On 5/16/11 11:37 PM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
> Any action should have a valid reasoning. He exchanged the image with a
> rather offending comment to everyone that sees sexuality as an equal
> topic to anything else.
No, I didn't. This is what I said:
"Changing to something that's less fapworthy, more educational. While
I have no problems with erotic fantasies,
even of the derivative and artistically unimportant kind depicted
here, IMO the main page of Commons usually
isn't the place for it."
This comment clearly shows that I
- think sexual topics *are* appropriate for the front page of
Commons, under certain circumstances
- think this image doesn't meet those criteria
Many of you have this impression that I removed the image just because
it had sexual content. If you have that impression, it is not arising
from anything I said or did. It is solely due to your prejudiced ideas
about who you think your opponents are. Repeat. It is solely due to your
prejudiced ideas about who you think your opponents are.
You may also be unfamiliar with the purpose of Commons, which states
explicitly that it isn't a venue for personal artistic works that have
little educational value. I thought it was a no-brainer to remove the
image from the front page of Commons, just for that reason, and the fact
that it was offensive to some people or inappropriate at most workplaces
or schools was just extra justification.
If I hear another of you bleat "COMMONS ISN'T CENSORED" or "DAMN YOU
AMERICANS AND YOUR BLUENOSE STANDARDS" I'm going to have to file you in
the troll folder.
--
Neil Kandalgaonkar ( ) <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
