Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic.
NOTE: There are many discussions going on here that would probably be more productive over at commons. If you're interested in commons policy, the best way to influence it is to participate at commons. :-) Let's gradually (no need to dramatically shut things down here) try to migrate discussions of commons over to commons.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is your thought about replacing "The Free Encyclopedia" with "The Encyclopedia Everyone Can Edit"? I much prefer the latter, and would propose to switch back. Buncatto (talk) 05:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Until recently, it said "The Encyclopedia Everyone Can Edit!". Simply saying "The Free Encyclopedia" downplays the strength of the Wikipdeia project. Buncatto (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technically it is not the encyclopedia "everyone" can edit, since there are those we have banned and those that are blocked temporarily at any given moment who can not edit, and that's just for starters. We dont allow vandals to edit (at least not once we recognize what they are). I believe this discussion was brought up at one of the village pumps within the last year. Ah ha, which Sole Soul already linked to, silly me for not clicking links!Camelbinky (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad I could catalyze this discussion. I really appreciate this project, and the fact that anyone can edit. In reviewing the Wikipedia rules, I particularly like the concept of Ignore all rules. Thank you. Buncatto (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Camelbinky, don't Wikilawyer. Obviously people in comas can't edit, nor people without arms that are too lazy to learn to type with their feet, nor those in prison without internet connection, or at schools that block them from editing since teenage boys insert the word "penis" into every article they come across.[1] Also, its not a free encyclopedia, if someone has to pay for the servers, electricity, and whatnot, since otherwise no one could access it. But I don't want to Wikifinagle that point. DreamFocus15:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It says "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." at the top of the main page. The logo on the side could say "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which anyone can edit." DreamFocus15:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On all pages that are not protected/semi-protected, the tagline should read: "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. You can edit this page." followed by a button marked "edit" "How to edit" linking to a very short, simple few sentences about how to, and a link to the Talk and Edit pages of the article. That, alone, would double the editor activity overnight. I think that would be a good thing. Anthony (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Call me an elitist, but I don't know if we really want to generate an income of editors which are still unable to understand that anyone can edit Wikipedia after so many years of its existence and the subtitle in the main page. --Cyclopiatalk19:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we make it easy and obvious, stupid people might start editing? Interesting hypothesis. Only one way to find out, and it could be undone. Anthony (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is all quite interesting and should be raised with the usability team. Based on my non-Wikipedia experiences (at Wikia), encouraging more people to edit does not result in a reduction in quality, so I disagree with Cyclopedia's view. But, in the end, it is, as Anthonyhcole says, an empirical question. Most things are. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have put this suggestion to usability, who referred me to technical and proposals. From the response so far, there seem to be several camps.
Me, who thinks it's a good idea.
Those who oppose on aesthetic grounds: but usability and ease of entry should not be trumped by aesthetics.
Those who oppose on subtext grounds. Making it really clear and obvious to the reader that he/she can edit the article they're reading makes us look less reliable. I can't see any merit in this stance, but perhaps I'm missing something.
Those who don't think it will make any difference to reader→editor conversion rates. Only one way to find out.
Those who think it will attract the wrong sort. The wrong sort seems to be stupid or difficult people. I fail to grasp the reasoning here, too. And again, only one way to find out.
So, although I think I'm winning the argument, I'm being thrashed on numbers. I sense a blowback against increasing the number of new editors due to the inadequate conversion (reader→editor) process, which has new editors not checking the article talk page, and inserting WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:POV, etc. out of ignorance and creating lots of work for established editors.
Therefore, when we raise the conversion rate, we'll need to streamline the indoctrination process, so that more converts does not impose more educational chores on the existing editors. Anthony (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Focusing on the major issues, there are 2 extremes of problems when "anyone can edit": (1) when few are experts, or (2) when "everyone's an expert". When few are real experts, WP risks the mangling of expert articles (which repeatedly happens to medical articles, but someone patiently re-fixes most). This is the dangerous case shown by the analogies:
- "the heart medicine anyone can re-mix" or
- "the jet airliner anyone can re-configure" (etc.).
Often "Cocaine" changed from a medicine into a popular crime problem. At the other extreme, "everyone's an expert" so the article gets re-arranged into 87 formats, as a hodge-podge, with chaos caused by "collisions" about what to include. That is what happened to the article "Search engine" which began as a computer concept (such as Google, Bing, Dogpile or Yahoo! Search), but all the other "experts" kept re-writing the article into a mash of chaotic text, so the article became an intro-only stub about searching, and finally a redirect to "Web search engine". So, the solution is the inverse:
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, anyone can learn where to NOT edit.
