User talk:VF9

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, VF9!

First steps tutorial

Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content).

You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.

Getting help

More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks

Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities.
You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads.
Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~.
To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg.
You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account.
There are several tools to upload files.
Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful.

Made a mistake?

Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it.
Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 07:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate "pornography" categories added[edit]

Hi. I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but am sure you're not going about it in an appropriate way. Some things to note: 1) "mere nudity is not pornography" -- Jimbo Wales [1]. 2) Some of the images you've added "pornography" lack nudity much less anything that would usually be considered "pornography". How are you trying to define it? 3)Note the existence of "MetaCategories" on Commons, categories used only for organizing other categories, not individual images. (see eg Commons:Naming_categories#Categories_by_CRITERION). Category:Pornography by date is one such "MetaCat". 4) If you have questions about editing Wikimedia Commons you can't find answers to, ask. Hope this helps. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@VF9: please read your talk page before further edits. Also note the category distinction used on Commons between "toplessness" and "nudity". Thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm trying to categorize pornography by date, and I'm defining porn by the standard definition: "the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity that results in sexual arousal." Since is such a large and broad dataset, there will be errors. However, while I agree that not all nudity is porn (eg I'm not taking non-sexual images from nudists), sometimes the line can be blurred between sexually arousing and non-sexually arousing art, especially when it comes to LGBT pornography. Additionally, something doesn't need nudity to be sexually arousing. A file of a non-nude striptease or a busty pornstar at a porn convention can be very pornographic.

As for the meta-cagetories, I'm well aware of this, since I'm the one that added that template. I'm just putting images there temporarily until they're gradually all sorted. VF9 (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I noticed you categorizing for example photos of traditional tribal societies where toplessness is the simple default traditional fashion in no way "sexual activitiy" nor intending to promote "sexual arousal" as "pornography". Really? Also, glad you're away of metacats now. Cheers. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those were errors. Please help me clean that up. Also, I noticed you removed images that included a nun pleasuring herself with a dildo and sexual photos posted by a softcore porn company (SuicideGirls), but those were not mistakes. Please focus on cleaning up the actual mistakes. VF9 (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing mistakes certainly was my intention. You are welcome, indeed encouraged, to fix your own earlier mistakes as well. For example any images in Category:Pornography by date are by definition miscategorized; that category needs to be removed from any images it was added to. Cheers. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Simple naked women are not pornography. And yet, albeit what is said above, you keep readding this same categories to files, even when they were reverted as they merely show nudity. Tm (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some times three times you make the same mistake. Please stop and clean your errors. Tm (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That first photo is of a pornstar, so that is a grey area. And that second link is definitely softcore/glamour porn. These aren't really mistakes as they are content disputes in grey areas. VF9 (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) If a person is already categorized as a "porn actress" or something similar, all categorized images of that person are already within the "pornography" category tree. Adding a general "pornography" category is redundant. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a general pornography category. It is a category sorting pornography by date. VF9 (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when the date of a photo is clearly known and stated, "Pornography with an unknown date" is a falsehood. While IMO your enthusiasm is laudable, you seem to be making some ill-considered missteps. Categorization of pornography/erotic/nudity/partial-nudity/etc related subjects is something other contributors have given some consideration to over the years - which is certainly not to say that it can't be improved, only that perhaps you should spend some time familiarizing yourself with existing categorization, and if you have ideas for bold reworking of categorization perhaps bring them up for comments and suggestions by other participants before rushing in. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The categorization of media by date is not a bold categorization. It's basic maintenance. And if the date is given, it should be pretty easy for someone to correctly reclassify it given such a prompt. VF9 (talk) 05:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, adding a category stating something is of "unknown" date when the date of the photo is indeed known is a falsehood and inappropriate. Are you trying to be deliberately disruptive? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Infrogmation: Again, they are there temporarily as a maintenance category. Since they are so easy to recat, please feel free to do so. However, don't remove them. On wikimedia we don't just remove files from maintenance categories because they could easily be reorganized. That's backwards logic. VF9 (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - "temporarily as a maintenance category"? How about be accurate and honest the first time, rather than edit in a half-assed way and then have to go back and clean it up afterwards? Or were you expecting someone else to clean up after you? When a date is clearly stated on an image, it seems a very simple and easy thing to read the date and categorize accordingly. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's standard practice to collect a set of files into a maintenance category and then gradually sort those files into more descriptive categories. Maintenance categories aren't "half-assing" anything; they just make the process much easier and faster. To delete files from a maintenance category is extremely counter-productive. VF9 (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I reverted some of your edits. E.g. Art in Pompeii is not from the 5th century BC, obviously, and, as said above, photos or statues of nude people, are not erotic art (otherwise all ancient art should be categorised as "erotic", which makes no sense). Please double check before adding a category. Cheers --Ruthven (msg) 09:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: Ah, good catch. That's a misclassification. What century is it from? I'll fix that.
And regarding the eroticism of imagery/statues, erotic art is a pretty broad field. As long as its evokes arousal, it's erotic. A beautiful nude bust of one of the w:Four Beauties of ancient China does just that. The photo of the Finnish nude art model is pretty standard for erotic photography of the time, and it's unique in the fact that the model is shown being a model for erotic painters too. Most the images you reverted are already part of another erotic category. One of the photos you reverted is even being used by dozens of wikipedia pages about erotic photography. Please learn a bit more about eroticism before making changes on erotic categories.

Also, not all ancient art is erotic. I don't know where you got that idea from. Only art that has erotic characteristics is erotic. VF9 (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simple nude photography is not exactly what I would call "erotic art". If you need dozens of examples, just visit the so-called Category:2000s erotic art and Category:2010s erotic art. Better options would be to place these images in a new Category:Nude photographs by date. Vysotsky (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the nude image being used for dozens of wikipedia articles for erotic photography? And you're welcome to create such a category right now. I'll help you out with it when I'm done with this one. VF9 (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll be cautious with classifying nude sculpture as evoking arousal: the intention of the author must be explicit (i.e made for that purpose). Pompeii is from the 1st century AC. Cheers --Ruthven (msg) 17:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that most authors are dead, we can't just ask them what their intent was. We have to infer it from the historical context. It's a pretty safe inference that nude statues of people famous for their beauty were made to be erotic, at least to some extent. VF9 (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nude wife fellatio 2019.jpg[edit]

File:Nude wife fellatio 2019.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Obvious Flickrwashing. See here.

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erotic art = Pornography ?[edit]

Hi VF9. Are you sure that Erotic art is the same as Pornography ? A nude statue or a painting of a nude person is erotic art, not pornography. An ancient Roman votive penis can be erotic art, sure it is not pornography ! Please reconsider the correctness of your categorizations. You cannot consider all that is naked or that represents a human genital as pornography. We are in the 21st century not in Victorian age. Thank you. --DenghiùComm (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Redhead fellatio kneeling 2014.jpg[edit]

File:Redhead fellatio kneeling 2014.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Tm (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taming-shrew-1815.jpg[edit]

Not entirely sure what you're trying to do with the categories of that image, but you seem to be doing it in a maximally-inefficient manner. What does "unclassified date" mean?? AnonMoos (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Blocked Indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Commons. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

See the block log for the reason that you have been blocked and the name of the administrator who blocked you.

azərbaycanca ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ kurdî ∙ la .lojban. ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ sicilianu ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

File:Orgasm brain explode 2014.jpg[edit]

File:Orgasm brain explode 2014.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.