Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adamnewbold93




 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 discussion was Tag as sockpuppet and full protect. NW ( Talk ) 19:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Adamnewbold93
Just a gallery of fair-use images and porn. Not appropriate for Wikipedia. -- Mr Stalker  ( talk ) 09:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * ummm well there is like a million other pages like this i actually just copied and pasted all the porn and the gallery lookin thing the photos are in off some other persons user page so i dont think it should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamnewbold93 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, yeah, because the "other guy did it"-argument is a perfect excuse... -- Mr Stalker  ( talk ) 16:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but all the fair use images need to go, the free images are fine. I'll go delete the fair use ones now. Gigs (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep its two against one just leave it. Adam Newbold


 * Move to a subpage with a meaningful title. The main userpage should be about the user.  It's a tad too much of a surprise confrontation.  There are too many images, making it hard to load (an issue for the userpage, not so much for subpages).  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEBHOST. Thought i do appreciate the collection of very oddly licensed images Wikipedia isn't really for displaying a collection of your favourite porn.  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ TALK 21:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean oddly licensed? All the files I checked are on commons.  This has nothing to do with WP:WEBHOST since we are hosting those files whether he has a gallery or not. Gigs (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As to the licnses, it doesn't take a genius to create flickr.com accounts and upload images with licenses so as to meet the project's requirements. I suppose my issue is also with Commons having porn that is used only for user pages    that was added by someone other than the photographer, just because it could be. The licensing on this one is highly skeptical  as the only contribution from the user was to upload the pic. This user has only contributed s/c porn to Commons  and it is used only on userpages. Her talk page is worse.
 * One's userpage "exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion." Filling your user page with porn is not really helpful or contributing. It is promoting your love of porn.  A userbox and maybe one picture, maybe. Scores of pictures, sometimes multiple instances of the same picture, on one's main userpage is using other user's use of Wikipedia & Commons as a webhost. The SuicideGirls and the illustrations have encyclopedic use. As do various others such as Topless and Thong but others are here for hosting purposes courtesy various users. Just because someone else stuck an image into Commons for no valid purpose doesn't mean placing it on one's userpage is appropriate. Consider why all the male nudity on Wikipedia (but not on Commons) has useage restriction on it and yet the female doesn't? male restricted use female unrestricted use I'm all for porn of either gender, in its proper place and time. If i were to emulate this page would noone object to a mix of male and female porn on my user page? Doubtful. It would violate WP:CIVIL Incivility "1 (a) Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions;"
 * There is also the matter of WP:NOTCENSORED to consider. "(S)ome articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content. Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available—however, when a cited quotation contains words that may be offensive, it should not be censored." It speaks only of non-censorship in of articles (which are found in mainspace or user subpages if in development) when appropriate'. There is not clause regarding the non-censorship of userpages.
 * Finally there is WP:IUP to consider, in particular Rules of thumb "10) Shocking or explicit pictures should not be used simply to bring attention to an article."
 * There is fair-use and free-use. Both are still subject to appropriate use.  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ TALK 10:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you believe the files are improperly licensed, then you need to take that up on commons. Regarding your other arguments, I believe they are all spurious.  This clearly doesn't violate civility guidelines, and all the other guidelines you brought up are about article content.  There's probably hundreds of other userspace image galleries of non-nude images that are never attacked in this way.  This indicates to me that it is just some crusade against nudity that is going on here.  Gigs (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note – User:Adamnewbold93 is a ✅ sock puppet of User:Adam2893. If a deletion results, then this page needs to be recreated with


 * 
 * As this user is a confirmed abuser of socks. If not, then that tag still needs to be on that page for tracking purposes. MuZemike 02:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Either delete if the user remains indefinitely blocked, or move gallery to a subpage per SmokeyJoe if his block is reduced or overturned. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.