Those extremes of few experts or many, as witnessed, are why people worry about hordes of new editors. They need to be taught where to NOT edit. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I love it Jimbo, from Unparliamentary language "The most prohibited case is any suggestion that another member is dishonourable. So, for example, suggesting that another member is lying is forbidden" We should introduce that here, then no one could expose all the socks and other odd goings on. Yeah Giacomo 22:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that conclusion follows whatsoever. Surely you aren't suggesting that all inquiry into whether rules are being followed necessitates being obnoxious to others.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does follow. Even polite accusations of lying are unparliamentary. Only using parliamentary language is impractical, even in politics - it is only required in the chamber of the house. Outside the chamber, you can say what you like (under parliamentary rules - obviously laws against hate speech and things still apply). --Tango (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or, we could demand more of ourselves than that, and attempt to view civility and kindness towards others not as a straightjacket, but a cherished and honorable goal.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We could indeed, but working at the coalface with editors who won't even take "yes" for an answer, let alone "no", is very wearing at times, and it's no wonder some admins burn out under the pressure and other editors just give up and leave. And it's <pedant>straitjacket</pedant>. (Sorry) :D Rodhullandemu23:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My dictionary (Oxford American) lists straightjacket as an accepted alternate spelling, but I shall gladly change my habit. I agree with you that working with editors who are tiresome is, in fact, tiresome, and I think there are some partial solutions to it. One is to demand of ourselves - and them - a higher standard of behavior. Two is to ban them if they won't comply. There is a point at which the trouble caused by some people far exceeds the value of their individual work, because of the damage that they do by exhausting good people. We too often forget that this is not a public free speech forum, but a private project with standards and norms. Yes, we should try to be tolerant and forgiving. But yes, just as well, we should have limits and enforce them with gentle and kind firmness.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No contest on the straitjacket issue, but given the meaning of "strait" as "narrow", as in Straits of Gibraltar, I think your dictionary has fallen into a populist trap. Meanwhile, on the behaviour point, all of us here are volunteers, and human. To expect perfectly perfect conduct in the face of what appears to be a tidal wave of vandalism, although I'm fully aware that that tide, as do most, recedes occasionally, is perhaps expecting too much. And it's all to easy to say that you should walk away and find something else to do for a while; some of us have nothing else to do but try as we might to uphold the noble principles on which Wikipedia was founded. If that means banning editors, so be it; the road to where we are now is littered with the (figurative) corpses of those who have failed to meet our standards, and now seem to be either completely absent or residing in Wikipedia Review. On your last point, I cannot disagree; however, perhaps our message is not clear that we are an encyclopedia, and I've seen more often than I care to count editors who believe that "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is equivalent to "a website that anyone can add any old rubbish", good-faith or not. In that sense, we have become a victim of our own success, perhaps, and perhaps I'm cynical in only seeing the worst, but I subscribe to the mailing lists and see general concerns; one of which is that many new articles fall through the net simply because not enough effort is put into new page patrol. In my early days, a spell there, combined with an understanding of CSD, was the best initial experience I could have had. Sorry if this appears to be a rant, but I spend enough time here to have an overview of what's going on. Rodhullandemu00:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should separate the questions of behavior that we should strive for, and questions of perfection. Perfection is impossible, and not to be expected - and even so, we should ask the best of ourselves. To ask if we can improve, is not to ask if we can become gods, for we cannot.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; I welcome it, and will feel free to cite it whenever I see an editor criticising an admin for a minor lapse of judgement in the usual places, and demanding desysopping, if not actual blood. Let's be clear that some people come hither and thither with unreasonable expectations and some basic realism about what we are and how we work would be useful. Rodhullandemu01:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. I had forgotten that, we could probably have "You are being entirely miserly with the truth" That should make everone happy - the problem is though would half the children here understand what was being meant. No, I think a direct honest approach is always best - honesty is always the best policy - or am I alone in that view here? Giacomo 23:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you are not alone in that view - indeed it is one that I share. However, being honest need not preclude behaving honorably and with dignity and compassion towards others, in any way. A certain generosity of spirit, taken to heart and practiced as well as one can (we are all human and will fail from time to time, no doubt), can work wonders. This is the meaning of "Assume Good Faith" - we ought to take extra care not to turn down the rabbit hole of rancor, when there is ample evidence that the alternative approach of seeking out and praising the best in others - even in the midst of conflict - serves everyone's goals much better.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, we should stick with AGF which has been shown to work very well (when it is followed). The rules designed for the British Parliament are not appropriate here - we have our own rules and should trust in them, they've worked well so far. --Tango (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ongoing discussion, over the past year (since 10 June 2009), has been to stop using the term "lawyer" as a typical type of devious person, which has become cast in stone, from the November-2005 essay "WP:Wikilawyering". The discussion now is:
We can rename the concept of "Wikilawyering" as "Wikifinagling" and move the essay to that new title, automatically changing name "WP:Wikilawyering" into a redirect. Many people have noted the offensive nature of the term "Wikilawyering" as a troubling slur against lawyers, just as a negative term of "Wiki-student" (if meaning a bumbling, inept, devious newcomer) could be predicted to offend students, especially some graduate students who would reject the notion they were instantly inept or devious. See discussion from June 2009, Wikipedia_talk:Wikilawyering#Offensive Title. The intended view of "wikifinagling" is as a broad term (not just with lawyers) while also tied to "pettifoggery" plus, the term "wikifinagle" can hint at any type of non-court activity which bends the rules. There is no need to describe devious actions as court procedures. This renaming follows the prior renaming of "wiki-stalking" as WP:Wikihounding, to avoid legal term "stalking". Perhaps this would be a good time to finally remove the word "lawyer" in this context. Last year, no one had previously suggested "Wikifinagling". What do you think? -Wikid77 (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The dogs may be at the door or someone is barking at the wrong tree but such terminology decreases the ability of editors to deliver the intended message. Editors should spend more effort in putting thier mark on the community in productive ways, there are thousands of populated place(they used to be called towns) that could raised from stub status. Gnomes of the wikiworld unite grab your ring and dont climb the mountains, come on Jimbo there will be another mountain to conquer in moment. Gnangarra06:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that "Wikilawyering" is more often than not the presentation of the the other side of the coin with reasoning; even though often unwelcome to the opposing majority - is it right that it should be referred to at al in a dergatory fashion? Is that AGFing? Giacomo 07:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think Jimbo is right to climb mountains: someone needs to settle debates about the big issues, and even Moses went to the mountain top. Much of Wikipedia has become "paralysis of analysis" in re-hashing the same tired arguments. I feel we need another 50 policies, to stop endless quarrels, such as:
WP:Jobs - a new policy is needed to state no one's profession or job should be mentioned with contempt (like "lawyer"); even where legalized, prostitution is someone's job not a condemnation of them; with medical marijuana the term "drug dealer" should not be equated with criminal.
WP:Crime_text - a new policy is needed to ensure forensic evidence cannot be removed from crime articles as "excess clutter, who cares?". The current censorship of the Amanda Knox case (MoMK), where an active editor totally removed the "Detailed forensics" section 3 times (showing Knox called her roommate for 16 seconds, then called others), which listed all the places/cars searched (& major blood patterns) should have been forbidden from deletion, by policy. Forensic data is a neutral point-of-view based on reality: it must be allowed even though not a pro/con viewpoint of guilt.
We need more policies to explicitly stop devious deletions of sourced text, ensure fairness, and stop slurs against some types of people. I think Jimbo is quite right to care about the mountain-top issues. There are many of us to write the history of small towns, or translate articles in German, but the big policies about neutral views of crimes or other specific subjects must be added soon, to stop the endless finagling to remove valuable text from articles: the current WP text for WP:NOTCENSORED is too weak to insist forensic evidence be allowed in crime articles. That's why we need 50 specific policies: people keep re-debating the interpretation of the general policies, leading to extreme paralysis of actual writing. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is needed is firmer measures against those who continue to act and argue against consensus, insist on pushing their point of view, insist on extensive use of primary sources, attempt to change guidelines to allow synthesis and original research and so on. Oh and no, it shouldn't be changed to wikifinagling because hardly anyone would have a fucking clue what it meant. Quantpole (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with arguing against consensus or trying to change guidelines that you don't agree with? Just because I'm willing to follow the rules doesn't mean I should or do agree with all of them. Consensus can indeed change, and our rules with it. I think you should revise your list of no-nos. Buddy431 (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One basic problem is a misview of "consensus" as though it were the majority opinion: instead, consensus is a "unanimous agreement of all acting in good faith" (often with a compromise). The proof is simple: 2 people debate an issue, one says they've reached consensus, but the other disagrees. You can't have 1-person consensus. That proof is by: reductio ad absurdum. Earlier, WP decided a lot by majority rule, but consensus was favored to keep from angering the minority opinions. So, consensus is NOT a vote (of majority). However, few people understand how to "gain consensus" by offering a compromise solution (of give-and-take), where the majority must give up some stance to meet a middle ground. Anyway, don't blame anyone who doesn't think consensus is unanimous, because it has been treated as the "majority consensus" in many discussions, and "compromise" is not a popular article for them. Just wanted you to know why the angry mob acts that way, rather than seeking true consensus. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, consensus is certainly not equal to compromise (though compromise is often a good and worthwhile thing). If a minority of people hold a view which is not backed by policy or guidelines, we do not 'meet in the middle' with them. Consensus is not about keeping everyone happy. That is impossible and leads to people holding articles hostage until they get what they want. If you want to use reductio ad absurdum then how about a situation where 99 people all agree that the Earth is (approximately) round but one person thinks that it is flat and that it should be given equal status in the article. There is no compromise to be reached here - even if that person refuses to recognise that consensus is against them they are simply wrong. I would argue that the most important part of consensus is learning when you are swimming against the tide and living with it, even if you don't like it. Carrying on the argument ad infinitum ends up being disruptive. Quantpole (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fallacy is that a minority can interpret the policies in a different manner (one even claimed WP:IAR); hence, the majority has no solid policies to back their view, and we again resort to compromise. Instead, ask them, "Could we mention flat Earth in a footnote, or connect this to the Flat Earth Society?" as a compromise. Otherwise, the majority claims an exclusive hold on the truth of policies, and the minority is always against the so-called "consensus" without their consent. Consent must be unanimous, otherwise admit, "Consensus could not be reached: the people never agreed". Stop claiming consensus without consent. No wonder so many people are upset. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this going anywhere. OK, I only started practising law in 1974, and moved on in 1982, but the only reason "lawyer" seems to be a term of abuse is that it is perceived as actually a job that requires legal definitions to exhibit clarity, and if they do not appear to do so, to challenge those definitions in appellate courts. If it were not so, there would be no need at all for appellate courts. Doing that job, of course, is perceived by aggrieved parties as "nit-picking", but by clients as "value for money"; but if the legislature does not make its intention utterly plain, of course it is open to challenge by the judiciary, as I have already said. Similar principles apply here in that we try to set out policies in general terms, but whose wording may be open to argument and interpretation; that's only to be expected in a human situation. We don't have an appellate structure here that is geared up to deal with this sort of dispute, and to my mind, nor should we. WP:BURO, you know, and we have better things to be doing. Rodhullandemu00:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that explanation. I regret that any profession becomes a Wikipedia slur. Also, WP:BURO seems to be a big problem: most people do not handle generalities well, nor general policies; otherwise, statutes or regulations would not be deemed so effective. Only seat-belt laws have drastically reduced traffic deaths, even though people knew safety policies led to belts in their cars. Someone following a general policy of "freedom of speech" might see no problem with joking on a plane as, "I should put the fireworks from my suitcase under your seat." Unless WP sets more specific rules, people will continue to reject someone else's "truth" about interpreting general policies. The Code of Hammurabi is famous for having set specific rules & meted punishments (circa 1790 BC), rather than decisions by royal decree. At some point, WP needs to learn from its own articles what leads to failures. A system of demerit points that accrues positive or negative points, leading to an n-day block would probably be a good way to enforce WP regs, without blocking a person for every violation. Positive points could be earned by helpful activities, such as processing other violators, or vio-related cleanups. No longer would admins capriciously block anyone on a whim. Thank you for taking time to reveal these crucial problems. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to disagree on most all of these points. First, I think clarity is achieved by saying more with less, and using easily sourced words and phrases in the manner in which common people speak. Lawyering is often seen as method of obfuscation, by using jargon which is not readily understood by most common speakers of English. While this often starts out with good intentions, as a means to keep things extremely specific, it most often leads to a playing of words, pitting the policy against itself rather than focusing on the overall meaning intended. What users often run into an argument like:
Sure, but let's be clear: "should not" is meant in the sense of discouraging rather than forbidding. WP:ELNO, a subsection of WP:EL, provides guidance on the kind of "[l]inks [that are] normally to be avoided" (emphasis added). This advisory rather than mandatory status is underscored by another subsection of WP:EL, WP:ELNEVER. The latter tells us what should never be linked; logically, therefore, WP:ELNO must express a more relaxed standard, otherwise it would simply be a part of WP:ELNEVER. As a subset of WP:EL, moreover, WP:ELNO "does not apply to inline citations," WP:ELPOINTS (emphasis and link in original). Reliance on [the subject's] twitter feed for points made in the article text is accordingly within the purview of WP:PRIMARY rather than WP:ELNO.
