User talk:Db919
Welcome!
Hello and
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
- Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
- Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
- Take particular care while adding biographical material about a reliable sources.
- No abuse of multiple accounts.
- If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
- Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
- Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.
The
October 2019
removing images
The image on I removed was a pornographic anime image of a child. I understood that paedophilic pornograhy are not allowed on Wikipedia; am I mistaken? Further, the use of a child image was not germane to the article; other not-child-exploiting illustrations are available, and might be appropriate imo. Can you clarify, in light of these comments? Thank you. Db919 (talk) 05:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Notes: "controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article"
"Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link."
The article Rule 34 is not about sexualization of children. It seems improper for a CHILD image, even in anime, to be be used. Alternative illustrations which do not use CHILD imagery are available, are could illustrate the actual topic. No special defense of this image seems appropriate; it is essentially off-topic.
- If I'm not mistaken, that is an image of an adult female - a particularly well developed one. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Actually it has already been confirmed that the specific character is 17, which, under the jurisdiction Wikipedia has chosen for itself, is NOT an adult but a minor. In many parts of the world, sexual objectification of minors is regarded with disgust. And as the article is about pornography, over the years, numerous people have objected to its use in the article.