User talk:Infofreak

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Gwernol 20:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My concern is that its not an appropriate addition to the article. The video is already on the Ejaculation article where it seems more appropriate. I'd suggest you discuss this on the talk page; if the consensus of editors there is that it should be added, then I won't object. Good luck, Gwernol 22:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, since you don't appreciate polite, let me put it this way: the next time you leave a personal attack on my page I will block you from editing. Gwernol 22:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ejaculation Educational Demonstration Still Frame.jpg
In response to your post on my talk, while on speedy deletion patrol I noticed this image being mistakenly listed on en. Since such images are image vandal magnets, I put it on the list of restricted images. It was not being used in any articles at the time that I removed the speedy tag, so there were no exceptions - e.g. it could not appear inline in any articles. Unfortunately, I forgot to add a tag to the image talk page. Taking your post as a request, I have added an exception for Ejaculation, as well as adding the tag to the image talk. In response to your last question, the bad image list is particular to English Wikipedia and does not affect any other language or Wikimedia project. Cheers, BanyanTree 18:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits have been reverted as they have been considered to contain legal threats or claims of legal action against editors of Wikipedia, or Wikipedia itself. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration
I see in the above post that you got chewed out for "legal threats" when you pointed out Atom's sock puppet picture could get Wikipedia in trouble. I left Wikipedia after having something similar happen, I got chewed out for using the same image (before it was added to the naughty pics list).

In the ensuing conversation about why the image wasn't appropriate for Jimbo Wales' page, I got a few "WP:*" rules that noone can actually find thrown in my face. One of which was for the process of arbitration.

At some point, if anything is going to change, someone will have to brave the red tape of idiocy that Wikipedia has put in place. Another option is the Request for Comments stuff that allows users to post about problematic users and maybe eventually get them banned. Here is need for both, one to keep people from posting the dick pic, and the other to get Atom booted.

The unfortunate thing is that Atom isn't the only pervert on Wikipedia trying to shove his schlong down your throat. If you didn't notice, he has his own little cabal to back him up at the drop of a dime. You can clearly see them on the image for deletion page, which went unnoticed until the last minute when he brought in enough of his fellow trolls to keep it. Trying to get Atom off of Wikipedia will involve going up against them as well as any other person that just stumbles along and feels motivated to speak out against you "horrible censor happy bible thumpers".

I don't think Atom is an Administrator. He's just an underhanded little troll that makes reverts when he thinks noone is looking. I think he tries to pass himself off as an administrator by trying to intimidate newcomers through misrepresented policies. I'm sure that that's a violation of some WP:* somewhere. But then again, so is his calling everyone who disagrees with him a religious whacko. (WP:Civility if you are wondering.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators

I'm not sure why he is tolerated. If you go back through the Talk page history, several admins have made mention to his needing to get off the conspiracy bandwagon, even implying that he's done this before elsewhere and has a reputation for causing problems. This reputation, which would get him banned in a perfect world, is danced with tippy toes around eggshells though.

But should you, and any of the others you can muster, decide to pursue Arbitration/RfC stuff, I will support you. I do check my discussion page about once a week, and I keep track or Ejaculation since it's like a poorly written soap opera and it gives me something to laugh about. -- jsa 01:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:KilledByGunshot DeathErection.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:KilledByGunshot DeathErection.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -N 15:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: the porn on the ejaculation page
Hi Infofreak, You have made you case strongly about Krooga's images and video. I am 100% in agreement. For myself, and I have only been at this for about a week and I am seriously considering just leaving Wikipedia to stew in its own juice. The "pearl necklace" photo is porn too, but I think we should focus on this article. The thing is this, I know porn when I see it. Most people do. But those who have been editing these pages for a long time gradually become unable to tell what is porn, because they keep seeing it in the context of an article in wikipedia. They are playing into the hands of those who upload this filth, whether they realise it or not. Cyclopedia has made a most ridiculous comment on that page - he uses other wikipedia articles for comparison. As you will see from my comments I am not one to stand on policy, but I think there is a policy that states content should not be determined by comparison with other articles or wikipedia in other countries. I have asked for editor assistance on this page (from Wikipedian2). If that does not resolve things it probably will be necessary to take this further.DMSBel (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Btw, I might be wrong but I suspect a strategy is being used here. Those who want the photos play on the the fact that the page is nearly always protected when they are in. Inclusion become the default, even though the real default would be how the page was before they were put in. This makes the editor deleting seem to be the trouble maker. Those who want to keep the images whether the porn on this page or another, think that by stalling the deletion people will get used to seeing it and while they may at first have been shocked, gradually by repeatedly seeing it they begin to wonder what the big deal is, and move on. They are basically waging a war of attrition. If the images are porn, then no consensus is needed to delete. Would you consider taking this further? Have they been nominated for deletion yet? DMSBel (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good luck with that. You've been told over and over again that many (the majority?) of editors don't consider it porn. So yes, consensus would be needed to delete - no admin is going speedy delete them. -- Neil N   talk to me  00:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)