When I use the term "wikilawyering," this is the type of confusing statement to which I am referring. There is nothing clear about the above statement, although it is eerily reminiscent of what one might hear in a court room. (How many of us just nod along do what the other jurors are doing?) Better in my mind that we use the policies as guidelines of good writing techniques, and use those techniques in discussions as well. The world of writing is based upon integrity and reward, and not so much demerits and discipline. Zaereth (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When the wording states "logically/therefore" then I think it sounds like mathematical proofs, but I wouldn't call it "wikimathing". The term "WP:Wikifinagle" is used to replace "wikilawyering" as the most devious form of nit-picking. However, I have created a 2nd essay as "WP:Wikifogging" (about rambling over WP:XX, WP:YY, WP:ZZ), where the person might not be devious, just "clouding" the issues with vague, hazy acronyms and wording which does not clarify the issue. When you don't intend to say someone is "devious" then use WP:Wikifog, as not a personal attack. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Account hacking email
Hey Jimbo, I don't know where to report this, but someone has attempted to hack my account, as well as they are not well like by the community as it is: 67.51.126.162 was the IP sent to me in the password reset email. ~〖 Charles TimkoTalk 〗13:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some other group or person is violating my Federal service mark on Wikipedia -- what do I do?
Sir:
My name is Clell Drumheller and I live in Houston, Texas, where the official Constitution Party of Texas is headquartered -- 7774 Pine Center Drive, Houston, Texas 77095. I am the Chairman and we hold the Federal service mark on the name of our party. I will, gladly, provide proof of this fact at your request.
Some person or group is using our service mark without our permission and making entries that lead to other entities. We do not approve of nor was permission granted to anyone to take such actions. Please, if you can, correct this situation.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Clell M. Drumheller, II
Chairman
Constitution Party of Texas
www.cptx.us
1-866-cptexas
June 2, 2010
I've taken a quick look at this, and it's not at all clear what you mean. But rather than continue removing cited material, I advise you to discuss this article on its Talk page, and there is little Jimbo can do in a straightforward content dispute. Cheers. Rodhullandemu21:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)This appears to be related to a dispute regarding www.cptx.us and www.cptexas.us as to which is the real Constitution Party of Texas. One source perhaps worth evaluating is [2]. This is the key edit that is getting reverted back and forth. Hope that helps! Hipocrite (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An Open Letter To The Founder Of Wikipedia - Jimmy Wales From Geser Kurultaev
An open letter to the founder of Wikipedia - Jimmy Wales from Geser Kurultaev
The present Bulgarian section of Wikipedia is comperatevely one of the worst ones (A lot of the rest are much better and good enough). The administration and the moderators in the Bulgarian section behave in such an abnormal way. Many ordinary users are against them, but there is no way to change it, so I am writing to You in order to inform you about the main problems "there":
-They use LIBELS as "arguments" against somebody. For example 2 times already they wrote that Geser Kurultaev is a "pseudo-scientist" and "self-appointed", but, in fact, it is a person with Master's degree in Philosophy (Philosophical Anthropology).
-They use INSULTS as "arguments" against somebody. For example Geser Kurultaev was called "graphomaniac".
-They use CENSORSHIP against the users who they don't like (such as bann, delete, etc.)
-They use SELECTIVITY and DOUBLE STANDARD.
THERE ARE A LOT OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST THERE ARBITRARY AND TOTALITARIANISM. IF YOU NEED I WILL FIND, LINK AND TRANSLATE IN ENGLISH FOR YOU.
With a translation of the most important sentences of this original-and-objective protest made by a former Bulgarian Wiki-member :
"See you, "free" editors of Wikipedia, see you pastors-repressors!...
...here is no (real) knowledge, nor freedom.
I refuse to be a part of this fraud, called "Wikipedia", EXPECIALLY ITS BULGARIAN SECTION...
...mob law...
...court without a conviction...
...abuse of power..."
Aside from the obvious, the male appears to be curiously uninvolved: "Lie back and think of England." As its use is restricted, I doubt this will be considered porn in any article on sexual intercourse. Bielle (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Semitism and hatred in Commons
Jimbo, I refer you to the image Ship_to_Gaza_by_Latuff.gif in Commons. It has no educational value, is out of project scope, just like hardcore porm images, but somehow, admins even deny allowing a discussion on the subject. this cannot be tolerated anymore. Almost all of Carlos_Latuff's images are of the same nature. They display anti-semitic, racist, anti-israel "cartoons", which are used soley to emotionally shock and stun it's viewers. These images should be removed from Commons as were the porn pictures, and Commons should disallow uploading such useless and redundant images, with no real value. Commons should be used to store such repulsive images only because thay are cc-by-sa. Yonidebest Ω Talk17:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
