Talk:Lolicon/NewComp

No. There is no reason to have that item linkimaged. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except that a majority of people support linkimaging it. Ashibaka tock 14:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at /Archive 002 again. Ashibaka tock 14:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'm not included in that poll, and 2. too many of the people who "voted" for linkimage used invalid reasons and/or didn't really want to linkimage it but caved to you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC) and 3., the strawpoll was unceremoniously stopped and archived when "remove" voters decided to ram home a unilateral "compromise". Babajobu 14:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite, please consider compromise. (1) numerous people find the original image offensive, (2) the original image is illegal in several countries. This means that someone who innocently clicks on lolicon link could inadvertently commit a crime, or be unnecessarily offended or both. Additionally, there *is* a clear consensus that something must be done about the original image. Either by it being replaced or by it being linkimaged. If you can think of another compromise solution, please feel free to suggest it. (please see WP:DR and do try to remember Wikipedia is not a battleground) Mikkerpikker ... 14:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Switch the order of the images. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That solves neither 1 nor 2. Mikkerpikker ... 14:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then we're shitfucked, because every attempt at compromise attempted has been torpedoed by the no-imagists. I moved the image down the page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with my proposal? Why is linkimaging such a big deal? Mikkerpikker ... 14:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT censored. If you want the image imagelinked, get it added to the global link-only list as per autofelatio Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, no. It is not that wikipedia is not censored, it is that it is not censored for the protection of minors. If you read WP:NOT you'll notice that is what it actually says. No one (and I mean no one) has made the argument that the image should be removed or linkimaged to protect minors. Therefore WP:NOT is literally irrelevant. Given this, what is the big deal about linkimaging? Mikkerpikker ... 14:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the talk page of WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not censored to protect your delicate eyes. It's also not censored by amature lawyers who are afraid of laws in every random country in the world. I moved the image down the page - that should be more than enough. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've indeed read the talk page of WP:NOT. And if you read the talk pages of the lolicon article you'd notice I've consistently argued that although the image being offensive to some group is not a sufficient reason for excluding an image, the illegality of this image in several democracies IS a good reason to exclude it or provide SOME warning that viewing the image may be illegal. Random countries? Germany, Canada and SA, "random countries"? Mikkerpikker ... 15:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia's content disclaimer. It will instruct you that the world is full of various and conflicting legal systems and belief systems. Wikipedia cannot accommodate them all. Instead, it simply abides by the law in the U.S. state of Florida, and warns everyone else that Wikipedia includes content that may or may not find offensive, or which may be illegal in their jurisdiction. That's life on the internet. I can imagine a very good Wikipedia fork that abided by traditional Western standards of sexual morality, but this is not it. Babajobu 15:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the content & legal disclaimers several times. Please read the talk arhives of the lolicon page to learn why that is an invalid argument. Mikkerpikker ... 15:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The disclaimers are inviolate and cannot be overruled by consensus (which does not exist in this case.) Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mmmm... and how do the disclaimers disallow linkimaging? Mikkerpikker ... 15:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will require consensus to linkimage something, as there is only one other article in the entire encyclopedia that uses that template. You do not have such a consensus to make such a change. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The autofellation image was linkimaged without consensus. See the talk page. Mikkerpikker ... 15:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo IS consensus. Get him to weigh in here and you're golden. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re the discliamer - it appeared you were arguing that because the image might be illegal in some backwater third world country it would require linkimaging. Even if we reached consensus that the image was illegal and required linkimaging due to it's illegality, that consensus would be irrelevent because it is in violation of the general disclaimer. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HOW is it a violation of the general disclaimer? I've read it several times & I'm yet to see "no editor or group of editors may take reasonable steps to provide information to those with no reason to suspect clicking on a link may be illegal." And, ummm, please do not call my country a "backwater third world country" - doing so is rather uncivil, would you not agree? Also, last time a checked neither Germany nor Canada were backwaters or third world countries. Mikkerpikker ... 15:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I was referring to Djibouti. The image is likley illegal there. Were you referring to a different country whose laws are more or less important than Djibouti? Why are their laws more or less important, and who is the judge of that? Wikipedia:Content disclaimer "Wikipedia's current policy is to include such content, provided it breaches neither any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view) nor the laws of the state of Florida in the United States, where Wikipedia is hosted." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hipocrite (talk • contribs) .

I have no idea whether it is illegal in Djibouti or not, all I was saying is please do not refer to countries as "backwaters". it is a statement that makes you appear very arrogant. My legality argument (very very briefly is this) (1) lolicon is illegal in several democracies, (2) citizens of democracies - unlike citizens of countries with other political systems - have no reason to suspect accessing an encyclopaedia could land them in jail, (3) wikipedia should not let reasonable people commit inadvertent crime, therefore, (4) we should provide SOME sort of warning that clicking an the image may land some people in trouble. Re the content disclaimer: content MAY be included AS LONG AS it does not breach NPOV (etc.) or the laws of Florida. I.e. a necessary condition for inclusion is (NPOV) and ~(illegal in florida). However, as I'm sure you know, a necessary condition is not sufficient condition and therefore the disclaimer does NOT say the info MUST be included if it is NPOV and ~(illegal in florida). We can therefore choose to not include content for prudential reasons. Mikkerpikker ... 15:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa is certainly no "ass-backward country", but on what grounds would be privilege the laws of South Africa over, say, the laws of Iran or Japan, or Ireland, where I live. Too complicated to try and establish how much respect we should accord to the laws of various jurisdictions. Lets just stick with Florida, agreed? Babajobu 15:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite yet unfortunately, :)... please see my argument above. I'm NOT saying we should privilege SA or any other country; but we SHOULD protect reasonable ppl in SA (and all other countries) from commiting crime. Mikkerpikker ... 15:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the expense of the encyclopedic and asthetic value of the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So u'd rather make ppl go to jail then have a sligly less explicit picture? Mikkerpikker ... 16:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a false dichotomy. No one has gone to jail in a reasonable country for looking at Wikipedia, nor is it likley that anyone ever will. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what a "reasonable country" is; I'm talking about reasonable PEOPLE. Mikkerpikker ... 16:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Countries are reasonable unless they are irrational. China, Iran.... No one has been jailed for looking at Wikipedia in South Africa, nor is it likley that anyone will be for looking at such - even this terrible, terrible evil horrible hand drawn naked behind. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whole countries can be called rational/reasonable - segments of ALL countries (US & SA included) are irrational/unreasonable. But that aside, looking at lolicon from South Africa as it now stands is de jure a criminal offence punishable by up to 10 years in prison. And trust me, given how seriously children's rights are taken in this country, a judge would have no qualms about enforcing the law & sending ppl to jail. Mikkerpikker ... 16:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a lawyer? Are you employed by the Wikimedia foundation? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No & no. Mikkerpikker ... 16:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is illegal to show a womans face in many muslim countries. By Mikkerpikker's logic, this means we should linkimage all pictures with exposed women faces. Additionally, I would like Mikkerpikker's opinion on Coppertone girl and how he feels it relates to this issue. There's a reason that Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored, among all the obvious ones, there's also "it's almost impossible to censor to a level that's acceptable everywhere". - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]