The argument was made that some of the votes to delete were made from IP addresses thereby suggesting they should be invalidated. Could someone point to a rule for this? Are IP people allowed to edit but not vote?
There was also an implication for invalidating votes that voters had to provide a reason for a vote. While this might be interesting, is it absolutely mandatory?
The argument to keep (which ran 7-2 against the vote) was that it was educational, even though meco argued in the Wikipedia article that it wasn't educational. Which is it?
Is there any standard at all or can anything be included? Shall we include a photograph of bullshit and argue that it's educational, that somehow someone somewhere will benefit? Then must we have photos of horseshit to show how they differ? And videos of how it's done? Are we now being run by sniggering 11-year-olds?
Hi UT. First off, like almost all discussions on wikimedia projects, deletion requests are not a vote. If someone just says delete, it's absolutely worthless. It doesn't present an argument as to why it should be done, it's just a statement "I don't like this". Even just saying "Delete because I agree with the nominator's argument" is better. Also, while the closing admin should take into account the arguments expressed, he doesn't need to agree with them. I feel the video could have educational value in an article. As it happens, I think we do have some photos of bull shit, and probably several to, yes, illustrate the different types. Commons is not run by sniggering 11 year olds, at least as far as I know, insofaras I'm 22. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Install a content filter? This is ridiculous, you Wikipedia sexeditors are crossing the line here. No one needs to see a video of a man ejaculating to understand masturbation. Did you? No, you didn't, and neither did anyone else. Come to think of it - this video doesn't even teach you how to masturbate, it teaches you how to ejaculate, which is an instinct and completely unnecessary to be "taught". Stop promoting your agenda of how great you think you feel and how you want to share it with others, you're no better than the crazy evangelical christians who go around trying to tell people how to please themselves. Get this off here. Please.
edit: To make it even better, some of you hide behind the shroud of "free speech" on this issue, only to close the topic and revert edits when the opinion is overwhelmingly against your opinion. So much for the free encyclopedia anyone can edit. --76.165.240.69
76.165.240.69
This image is being kept for the exact same reason why national geographic has images of nude tribes people in Africa. Commons is not an entertainment site - you can't apply the values you would on a site that is for entertainment. Commons is an educational media provider and this is educational media. To remove all nudity and offensive media would make it impossible to fulfill our mission. Besides, who's system of values do we apply? Islamic? Christian? Hindu? Pagan? Republican? Democrat? If we try to make everyone feel happy and fluffy we end up with nothing of value. --J.smith (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said "No one needs to see a video of a man ejaculating to understand masturbation" - what about the half of the planet that doesn't have a penis? What about those who are unable to achieve ejaculation? --J.smith (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now, now, Matt. You had me laughing about the bullshit (which IS funny), but I can't let you get away with a non sequitur as justification. An ugly video doesn't have anything to do with computers. Luddism applies to technology, not bad taste.
The prurient content wasn't as bothersome as the giggling prepubescent "let's sneak this past the adults" attitude where it's used in Wikipedia. One of the justifications for keeping it was the "sound"! What kind of rationale is that?
Two people intent on keeping the video cite opposite reasons: J.smith insists it's educational, but Meco says it's NOT educational but he likes it for other reasons. J.smith drags National Geographic into it, but in many years of reading NG in dentists' offices, I've never seen a series on an ugly dude pulling his puny pud.
As a professional writer with a background in both science and art, I have to ask if you couldn't have found an uglier example? When I asked Meco if he either took the video or was in the video, he responded (in effect) that it didn't matter. Wouldn't this be more appropriate for MySpace or FaceBook or To Catch a Predator? Most sex manuals use professional models and not a guy who looks like the sleezy brother-in-law of the local pervert.
Y'all are spending too much time keyboarding with one hand. What is it with these non sequiturs? We're not talking about destroying computers, we're not talking about electrocuting elephants, we're not even talking about the nudity of an ugly guy, only shock value.
The vid has no art, no science, no taste, no justification, and apparently no standards. As pointed out, some of your own supporters assert that it's not even educational and it's arguably not encyclopedic. As was pointed out in the article, there's a an unanswered question of self-promotion and conflict-of-interest. You asked for a vote and then you ignored the vote. What was the point of asking for opinions if you were going to do what you wanted anyway?
You appear to be under the mistaken impression that deletion requests are votes. They're not, they are requests for consensus within policy. If policy seems vague, then we go by strength of arguments. I felt the arguments for keep outweighed the ones for delete. I've posted a more complete keep rationale now, so read that. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
