I was surprised to see that some editors at Commons seem to be actively discouraging the uploading of yet more penis images. See this user's talk page, for example, which is full of notices about deletions of their uploaded images with names like "small flaccid penis with scrotum". Not even room for one small penis?
Has there been change in the mindset at Commons, or is this only some rogue admin deleting useful and educational images?
Full Version: Commons changing its members only policy?
They're really doing the guy a favor by deleting those images. He's not likely to get any dates with the ladies if they Google his penis size before happy hour. That's a small wee-wee.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 9th April 2011, 9:03am) 
That's a small wee-wee.
And thanks for that helpful assessment, Doctor Greg.
Dollar sez this "new policy" won't last. Because it's not a policy.
The latest assessment is found in the village pump discussion.
QUOTE
There are thousands of sites hosting millions of nude/pornographic etc. pictures/videos etc. on the internet free of charge. Nobody who is just interested in having a fap or a schlik is dependent on Commons.
And even if we had a billion pictures of guys wanking their dicks: what harm would it do? If you like butterflies better than penises: our butterfly categories and galleries won't be affected by the penis pictures. You will only come across them if you browse our nudity/sexuality categories. And if you do that you you probably want to come across them.
I think my point's already established. I guess you are a pornophobe. At least until now you just provided non-arguments. You didn't argue with factual, falsifiable arguments but just with rhetorical questions like "why keep this?" and personal judgments like "rubbish".
I just did a quick sample. Out of 20 files accessed through "random file" 6 were used and 14 were unused. So probably the majority of our files are not used anywhere. Being unused is a very bad measure to assess the usefulness of a file. --Slomox (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
And even if we had a billion pictures of guys wanking their dicks: what harm would it do? If you like butterflies better than penises: our butterfly categories and galleries won't be affected by the penis pictures. You will only come across them if you browse our nudity/sexuality categories. And if you do that you you probably want to come across them.
I think my point's already established. I guess you are a pornophobe. At least until now you just provided non-arguments. You didn't argue with factual, falsifiable arguments but just with rhetorical questions like "why keep this?" and personal judgments like "rubbish".
I just did a quick sample. Out of 20 files accessed through "random file" 6 were used and 14 were unused. So probably the majority of our files are not used anywhere. Being unused is a very bad measure to assess the usefulness of a file. --Slomox (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Who needs television, when you've got those idiots?
QUOTE(Adrignola @ Sat 9th April 2011, 9:45pm)
Well at least they've picked a place with an appropriate name for the discussion.
QUOTE(lilburne @ Sat 9th April 2011, 6:25pm)
QUOTE(Adrignola @ Sat 9th April 2011, 9:45pm)
Well at least they've picked a place with an appropriate name for the discussion.
It takes a village to pump a child?
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 9th April 2011, 10:30pm)
QUOTE(lilburne @ Sat 9th April 2011, 6:25pm)
QUOTE(Adrignola @ Sat 9th April 2011, 9:45pm)
Well at least they've picked a place with an appropriate name for the discussion.
It takes a village to pump a child?
Funny, the thread there was started by a child, "Ancient Apparition". What a stupid username, for starters. His maturity and clue level makes me estimate his age at ... 13? His fancy-schmancy WP userpage indicates that he doesn't care about Wikipedia's encyclopedic "goal" (pitiful as such a goal might be).
No wonder he thinks nudity = porn.
You absolutely couldn't make it up.
QUOTE
Commons needs more sexual images.
There are trains of all different shapes and sizes, and similarly there are penises, breasts, vaginas and anuses of all different shapes and sizes - it's our job to show this, not to just choose one penis we think is best and delete all others. As for sex acts, we barely have any images at all. Fellatio has only 19 images in the main category, and not many in subcategories, and most of those are cartoons. We have no photos of men performing fellatio. A total of two images of Anilingus; maybe around 50 for Cunnilingus, but almost no photos and certainly no photos which I'd want to use on an article on the subject, much less a how-to book, which, lest we forget, are also created by Wikimedia projects. We have one, yes one photo of anal sex, no photos of mammary intercourse, sex while sitting or standing, spooning or even the missionary position. One photo of fingering, three of a woman on top. Heck, of the handjob, possibly the world's most common sex act, we have a total of seven files, of which only two are photos.
To sum up, I have no idea where all this mass of pornographic media you're complaining about is, but it sure as hell isn't on Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...dia_on_Commmons
There are trains of all different shapes and sizes, and similarly there are penises, breasts, vaginas and anuses of all different shapes and sizes - it's our job to show this, not to just choose one penis we think is best and delete all others. As for sex acts, we barely have any images at all. Fellatio has only 19 images in the main category, and not many in subcategories, and most of those are cartoons. We have no photos of men performing fellatio. A total of two images of Anilingus; maybe around 50 for Cunnilingus, but almost no photos and certainly no photos which I'd want to use on an article on the subject, much less a how-to book, which, lest we forget, are also created by Wikimedia projects. We have one, yes one photo of anal sex, no photos of mammary intercourse, sex while sitting or standing, spooning or even the missionary position. One photo of fingering, three of a woman on top. Heck, of the handjob, possibly the world's most common sex act, we have a total of seven files, of which only two are photos.
To sum up, I have no idea where all this mass of pornographic media you're complaining about is, but it sure as hell isn't on Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...dia_on_Commmons
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.