Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kingstonjr/Work Gallery

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Too much time and energy is being expended on this issue (sorting/removing fair use images, etc.). El_C 06:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have been asked to bring the attention of participants that the multi-page nomination, AfD/WikiPorn, has now been listed for deletion. El_C 18:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kingstonjr/Work_Gallery

This seems to be an inappropriate use of wikipedia server space. Beatdown 19:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Many, although not all (I found one or two that aren't there and stopped looking then) of the images are available at Wikimedia:Commons. I'm not sure if Beatdown's reason is technically sufficient, but, if it is, I wholeheartedly agree with the proposal to Delete it. Badbilltucker 19:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - although it doesn't break any of the rules of
    Wikipedia is not a free host. Yomanganitalk 00:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Can someone also have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Gallery? There is a link to it from User:Kingstonjr's userpage, and i have a sneaky suspision it may be a similar gallary to his "Work Gallary" --Yaksha 02:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - its true, articles are not censored, but this isn't an article and displays many images not included in articles because they are thought to be pushing the edge of pornography. This borders on a legal issue and thus to remain in compliance with US law, the safe thing is for this page to have its images not used on wikipedia removed. And yes, since our servers are in the US we do have to abide by US law. Doubtless I'll be called a prude for this, but in my opinion legality trumps the anti-censorship folks. I honestly don't see much difference here from users who fill pages up á la Myspace. Neither further the work on the encyclopedia. pschemp | talk 02:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, if the legality of showing nude images in plain sight is your concern, Nudity seems to have images of equal pornographyness. I don't see any distinction. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Um, these aren't just nude images, and although I don't personally agree with a distinction between educational and pornographic, the government makes one. Sorry you fail to see it but for the government, a far off shot of someone jogging nude is different that a close up of pierced genitalia. I'm not seeing any micro-close ups of genitals on Nudity or bondage or things like that. That's where we can run afoul and that's why many of those images are not in articles. I think if an image isn't currently being used on wikipedia, it has no place in the gallery. It certainly can't claim to be educational if it isn't being used to illustrate an article. pschemp | talk 03:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment; I don't think I was viewing the right gallery. I retract that statement. These images are in the Commons though, which is another Wikimedia site. If you think they're particularily bad, you might want to take the individual images to the deletion stuff there as well... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment this discussion is about what's here, not on commons. The commons debate is a whole 'nother thing and I'm not commenting about it right now. pschemp | talk 03:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment, this userpage can't be that much in the wrong if he's just linking to images that already exist in the Wikimedia projects. Delete the images themselves if your position is that it's a legal issue or such. There are still legitimate images in the gallery. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Again, actually, no many are on commons but aren't used on any project. It doesn't matter though. Our defense is that these are educational. If they aren't used in an article, that defense is void. pschemp | talk 03:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • So are you suggesting the unused images should be removed from Commons? I agree. Hyenaste (tell) 03:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • No, I'm not. I have no opinion on commons. pschemp | talk 03:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • We should disallow unused, potentially pornographic images from Wikipedia, but allow them on Commons, another Wikimedia entity? Surely your opinion on right and wrong can't just stop once the URL changes to commons. Hyenaste (tell) 03:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • This has nothing to do with my opinion of right and wrong. My personal opinion is different than the law. However, I don't have the time or energy to start a campaign on commons. Its not my main project, and I'm not concerned with it. If you are, you go do it. pschemp | talk 04:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Look, I'm just saying that the images should be deleted, not the list of them. Removing the gallery does nothing to solve the legal issues, as both projects are part of the Wikimedia foundation, and the images are still in plain sight. Before taking this up at the Commons though, I'd personally rather get in some contact with the Wikimedia folks who handle legal issues to see what their stance is with the new legislation having been passed. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                            • And adding to that, the only legislation I can find (right now) regards intentionally decieving minors into viewing pornographic material. There's no intentional deception here. I'm no E-Lawyer though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Well first, the Miller test is applicable, plus the state laws that vary from state to state, but basically its the one dealing with online content. The Communications Decency Act is the biggie though, and that's why porn sites ask if you are 18 before you enter. "Passed by the U.S. Congress on February 1, 1996, the CDA explicitly outlawed intentionally communicating “by computer in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, to any person the communicator believes has not attained the age of 18 years, any material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs." Since we don't do that, we have to claim all our images are educational. pschemp | talk 04:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the PD/CC images; Remove the fair use images; Keep the page without the FU images.
