-drain non-issue. If all "vandal bait" should be deleted, we might as well shut down Wikipedia. The core of this complaint is the beginning of the third sentence: "It's a gallery of all the rude pictures".... If it were a gallery of different kinds of fish, or trees, or architecture, I truly doubt we would be having this conversation. No (other) useful purpose? Maybe just looking at it keeps some of our less helpful brethren too busy to be active nuisances for a while, reducing the burden on our anti-vandalism crew. – SAJordan talk contribs 15:00, 11 Dec 2006 (UTC).
    If it were a gallery of different kinds of fish, or trees, or architecture, I truly doubt we would be having this conversation - that's exactly right. If it were a gallery of all the commons images of trees or cars, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Because it would have been deleted without a moment's thought. Yet as soon as anything utterly encyclopaedic happens to involve nudey pictures, anyone who wants to get rid of it is a censor, or a prude. Proto:: ► 11:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I think your assertion here is just factually false. I have never seen any such galleries in user space deleted. If you know of an example, please provide it. -- Trovatore 16:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. I'm perplexed by this, too. Why would or should we delete some user's gallery of images of bricks or fish or haystacks? — BrianSmithson 22:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Oh please there are plenty of users who hold galleries in their user pages and user subpages, even Cyde. It actually doesn't matter what kind of pictures these are, as long as they are not fair use images put up on the user namespace, which is not an issue anymore. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment As regards content, that is quite right, but I wonder whether we ought to understand as well-settled the idea that community does not disfavor user pages or subpages that, whilst composed of encyclopedic content, don't appear to serve any particular encyclopedic content. I suppose that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cyde/Weird pictures two weeks hither might dispose that question, but there have been several other MfDs that go toward a contrary proposition. Michaelas10 is right, in any event, that the only relevant questions are (a) whether the community disapproves generally of user pages of productive contributors that comprise principally non-encyclopedic content and (b) whether, should the community so disapprove, there is nevertheless some tangential encyclopedic purpose served by the page (or at least by the images thereof that are used or likely might be used in mainspace). Joe 19:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is silly. No one's forcing anyone to look at people's userspace. -- BrianSmithson 06:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As far as I'm concerned, established users keeping galleries in their userspaces is fine. – Lantoka ( talk) 09:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, and the complaints about the images not being in articles are bogus, because they're on commons, which is there to be a repository of media, not just images currently used in wikipedia. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 12:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep per Brian Smithson. Just H 16:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Wikipedia has bigger fish to fry than slightly kooky userpage annexes. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep in accordance with Brian Smithson and Lantoka. -- Afed 14:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. Dwain 15:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Markaci/Nudity_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1146420242"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE