User talk:Achilles/Archive 1

RfC

There is an RfC on User:Martin2000. You might care to comment... Refdoc

Endorsing would probably apply to you. Certifying appears to be the people who make the complaint i.e those who were directly involved Refdoc 10:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Images and media for deletion

This is a note on current voting on the Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion page, where immediately after one autofellatio photograph was voted to be deleted, someone uploaded another one. I am libertarian in most regards, but I am also an advocate of prudent discretion, especially when it involves the welfare of many other people. The following is a brief excerpt of voting and comments upon one of the images there. ~ Achilles † 19:59, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 30

Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg. Essentially indistinguishable from the previously voted on autofellatio image. The autofellatio page already contains a drawn image which should satisfy any percieved need for visual depiction; this picture is just being used for vandalism. --MC MasterChef 01:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- DELETE - Ironically I who actually abhor the pornography laws that exist, have become involved in issues that involve prudent constraint against excesses of those who seem oblivious to much more major dangers to human freedom, as long as they can delight in congratulating themselves with glee at imposing the burdens of their peculiar tastes and sensibilities (or lack of them) upon everyone else involved in this project.
  When the previous image was being voted upon I stated: "I am against IMPOSING censorship upon others who seek to publish such things through their own resources, but this is an internal matter of the Wikimedia projects, and a policy of greater consideration and discretion than this image represents is definitely appropriate. To say that this image is in any way "necessary", or that including this image serves the overall purposes of an Encyclopedia project is ABSURD. An adult would be arrested, thrown into jail, and accused of pedophilia in many countries if he or she were to show this image to a minor— it thus provides an apparently legitimate excuse for all manner of institutions or governments and the herd majorities of most societies to seek to ban or constrain access to Wikipedia." That argument still stands. I also quoted George Washington's statement: Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.
  I repeat: I am NOT a person who supports legal censorship of others, BECAUSE I am a person who is considerate of others differences, and does not seek to impose my tastes upon others, but I DO support prudent self-censorship, that takes into consideration one's audience, which is in this case potentially most of the world.
  There are adequate illustrations, and there are links to extensive Google search for web images on the Autofellatio page. I do not oppose them because it keeps the project itself relatively safe from becoming quite so easy a target of the close-minded.
  The picture doesn't shock you, it doesn't shock me, but it irritates me profoundly that there are people who have so little regard for many of the much larger issues that are more important to address in these times, and so willfully oblivious to the reality of the vast majority of people who would be shocked at its inclusion in an Encyclopedia that aims to be a major educational tool for everyone, including young children. Can you not see that such foolishness, makes you among the very best allies of the very worst fools that you rail against? You provide a legitimate-seeming excuse for all manner of the "nanny-minded" fools who would simply use this as an opportunity to to exclude or restrict access to ALL of the information in the Wikipedia, because a few short-sighted people insist on trying to include such images as this. The reaction of the many people and groups to which you give legal ammunition to not only to seek to ban Wikipedia from many places where they have influence, but even perhaps to prosecute it under such Pornography laws as DO exist. I oppose these laws, I consider them stupid, and at least as much an agency for evil as most of the excesses that they oppose...but they are very real, and very pervasive, and very dangerous to many people who do NOT have the convenient safeguard of internet anonymity, including the person who has been the provider of the Wikimedia servers, whose will and stated opposition you, who have benefited from his generosity, are deliberately snubbing. Delete this for the sake of the vast amount of truly important information that it would create a barrier to spreading, and for the sake of those most truly devoted to spreading it. ~ Achilles 19:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hear! Hear!, Achilles. Rarely have I heard an argument so forcefully and elegantly stated. PaulHammond 13:21, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

test

I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content: Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicite photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another matter. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion ~ Achilles † 20:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An archive of the voting on the previous image can be found here.

Your message

Hi Achilles. In reply to your note: I voted to keep the previous image, and I've already voted to keep this one. You wrote that you "consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity". I feel the same way about the attempt to delete such images. Cheers, dbenbenn | talk 01:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reply that I left upon this users talk page: In reply to your comment: You of course have the right to your opinions, and I have the right to mine. Though I do not object to the existence or the commerce in such images, this project is NOT the proper vehicle to present them in. I strongly feel that the inclusion of such images is ultimately a diservice to the overall aims of the entire project. ~ Achilles †

Hi Achilles. Thanks for the message. I read most of the arguments made so far, including all of what you wrote, I looked at the image and its context in the article it is used in, and I thought about it. I decided to vote to keep this one, which is different from how I voted on the previous image. In my judgment the copyright permissions and the educational value of the images are different enough for me to arive at different conclusions. I do appreciate very much that you brought this new issue to my attention, even though in the end we disagreed on keep or delete on this one. Best. Jonathunder 02:30, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

I of course disagree with your final decision, but I can appreciate diverse views upon the matter. I expected that some people I contacted might indeed vote otherwise than on the previous one. What was especially irritating to me was that there was so casual disregard and dismissal of the strong views and consensus expressed on the previous image in attempting to replace it with this one. As I have noted, there is not another article on erotic, auto-erotic or quasi-erotic activities that I am aware of that uses such an explicit photograph, though I would expect that there have been attempts to post them. ~ Achilles † 02:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I object in the strongest terms to your utterly loutish, disgusting behavior in trying to pack the vote on IfD by spamming user talk pages. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Obviously totally ignoring, disregarding, and evading a strong consensus on a matter that had just been voted on doesn't offend you too much though. People still have their own minds to make up, and a couple did decide differently. I have contacted people, rather than seeking to have them ignored. You seem to be a fairly intelligent person, but intelligent people can sometimes be among the most stupid and oblivious to vitally important facts, especially when they try to keep other people so. As I have stated, I do not object to the article, or links from it, but I consider some vitally important facts to be that the vast majority of people productively engaged in this project would consider such images detrimental to its reputation and usefulness, and that such images would prompt many outside agencies to constrain or forbid access to it. ~ Achilles † 7 Apr 2005

I appreciate you letting people know that so soon after an image was deleted on a vote with a large majority, an almost identical one has been uploaded. I've voted on the new image. Thanks - Worldtraveller 07:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:28, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

on your french talk page I put a (in french) message redirecting people ftom there to here. Alvaro 14:14, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
about autofellatio... my brain is still working ;D Alvaro 14:14, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Hi Achilles. I thank you for the message on my French Talk page, giving information about the new discussion on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Autofellatio 2. Hégésippe Cormier 00:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A note on recent reactions to my activities

I have made no effort to disguise my opinions on this matter, on the posting of what I consider images that are detrimental to the overall value of this project, nor to hide my actions in contacting others. So far as I am aware, prior to my efforts at notifying others whose votes and opinions upon such matters were almost immediately dismissed, disregarded, and ignored, the only other prominent notice to the voting, outside of the vote page itself was on the Talk page of the Autofellatio article, and about the image that had immediately been posted once the previous one had overwhelmingly been voted to be deleted, it read:

More image deletion

The new image, Image:Autofellatio_2.jpg, which is copyright-issue-free and much better in quality and depiction of the subject (IMHO) has also been listed for deletion. Heads up. TIMBO (T A L K) 01:39, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Other than those who already have the article on their watch list, or who are otherwise drawn with some interest to an article on the self-entertainment of Autofellatio who exactly was this targeted at? It immediately produced most of the great number of Keep votes which occurred, and (so far as I am aware) it remained the only prominent notice of the issue for nearly a week.

I think it somewhat disingenuous of a few people to seek to censure me for expressing my honest opinions, when I have made no effort to insult them for expressing theirs, no matter how much we might disagree on any matters, nor for what reasons. I might occasionally descend into a sarcastic or derisive expression about certain opinions, or the apparent logic or lack of it involved in them, but I fully do respect the right of anyone and everyone to have their own opinions on things, and to disagree with me as much as their own levels of reasoning impels them to do. ~ Achilles † 17:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Achilles, you know full well that there only two problems that I have with your activities:

Your use of spamming to further your campaign
Your decision to contact *only* people you thought would agree with you.

Had you genuinely wanted to publicise the IfD further, you would have done the obvious thing: write a note on the Village Pump. I think it's obvious that you didn't do that because you are determined, not to have an honest decision on whether we have a consensus to delete a certain picture, but to sabotage the poll by packing it with people who you were sure would be in favor of deletion.

Just to show you that I'm not all hot air, I'll draw your attention to the fact that, in the original poll on whether to inline or link the picture, it was I who publicised that poll on the Village pump. I am certain that an honest poll will always be against deletion of this picture, but if I were not I would still not try to sabotage a poll as you have so blatantly and shamelessly done. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Though I fully expected to encounter some exceptions I confess that I did make an effort to contact people I thought would be inclined to agree with me on the matter, because it was so obvious an effort to circumvent the decisions that had already just occurred, and I am sure most of them might have thought settled the matter, for at least a little while. I have no apologies to make for an honest effort at notifying most of these people that their votes and opinions had effectively been disregarded. To characterize the mass-messaging that I engaged in to contact them as "spamming" is your right, but as I noted previously: I was not "selling" anything to anyone, and the only thing that I was "advertising" was the fact that something had occurred which I considered an act of injustice and insolent disregard of their views. BOTH Justice and Liberty are proper concerns of every ethically responsible person, and those who seek mere freedom for themselves without regard to justice and the proper freedoms of others, make a mockery of all that is fair and noble within the capacities of every human being. ~ Achilles † 17:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Achilles, this is getting very painful for you I know. You were caught red-handed trying to cook a vote. You claim now that "it was so obvious an effort to circumvent the decisions that had already just occurred" but it was nothing of the sort. If that were the case we'd have another 80/20 split and the vote would just squeak home with a delete like last time, on the strength of the doubts about its copyright.

Christiaan will confirm that he and I have had some severe disagreements, but he is not trying to circumvent the popular will but to satisfy it. He paid attention to the number of people who were worried about the copyright status of the previous image, and made efforts to obtain an image whose owner explicitly granted a right of access that is compatible with Wikipedia's GFDL.

Now you're trying to say you weren't spamming because "I was not "selling" anything to anyone". Please don't insult my intelligence. Spamming is sending the same message to lots of people. It is spamming whether it is done for commercial ends or (as you have done here) for political ends--to subvert a vote. I did not accuse you or using Wikipedia for commercial purposes. I did not accuse you of advertising. I correctly accused you of spamming.

You're fond of using $60 words like Justice, Liberty, Ethics and Responsibility, but can you honestly say that it was in the interests of any of the principles behind those expensive-sounding words to carry out a cheap operation: to contact a long list containing those people you thought would support you and *only* those who you thought would support you, and then to defend that activity by falsely maliciously impugning the motives of the person who obtained the picture you were trying to delete? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, --SqueakBox 18:32, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Further reflections on matters

I consider it an indication of just how short-sighted many of the people posting, or voting to "keep" certain images (that most people would probably consider pornographic) are in their considerations to be a continual evasion or oblivious the the FACT that the community with which we MUST increasingly deal is not some small clique of people who are ultra-permissive, or even ultra-supportive of all their own unusual agenda, nor even the entire range of actively engaged and mostly permissive internet participants, but the entire world, including MANY factions VERY hostile to many forms of human liberty and freedom, that many of us have often, thankfully, been able to take for granted.

To give some indication of my own views on broader matters than this very narrow issue: I do NOT despise people because they differ from me; I do NOT despise people because they have views very contrary or even hostile to my own. I assert that in many ways we are ALL fools, and there are the blessed fools who KNOW this, and proceed as cheerfully as possible towards greater wisdom of both tolerance and prudence, and the DAMNED fools who DON'T, and the VERY dangerous numbers among them who often think everyone simply ought to agree with them or be silent and "play dead", or BE DEAD. To ignore the REALITY that there are still vast numbers of people, some of them in VERY powerful positions with great influence over the lives of MANY other people who ARE such dangerous fools, is, in my opinion, itself a VERY irresponsible, and dangerously foolish act. Some people might wish to believe or pretend otherwise but we are not yet living in a world that is anywhere close to some imagined Utopia of absolute civility and absolute respect for libertarian ideals, or even simple justice.

I DO concede that I probably do often descend into despising the attitudes and behavior of many people who go about with their own lives and private agenda without any great awareness or concern for this fact, often oblivious or simply uncaring about the dangers into which their own actions and activities could possibly or even certainly place other people's lives.

There are many factors that are included in my own assessment of this issue, and I fully recognize and respect others right to disagree, and come to their own assessments, but a summation of my own is that such images, for this or ANY other encyclopedic project which is aiming to have broad acceptance and viability in the world are ABSOLUTELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY UNNECESSARY, EXTREMELY DETRIMENTAL, and of VERY LIMITED benefit, and for MANY people in MANY places, a VERY real danger to their LIVES and LIVELIHOOD. Now or anytime in the near future, I do NOT want to provide lynch mobs and the like any form of legitimate-seeming excuse for attacking teachers or other adults, because a few very short-sighted, NARROW interest editors would like to think such images a pleasing and fully appropriate thing to include in this encyclopedia project. I keep witnessing people evading or sidestepping this issue, and say such arguments as mine are somehow to be summed up as "inappropriate" concerns for "sheltering" children. Actually my own concerns are NOTHING OF THE SORT. I KNOW that I am in a very extreme minority, in that I personally DO NOT consider such images in any way innately "dangerous" or "harmful" to children. I DO consider that the VERY REAL AND VERY PERVASIVE and indeed ALMOST UNIVERSAL attitudes that MOST ADULTS have towards them to be somewhat dangerous to children and VERY dangerous to any ADULT who would VERY FOOLISHLY insist that children "ought to be shown", or even ALLOWED to see such things. This is the state of the world that EXISTS, rather than what some would like to imagine exists, because they themselves might not be in any immediate danger. I do not equivocate in saying that any adult human being who would claim otherwise is to a very great extent a VERY asinine fool.

On a rather broader matter: Every day one can encounter what I consider the very foolish, very casual, very simplistic division of people and ideas into nice neat "pigeon holes" of EITHER "liberal" OR "conservative", "right" or "left", "idealist" or "realist". I personally consider myself libertarian, though I belong to no official party that uses that name, and would probably disagree with MOST others who consider themselves libertarian on half or more of the things that they believe. I might well be considered very radical by some, because I seek to aim at what I consider the very center of issues, and not "hang" myself or other people on some extreme branch of anyone's partisan policies or definitions.

I would like to at least mention that there are many other more intelligently considered assessments that can, and have been made. My own is that there are as yet a very few people who are fair and honest pragmatists of MANY inclinations and levels of awareness operating as best they can within often very complex situations, and very many presumptive fools of BOTH "left" and "right" extremes of the political spectra, who often operate quite dishonestly, quite hypocritically, and often quite cravenly to promote their various partisan agenda. I truly think that whatever the perceptions some might have to the contrary, "Wikipedia is not an experiment in Anarchy", where anything goes, but in many ways a developing experiment in Pragmatism: a quest to find what works, and what works BEST in the ultimate goal of a universally useful presentation of a broad range of ideas and facts.

I have some people accusing me of being someone who must believe that I am "always right", and that people who disagree with me "must be insane". I believe no such thing. I know that in my own state of ignorance, confusion, and limited awareness about many things, I can and do make erroneous assessments. I am also very aware that ALL people are subject to such errors. One thing I have noted in my life is that most people who are inclined to make such accusations of others are very inclined to think that they themselves are always right, at least upon such issues where they are so bold as to express themselves at all. I KNOW that I am not always right, but I always do strive to be honest and fair. Honesty and fairness can allow me to admit that there are many things that I am willing and inclined to hide, but dishonesty, hypocrisy, or very limited self examination have impelled a few people to imply that they do not engage in such tactics, and that I have in some way tried to hide what I have done here. I am no fool who believed my actions would go unnoticed by those hostile to my views on the matter. I WAS COUNTING ON IT. They themselves have helped to make this issue quite a bit more prominent than it previously was. To them I say: THANK YOU.

I have had people state against me the prominent catch-phrase, "The Wikipedia is not censored." The biggest catch to that statement is that it simply is NOT TRUE. It is a patently false statement; it's "NOT a fact, Jack". To use a couple of dictionary definitions, to censor (verb) means: "To examine and expurgate." & "To examine (material) and remove parts considered harmful or improper for publication or transmission". The project in MOST cases might ADMIRABLY not be authoritatively censored by any single small group or faction, or to the specifications of any one ideal, but is CONSTANTLY censored by thousands of individuals working from thousands of perspectives, and it has always been subject to the "highest authorities" of Jimbo, and now, the official Wikimedia Foundation councils. To say that any individual's or group's efforts to exercise self censorship, for the goal of effective communication, is an innately unusual or unwelcome thing, is to me an expression very fallacious concept. It is ONLY when anyone seeks to be dishonest, or impose censorship on what others may say to others, or among themselves where the ideas and ideals of proper freedom and human liberty come under assault.

There are other things that I am inclined to say, but the limits of time and other concerns impel me to other things. I will try to keep checking on the dialog upon the issues that I am raising here at least once a day, until some kind of clear resolutions are achieved. Respectfully, to all concerned, even those who consider me some kind of "menace" and a peril to the project for being so bold as to boldly express my views: let us proceed as best we can towards greater understanding of each others aims, goals, and efforts, and not limit our attention to any narrow and brief concerns about any particular triumphs or defeats of any of our personal aims and desires.

I am sure that there are many of you who are or would be allies on other issues than those about which we contend as adversaries now. I seek to damn no one, though some might seek to condemn me. I do seek to make clear that some issues ARE, and are going to continue to be damnable NUISCANCES that would CONSTANTLY intrude and impede the overall goals of this project to produce a widely respected and widely used encyclopedia, and even endanger many people in the years ahead, no matter how much some people might wish to believe, or pretend to believe otherwise.

Merry meet, and merry part, and BLESSED BE. ~ Achilles † 20:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wake up, Achilles, I *am* a member of the "entire world" outside your doorstep. Which is why I'm not interested in your apparent local aversion to graphic depictions of sexual acts. Why do you defend your acts with such bizarre typography, such hifallutin nonsense, so many misused, abused and strung-up words? Isn't plain English good enough? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am awake, to many things, and I personally do NOT have an aversion to graphic depictions of sexual acts. I DO have a very strong belief that THIS project is NOT the proper place to present photographic depictions of them, for MANY reasons, including, as I have stated, concern for the welfare of educational institutions, teachers, and other adults, who might OFTEN not be aware of such content being promoted for inclusion by a VERY few people. As to my "hifallutin nonsense", I have never considered either Liberty, Justice, Honesty or Fairness to be "nonsense", and I choose to use "bizarre" typography, as others (Paine, and Franklin for instance) have used in the past, as a way of expressing myself, within the limits of a printed/printable medium. Some of the words and phrases I use might not be commonly employed, but I am attempting to use "plain English" as effectively as I can. ~ Achilles † 21:47, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You say "I DO have a very strong belief that THIS project is NOT the proper place to present photographic depictions" and then you go on to describe a number of reasons for this. But anybody who wants to can make a version of Wikipedia that doesn't contain the pictures you don't want it to contain, and anybody who wants to can omit articles like Donkey punch (which I listed for deletion) and anybody who wants to can (as I do customarily) turn off image downloads when they browse the web, so their web browser does not show them pictures that they do not want to see. So what's the problem? Honestly, I think it must have been around ten years ago that I saw an image in a web browser that I did not want to see. Are you really trying to tell me that browsers have got harder to use in the last ten years? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

reply

There are many issues involved here, beyond what any individual might wish to see or not see, and the overall effectiveness, popularity, and usefulness of this project is I believe at stake.

The issue of the particular image in question has been closed for the time being, though curiously it was closed immediately after someone posted a note questioning the claim of its supposed "free-use" copyright status, which actually, to my knowledge had not been investigated. It is my understanding that the image is now "safe" from further debates about its inclusion for at least a month. I can accept this. I do not in any way accept the idea that the case, or the issues that it raises, are closed, and that myself or anyone else should simply "shut up" about it.

On another issue that my activity has raised: I do generally deplore notifying people of things to which they have not expressed any indications of wanting to be involved with in any way, and whether for commercial, political, or general social goals I would indeed consider that "SPAMMING". I would prefer to consider what I have done "targeted campaigning" upon an issue, in which a very strong and very clear consensus that had been indicated in no uncertain terms was CERTAINLY being ignored and evaded. Very contrary to some people's assessments and accusations against me, I had NO intentions of keeping my actions secret, nor disguising them in any way. I actually expected people's reactions to them to further publicize the issue in question, and that is exactly what occurred.

To the minority of those who I contacted who were in any way offended by my attempts to notify them of what was occurring, I can and will apologize, and I ask their pardon. The responses that were generated would indicate that the majority did not feel that way. What I would consider genuine "spamming", or at least the most obnoxious extremes of it, is engaged in by people who are well aware that hundreds or thousands of people will be burdened and offended, for every one who might respond positively to their actions, and simply do NOT care. VERY much like the posters of these photographs, which most people DO classify as hardcore "pornography" (normally limited to ADULTS), including the providers of the images. From the main page of their website I have extracted these quotations ("bolding" mine):

See our site review in Jane's Sex Guide HornyBoy was rated "Quality and Original porn". Check out the complete review in the new listings. Feb '05

This site contains images of naked men engaging in perverted sex acts, including autofellatio and gay sexual contact. Please leave now if you are offended by this material, or if you are under age 18, or live in a community where possessing or viewing adult sexual material is illegal. By entering you certify that you are an adult over 18 and wish to view sexually explicit material.

This autofellatio site is labeled with ICRA This selfsuck site is approved by asacp self-suck and auto-fellatio

Hornyboy is devoted to the pursuit of male sexual gratification. The focus of Hornyboy is gay and straight male autoerotic perversions with special attention to autofelatio, which is the art of male selfsucking. Boys sucking their own dicks and getting totally fucked up on their dicks in a male selfsex frenzy. Hornyboy celebrates young men & twinks acting out in their most private and perverted male dick sucker sexual encounters.

HornyBoy features autofellatio, self suck, and gay twinks self sucking. If you like gay school boys and horny young boys you will enjoy our straight boy sex dick suckers. The perverted boys claim their perverted teacher made us selfsuck our dicks when they are forced to have perverted twinks sex and perform auto fellatio in the classroom.

All materials presented on HornyBoy are copyright protected. Unauthorized reproduction, display, or distribution of this material, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal copyright laws and international copyright treaties. Please send questions or comments to the webmaster. ©2004-2005 HornyBoy.com / Rudebox Media Inc., All rights reserved.

As I have stated, I have many other things to attend to, but I do expect to be engaged in this debate in the coming weeks and months, but not every day. ~ Achilles † 21:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nature of Needed vs. Not

I am wary of "policies" against indecency which are aimed solely at what this group or that group thinks is indecent. While I, as well, found the picture(s) offensive (particularly the big one), it seems to me that the question should revolve around what the image adds to wiki rather than just, "Who does it offend?"

If wiki goes down the latter road, there will in short order be little of wiki remaining. After all, the article on the Holocaust offends deniers; the article on Holocaust denial, Israelis; the articles on religion, athiests; the articles on athieism, the big bang, and anything on sex, religionists; the article on black probably offends at least some blacks; and etc. If there is to be any sanity and/or "residual" value to wiki, it seems that there must be some insistence upon being able to write and/or show what needs to be shown.

But part of the defense of freedom of speech involves saving the big guns for what matters; therefore, it is desirable to avoid unnecessary controversy. So items (pictures or text) which seem designed to shock or offend other individuals without meeting a specific need don't seem to me to have any business here: wikians need the freedom to express what needs expressed and we won't have that if everyone is offended...and can ban everything as a result. We can avoid a slew of bans only by being able to defend the "shocking" stuff on rational, defensible basis.

The text of the autofellatio article was more than explicit enough to explain to anyone (non-retarded) how the act of autofellatio was accomplished. Therefore the picture was redundant -- and since it was redundant, it added nothing but controversy to wiki. This is exactly what I think needs to be avoided and is exactly why I voted to delete the picture.

Let's save our freedom of speech guns for the things that really need to be said, and not waste free speech on trivial, "How big a shock can we give?" nonsense. (Achilles: sorry I missed the vote on Autofellatio_2.jpg.) CoyneT 01:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A message to selected people is not spam

You are getting some undeserved heat for your actions.

Calling your notes "spamming" is not accurate. The poster above states "Spamming is sending the same message to lots of people." That is not a full or correct definition. Dictionary.com defines spamming as "Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail." While it is true that your message could be considered "unsolicited", it was not sent "indiscriminately". You sent the message only to people whom you had reason to believe would be interested in the message. What could be wrong with reaching out to people who are likely to have an interest in a topic?

Ironically, the poster above refutes his own word choice by claiming that your so-called spam was directed "...*only* those who you thought would support you..." So, he is criticizing you for making your message too targeted, too selective. You are actually being accused of carefully targeted spamming, which is an oxymoron.

The poster above also suggests that perhaps you should have posted to the Village Pump, thereby reaching a very non-selective audience. I want to hasten to point out that the village pump does not qualify as spam either. People have "opted-in" by the fact that they go read the Village Pump. But surely there is merit to targeting messages to people you would seem to be interested in them rather than to the entire community?

I don't claim to know the motives of the person who posted a notice to the autofelatio page (TIMBO). However, the autofelatio page is obviously visited by people who have an interest in the topic, and in the manner of its representation in Wikipedia. It is reasonable to believe that a posting on this page will not reach a representative sampling of Wikipedians and that the set of people who would see it would tend to be enriched (compared to Wikipedia as a whole) towards those who would be inclined to support the image. It was logical of you to believe that the message on that page would be seen mostly by people who would support the image. Whether or not that was considered by TIMBO I have no idea. I want to be clear that I am not accusing TIMBO of doing anything wrong. I think you were both justified in your actions.

So, what did you do differently than TIMBO? TIMBO's message was selectively sent to people who follow the discussion on the autofelatio article. Your message was sent selectvely to people who had voted a certain way on an issue pertaining to the autofelatio article. So, you reached a more selective group. You directly argued your viewpoint. So what? Why would that be wrong? Surely discussing viewpoints and wikiwork in progress is a valid use of Talk pages.

You are accused of being "caught red-handed trying to cook a vote". This is an unfair characteriation. If campaigning for your viewpoint is "cooking the vote", then anyone who posts an opinion during any vote would be guilty. There is no harm in campaigning for your viewpoint.

For the record, I feel that the current situation, with the picture behind a link, is a pretty good compromise. I agree that having any pornographic image in any Wikipedia article poses all sorts of problems to us. We do Wikipedia a disservice if we allow a pornographic image to cause us legal problems, or if it causes Wikipedia not to be accessible to large groups of people because their school forbids it, or because their national government restricts access. If I saw strong evidence that even the link was causing these sorts of problems, then I would revisit my possition. Johntex 22:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, whats with the revert on Space Elevator

How can you revert my edits, when you didn't respond to the gripes I placed on the talk page days ago. The version that I put on was more clear and concise. The current version is difficult to read and misleading. The entire article is about beanstalks... many space elevators exist in science fiction, beanstalks are the only ones that approach feasability. Why not mention that other types of space elevators exist and talk about them not in the second sentence of the article. Plowboylifestyle 23:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove any information from the article. The problem I have with putting space fountains and compressive structures at the same prominence is that they are definitely still science fiction. Where as the orbital tether is the subject of active research. Plowboylifestyle 23:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your discretion with respect to user names. If you are ever nominated for administrator be sure to drop me a note. Fred Bauder 12:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julian the Apostate

Maybe you are interested in the move request under discussion at Talk:Julian the Apostate.--Ahrarara 14:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]