    Bryant 02:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Why? I thought voters were supposed to explain their reasoning. —Psychonaut 04:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a free host. WhisperToMe 03:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Needs to be deleted. Has many Inapporiate images (Judai105 02:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. From
    Wikipedia is not a free host, but since these images come from a variety of uploaders, I cannot agree. Hyenaste (tell) 03:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I disagree—having a list of your contributions to Wikipedia is an acceptable use of your user page. Therefore User:Linas/Pictures is acceptable. I think User:Markaci/Nudity is also acceptable, even though it contains many of the same images as User:Kingstonjr/Work_Gallery, because it is an index with an identifiable, useful, objective criterion: images containing nudity. However, User:Kingstonjr/Work_Gallery seems to be just a collection of graphic images the user has thrown together for the purpose of thumbing his nose at Wikipedia's censorship policy. —Psychonaut 04:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on the webhost point, many of these images are in the Commons, which is exactly where they should be. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment --- It should be treated in a completely NPOV way. If a bunch of tree images in user space are appropriate to be deleted if the user can't justify their encyclopedia-ness then a bunch of images with other themes should be as well. But don't piss on a gallery cause you are offended at the contents. WAS 4.250 03:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hundreds of pictures forming a gallary just for the user to show off should be deleted regardless of the actual content. And that's exactly what this is - hundreds of pictures in a gallary that the user has put together to show off. --Yaksha 06:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the page itself, Remove images that are fair use or not used elsewhere in wikipedia, per
    Daniel.Bryant. Vectro 03:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
What do you mean, "per" Daniel Bryant? Daniel Bryant didn't give any justification or reasoning for his vote, so why are you citing him? (I'm not trying to be snide; just trying to elicit some explanation from you.) —Psychonaut 04:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would have felt the fact that FU images aren't allowed in userspace needs no explaining.
Bryant 05:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete. The user appears to be
    gaming the system (WP:POINT). Yes, Wikipedia is not censored, and yes, users have wide latitude regarding what they can put on their pages, but how does this particular page contribute to the writing of an encyclopedia? Who visits this page in an effort to obtain encyclopedic information? If there were a useful and objective criteria for the inclusion of images in this gallery, such as "All images on Wikipedia containing nudity", or "All anatomy-related featured images", or "All images I have uploaded", then I wouldn't hesitate to vote to keep. But it seems to me the only purpose of this gallery is to provoke people, or to provide a source of free masturbation material for which Wikipedia must foot the bandwidth bill. Yes, there are nude and even pornographic images on Wikipedia, but they're all presented in articles individually (or in small numbers) and in an encyclopedic context. It's not the remit of an encyclopedia to gather a bunch of unrelated nude and pornographic images together in one place simply because it's possible to do so. —Psychonaut 04:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep If the user will make even the slightest attmpet to justify it's existance. Christ, just saying "This is intended as a refernce for articles (that deal with sex, sexuality, or its ilk) where images are needed," would be enough. Any images where there is a reasonable concern that the person pictured has not given concent should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but that is outside the scope of this debate. Wait, there's another justification, "To serve as an easy method to check for images that may violate individuals' privacy and/or copyright violation."
    brenneman {L} 05:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has anyone told him about this MfD? He may not have bothered to watch the page. Septentrionalis 05:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I take the point but that is manifestly not the point of the page. It says it is "Some of Wikipedia's greatest, coolest, sexiest and most iconic pictures" - i.e. it's basically intended as a porn gallery. Whatever the creator says now, is of little impact. The Land 08:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it would be to try to salvage something from this. We're meant to be clever, writing and editing and doing janitorial work. So what's the rush to delete instead of editing? Or chatting to the user?
        brenneman {L} 09:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • take a look at the guy's talk page. People have tried before. Result? lack of response. --Yaksha 10:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • His userpage says:
      Some of Wikipedia's greatest, coolest, sexiest and most iconic pitcures, (please feel free to upload some pictures, on the condition they are not Free Use and that you have good taste) go to User:Kingstonjr/Work Gallery. This gallery includes a synthesis of images that I am also working on, scoping for copyright and adding to articles so at the same time it is also a piece of my mark on Wikipedia.
    Septentrionalis 19:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave bad enough alone and keep. Why should we go around deleting this collection? How does doing so serve the encyclopedia? Looking where these images are linked shows that it's not the only one of its kind. (Fair Use is a valid concern, but it doesn't need to come here; fair use images not used in articles go to IfD.) Septentrionalis 05:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The emphasis of the quote i took from
    WP:USER
    wasn't the "images which you are not free to use" part, but rather, the "Your page is about you as a Wikipedian.". How is that page anything to do with him as a Wikipedian? The individual makes it quite clear at the top that the page is to prove the point that "Wikipedia is not censored". userpage shouldn't be for "Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia,"
  • being pornographic is just a side point. The main point is that this page contains a gallary of hundreds of pictures, with no explaination why it exists other than the fact that it is a "gallary of beauty" and that it is allowed because "wikipedia is not censored". The page is screaming "hahahaha...look at this great collection i have, and it's all within the rules since wikipedia is not censored" statement.
  • Anyhow, someone should go and inform this guy that his page is being nominated for deletion, and let's hear what he has to say. I'm quite interested to see him explain how such a gallary is in any way related to him as a Wikipedian, and what purpose it serves except as a show-off gallary --Yaksha 06:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The existence of the gallery tells me something (unfavorable) about him as an editor; that he appears to be using it as a resource for the encyclopedia counterbalances this somewhat. I'll stay with Keep. Septentrionalis 19:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Wikipedia user space is not a place for galleries of images of naked women.
    WP:ENC. Whether the images are fair use or not is immaterial. It is also immaterial whether our policy explicitly says "you may not use your user page to build galleries of naked women". The Land 07:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment a number of folks have commented about the total size of the page, or the number of pictures, but without any precise figures. The total size is approximately 2.3 MB, and there are 266 images. —
    fgs 13:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Just because this gallery doesn't "technically" break several rules does not mean it has a place on wikipedia. The fact is that this gallery does not serve to further the goals and interests of the wikimedia foundation. If the user truly wanted to inform us about his or her tastes, it could be done in a different manner. Simply posting a bunch of pictures is not the the best way to communicate who you are, nor is it the apparent purpose of this user. Oh, and my vote is delete. Beatdown 14:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Pointless. If you want to show your taste, go to myspace.com, not a bloody encylopedia. --A.Garnet 13:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is someone flagrantly trying to play duck and goose with the system and rules. Yes, WP may not be censored but it's not a wretched porn website either. Remember why Publicgirluk got indefblocked, anyone? Moreschi 14:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does not violate
    WP:NOT censored. Just because you don't want to see explicit images in Wikipedia is does not mean they should be removed. If we were to remove images, pages or other content every time a group of people feels "it does not belong" or feels offended Wikipedia would have not that many articles. Finally this is in userspace, which does cut useres quite some additional slack. CharonX/talk 15:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - is anyone else using up to 2.3 meg on their userpage, though. Beyond the issue of the probably pornographic content, this userpage is three times as big as the
    William Butler Yeats article, which is one of our few featured articles (and the first one I pulled up to compare with). Should we say that every user can exploit wikipedia's resources in this rather self-serving way? If we do, then I think we can all expect real delays in getting any file to come up from this day forward. Badbilltucker 17:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment Badbilltucker, if you look further up in this discussion you might see that the wide majority of images on the page were not uploaded by Kingstonjr, but by others. Since he only included them in his page I kinda doubt that this increased the load or disc space usage of the server in any notable way (unless the server creates copies of every image for every inclusion, which would be extremely dumb and inefficient) And since I doubt that this page is heavily trafficed (right now more because dozends of users want to know what all the buzz is about) it should add far less load - on average - to the server than a high-traffic article like George W. Bush. So both your claims that "he uses up our valuable space" and "he uses up our cpu time" that he exploits wikipedia resources in a self-serving way are in fact, not true. So, before you accuse other users that they "exploit wikipedia's resources in this rather self-serving way", get your facts straight first. CharonX/talk 21:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - CharonX also might wish to pay some attention to the facts of what others have said before making misleading, and factually inaccurate, statements like the ones above regarding the statements of others. I spoke of the length of the page and allowing users to have a subpage which is three times as long as the first feature article I pulled up, and how it would be a drain on resources if this were allowed to be generalized. I never even mentioned the user per se. CharonX's misquoted statements that I said "he" are also both factually unsupportable, if not deliberately and willfully misleading. And, if, as CharonX states, that the majority of the images were uploaded by others, then that would indicate that the page has enough traffic for others to be aware of it and seek to add their own pictures, which is a good indication, if not absolute proof, that the traffic to this page is at least substantial. I would suggest that CharonX actually respond to the substance of arguments, rather than indulge in Wikilawyering, which, in this case, helps to support one of the arguments s/he opposes, rather than weakening it. And to compare a userpage to the article about the one of the most prominent people in the world today, the sitting President, is such a patent and absurd stretch to try to defend a position by any means necessary that I really think it does more to weaken your argument than strengthen it. Badbilltucker 14:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment It is always nice to be accused of Wikilawyering. So you say I summed up your arguments incorrectly? I felt that those parts summed up the "Should we say that every user can exploit wikipedia's resources in this rather self-serving way" bit quite nicely. But I I'll change them to reflect your original wording. As for your argument that, if others uploaded those images, then they must generate lots of traffic and that thus this page must be deleted, I find myself in a bind. Assuming that he uploaded them himself he has done bad because he onbviously exploited the server space of Wikipedia. Assuming he merely collected already uploaded images he exploited Wikipedia's bandwith. Thus, to have a non-exploiting image collection he would have to have both uploaded the images himself, and not uploaded the images himself - which is kinda impossible. And by pointing out to the George W. Bush article I merely wanted to show that there are big articles that have alot of more traffic that this page( and wikipedia does not seem to crumble because of it). But let's settle this in a professional manner - is there a developer here that can affirm or confute that this userpage has a significant negative impact on Wikipedia's stability or performance? CharonX/talk 18:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment "significant negative impact on Wikipedia's stability or performance" no, i doubt any single page is going to have a significant impact on wikipedia's stability. But that's not the point. The point about the page wasting resources is that if every other Wikipedian decided to make a personal gallary of some kind, a few hundred pictures of their choice, on a user subpage. And if every one of them gets 3000 views a day? Yes, high end articles like George W. Bush get more views, but they're supposed to, wikipedia is an enecyclopedia, not a social networking service. Articles should get more views than userpages. So when a userpage is getting less views than only about the top 5000 articles (on an encyclopedia with more than a million articles), and shows no signs of being helpful to the encyclopedia...it seems like a sure sign of using wikipedia as a freehost/social-networking service rather than an encyclopedia building community. --`/aksha 23:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment hmm, if you take a look at page view statistics (here, User:Kingstonjr/Work Gallery is the second most visited user page with about 3 thousand odd views per day. --Yaksha 00:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - It also comes in as the 570th most visited page in all of wikipedia (article, userspace, and wikipediaspace) [here], roughly one out of every 5000 hits, pretty good for a user page in a site with over 1.4 million articles, not counting wikipediaspace and userspace pages. Badbilltucker 16:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment You should add that the August tracks no pages at all, and that September tracks a total of three pages - one might say that this page was the second-least visited userpage in September. Hmmmm. CharonX/talk 12:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment hmm...i have to admit i didn't look that far. But i still have a sneaky feeling 3 thousand page views for a user page (and not even a user page, but a user subpage) is abnormally high. Especially when you compare it to the kind of view numbers that statistics tool is giving for articles in the main space (the stats tool shows about 600 mainspace articles with more than 3 thousand views a day...so the raw number of 3000+ views/day is still quite high). --`/aksha 13:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and revisit other pages of similar intention mentioned above (too late to add them to this MFD, in my opinion). It's against the spirit of what we do to wave this in people's face as a "look at the boobies, but it's legal!", and previous attempts at discussing rationally with this user have gotten nowhere. -- nae'blis 22:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Users trying to get this deleted are being dictatorial and are trying to enforce their conservative preferences upon everyone.--Quaint Obelisk 16:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's second edit. The Land 16:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I see you are great with math skills.--Quaint Obelisk 17:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's third edit. =P The reason the Land noted this was because editors who involve themselves in AFD in their first few edits tend to be
sockpuppets. Hyenaste (tell) 17:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Kingston's response

  • Needless to say Strongest of all Keeps! Hello fellow wikipedians, when it comes to controversy concerning my user page and now my Work Gallery I am a veteran, it is now time for me to speak up concerning this. Having already decided on the Administrators discussion board to keep my gallery this debate seems rather pointless, nevertheless, I shall present my case. For the sake of clarity which i believe this case needs I have displayed my reasons in bullet points:
  • The name of my gallery suggests that this is work related, its existance is essential to my and many more users work on wikipedia and representative of expression on wikipedia. The images feature her truly are as I have stated a synthesis of images relating to a topic that I wish to dedicate my efforts to on wikipedia, these are aspects of wikipedia that I am interested in. *My gallery is fighting exactly what several users, and a few who have commented here, this is against censorship. My gallery is always the most up-to-date form of this, far superior in fact to even the equivilent WikiProject- Wikipedians against censorship Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Gallery.
  • With 11 pages linking to my gallery it is clear that the gallery is well respected on wikipedia, and the effort appreciated whilst also aiding many wikipedians.
  • I find it especially peculiar why this page is being targeted, most likely per the reason above. Nevertheless, pages such as:
  • User:Markaci
  • User:Cyde
  • User:Ac1983fan
  • User:Ewlyahoocom

Depict similair content, if not identical.

  • My pages has been critisised due to its use of unfree images, with images of such a naure there is always the risk of unfree images being uploaded. Once more my gallery aids wikipedia, dedicated to this cause I hunt down these images if you like, and am able to display these images, to all wikipedians with more experiance than I on the status of images. This way the rate at which images can be found and deleted if violating the terms is greatly increased.
  • The images are present for peopple looking for particular images, to suit their desired edit to a article may find or[haned images present on my page.

There exist many more advantages to this gallery, which we may discover once it is gone. I believe though that you, capable wikipedians will be able to make the right decision to keep this gallery, or otherwise co-operate in improving the gallery.

Thank you,

KingstonJr 18:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent discussion cited by User:Kingstonjr is located at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive140#Request admistrator help against user who keeps a porn gallary on their userpage. I read through the discussion, and saw nothing to indicate that the decision to keep the gallery which he refers to in his comment was ever in fact reached. And I note that the most recent comment in the linked-to discussion was from October 6, 2006, indicating that this was the most recent discussion. I believe that the creator of the gallery may be letting his enthusiasm for his own work cloud his perceptions of the fact of the other discussion. Badbilltucker 19:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We're not targetting your (kingstonjr)'s gallary in particular - if it is decided to delete this page, then no doubt the other pages you listed will follow suite if they contain similar material. Being linked to doesn't make something good. You claim your gallary aids wikipedia, i'd like to see you provide an example or two (as in specific cases) of your gallary actually doing any good If your gallary is indeed "essential

to my and many more users work on wikipedia", then surely you can dig out some evidence of your gallary being useful to "work on wikipedia"? --`/aksha 23:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Konstable. As quoted from
    Mustafa Kemal Ataturk) at work, and so they made a separate Wikipedia userpage. Now, I'm all for userpage privelages, but you have to draw the line somewhere. I think this is where it should stop. We don't need user sub-pages with porn. --Nishkid64 22:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep as long as I had no answer to this comment:

I read this page. What a long discussion! I do not still understand this discussion. KingstonJr put in this page a selection of pics from Wikipedia Commons. The question thus is to know if these pics have to stay in Wikipedia Commons. If it is necessary to remove them, then it would have of the being made for a long time. Question: why Wikipedia Commons Administrators have kept these pics for a long time ? Otherwise, for what reasons do we have to blame KingstonJr? What about these pages: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Erotic, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nudity, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Penis. Is it necessary to delete it also? If the answer is yes, then there are really many pages to be deleted. Notice that KingstonJr is not concerned by this issue. Last comment: The argument proposed by Badbilltucker related to the space memory occupied by this page on the Wikipedia server is wrong. The pics are uploaded once on the Wikipedia server in US. When you make references to the Wikipedia Commons pics, you make only the link towards this server. You do not copy out the pics. SEwiki 08:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am grateful to the above poster for correcting my mistake. I regret to say that I am not really an expert on internet matters. I also note that User:SEwiki has not yet actually indicated an opinion on the keeping or deletion of the page itself, comments about other pages notwithstanding. Badbilltucker 15:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please read again my previous comment. My opinion is clearly defined.SEwiki 16:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You are misunderstanding the point of the debate completely. The issue of whether the pictures are okay to stay uploaded is a completely different matter, actually...it's not an issue at all, because we're not debating about the pictures themselves. The issue is whether it's okay to have a userpage with hundreds of pictures that seems to serve no purpose except to be a porn gallary. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Penis is fine because it's serving to help commons by helping to group together all similar images of that category. His userpage isn't (or there is no evidence of) serving to help wikipedia or any other project. It's a porn gallary and that's it. --`/aksha 08:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No! I indeed understand the debate. I persist in thinking that the page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Penis is a real porn gallery. Contrary to your explanation I don't see any encyclopedia interest in this page. This page seems to me really much more porn than User:Kingstonjr/Work_Gallery. That's my point of view. However I agree that your point of view may be different. Here is one of the issues. SEwiki 12:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that there may be other pages out there which might be subject to the same sort of discussion as the page under question. I certainly haven't check out the other pages referenced yet. I note that another editor has already indicated above that there may well be a discussion of other pages referenced in this discussion upon the close of this discussion, once we know the results of it. Therefore, I strongly urge all parties who make comments in this section, whatever their opinions on other pages might be, to indicate what their opinion is on the subject of this discussion, the page under question itself. The decision made here will almost certainly be pivotal in assisting editors whether to propose the other referenced pages for deletion or not. Badbilltucker 15:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I confirm that the debate is not clear. So, we have to keep the page at the moment as explained above. SEwiki 16:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Or, alternatively, created a general RfC on the possible deletion or modification of this page and all the other pages which have been mentioned in this discussion, and just suspend the decision here until a final decision on this page, and the other pages, is reached there. One point which is I believe pivotal is whether the pages should contain fair use or other images which are readily available elsewhere or whether they should simply contain those images which, for whatever reason, are not readily available elsewhere. Unfortunately, the creator of this userpage does not seem to be particularly interested in ensuring his personal userpage conforms to wikipedia standards. Personally, I would have no objection to a page containing only images which are, for whatever reason, not readily available elsewhere, are actually permitted in userspace, and which might be required for some variety of "work" on wikipedia. However, the page as currently structured contains a number of fair use images which are specifically not allowed on userpages. Badbilltucker 22:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment SEwiki, you're still misinterpreting the point here. The difference between User:Kingstonjr/Work Gallery and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Penis is like the difference between pictures of naked body parts on Penis and pictures of naked body parts on Tree. The former is okay because it is relavent and appropriate, the latter would not be. I suppose i should clarify that when i say "User:Kingstonjr/Work Gallery is just a porn gallary", i'm meaning "User:Kingstonjr/Work Gallery is just a porn gallary that serves no purpose to wikipedia". That's the point. It's the fact that it is a gallary of a few hundred pictures that serves no encyclopedic purpose that's the problem. The fact that the gallary happens to be porn only adds oil to the fire (and leading people like me to believe he's gaming the system). But the root of the problem lies in the fact that he's using his userpage on wikipedia to host a personal gallary for show-off-ness, and doesn't want to or can't provide any evidence of how that gallary is helping him or any other editor in their work in wikipedia. Which is why i voted delete. Now, the fact that some of those pictures are fair use and therefore need to go is another matter. And if the pictures need to go for copyright reasons, they will go whether we agree for the subpage to be deleted or kept. --`/aksha 03:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while the criteria to delete such a page are not clear. Some of you are requested for deleting the User:Kingstonjr/Work_Gallery as many images are not currently being used on Wikipedia. That’s exactly the argument given above by User:Pschemp: "I think if an image isn't currently being used on wikipedia, it has no place in the gallery." Do you know that there are hundreds of such galleries on Wikipedia? For example, the User:Pschemp/Gallery itself (that's not a joke!) contains many images not used on Wikipedia (for example Image:TurkishVansexample3.jpg, Image:Orientalshorthairs.jpg, Image:Newtownhallhannover.jpg, Image:Wheel2.jpg, Image:Tradingpostguy.JPG, Image:Pancakestar2.png, Image:Centaurea americana.jpg). So before discussing about deleting the User:Kingstonjr/Work_Gallery, we have to define clearly the Wikipedia rules. Safedom 08:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's wrong to think that Wikipedia has rules that cover every single situation. We don't. The policies that most apply are
WP:NOT, and {{WP:USER]], none of which can cover this exact situation becasue it hasn't arisen before. The Land 08:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
(Edit conflict) There is a big difference between Pschemp's gallery and Kingstonjr's gallery. One has cats, the other has vaginas. As I have already mentioned above,
Konst.able 08:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment not to mention, Pschemp's gallery is relevant to his/her work on wikipedia. "My favorite self made pictures in articles here (the rest of my pictures can be seen at my gallery)" assuming Pschem is not lying, the gallery is displaying self-created pictures which this user has contributed to wikipedia articles. But difference. --`/aksha 09:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that the Pschemp's gallery was not the right example. However, as there are many hundreds of such user_gallery, I'm not sure that your criteria are so clear to delete or not this user-gallery rather than another. Anyway I think that many pages related to sex are more pornographic that the User:Kingstonjr/Work_Gallery and many of these pages are non encyclopedic and useless. That's always a question of criteria. Safedom 09:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are other such useless gallaries with porn? really...well, i never knew about it. I'm sure many other people who don't look at user porn gallaries would not know about it either. So if you do know about it, then maybe it would be a good idea for you to link to them or tell us where they are. So the rest of us can take a look at it. --`/aksha 10:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per the fact that Wikipedia is not MySpace - we allow user subpages to an extent but this pretty much looks like an MySpace type gallery. As for the nature of the images, WP is not censored but still... a better name would be nice sort of a heads up if one was browsing at work... -- Tawker 08:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Update - Delete per CSD U3 - I just made it so I won't delete it per it but it's as obvious as all. The images are FairUse and not in an article hence its a speedy -- Tawker 17:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I totally agree that most of the user_galleries are used as MySpace. But there are hundreds of such pages. Do we have now to delete these pages ? The answer is obviously NO. So we have to define the criteria to allow or not a user_gallery to be or not MySpace. Safedom 09:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is the answer obviously NO? Why is the answer no? And why is the answer obvious at all? If the answer was at all obvious, i doubt this large debate regarding Kingstonjr's gallary would exist. I for one, do not think the answer is NO. If wikipedia allowed advertising, for example, we would have hundreds...no, thousands of advertising articles. And yet we do not. There must have been hundreds of hoax articles and articles about non-notable things, and yet they have all been deleted. Why? Because we agree it is the right thing to do. Just because there are hundreds of such pages, it doesn't make them valid. If something is deemed wrong, then it should go regardless of how many articles it covers. As for the criteria, a simple "Picture gallaries which so no sign of being helpful or related to a user's wikipedia work should be deleted" would work. In fact, i believe that's already a guildine. The userpage guildline does say userpages which have no relavance to wikipedia shouldn't exist. --`/aksha 10:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was speaking about all the user_galleries pages. My question was "Do we have now to delete these pages". My answer was "NO" as we are not going to delete all the user_galleries pages. That's obvious at all. Maybe we have to delete part of these pages, so we have to define the criteria for deletion. I know Wikipedia and I know many articles or links are deleted a few minutes only after being written. My comment was only related to the criteria used for deleting user_galleries pages. That's my concern. Safedom 11:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "My answer was "NO" as we are not going to delete all the user_galleries pages. That's obvious at all.", but that's the point. Your statement is NOT obvious at all. Don't expect everyone else to automatically agree on your conclusions, or what you consider to be obvious when you give no reasons. I ask, why can't we just delete all the user gallaries pages? If they are being used as myspace. You said "I totally agree that most of the user_galleries are used as MySpace. But there are hundreds of such pages. Do we have now to delete these pages ? The answer is obviously NO." So what if there are hundreds of such pages? If they are being used as MySpace, then something needs to be done about it. And deletion is a very valid possibility, unless you'd like to explain why it isn't. Wikipedia shouldn't be used like a free hosting gallary, that much is clear. Now how to define what a myspace-style gallary is, that may be a problem. But just because there is a problem, it doesn't mean the solution is obviously to do nothing about it. --`/aksha 00:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are right! You are explaining exactly what I try to explain: It's obviously not possible to delete ALL the user_galleries pages. We have to find criteria to delete only the Wikipedia inappropriate pages. Safedom 07:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, why not just make another CSD criteria "Attemps to game the system and myspace like pages that serve no other purpose - makes life a lot simpler :) -- Tawker 17:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


--A. B. 16:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Kingstonjr/Work_Gallery&oldid=1078589792"