Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Archive 1

message: I see nothing wrong with this project and I encourage no one to try and nominate it  for Vfd as it has a right to existence. I am completely opposed to censorship but I am not opposed to establishing a criteria of encyclopedic merit. Just my thoughts.--MONGO 05:45, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
:Depends in my view on what the role and scope of the project is. If it is to identify attempts to introduce bias through censorship and to redress them within the spirit and methods of Wikipedia, then all well and good. I am not sure that it is necessary, or desirable, at the present time given the serious issues with Wikipedians for Decency and the concentration a lot of people ar giving that. The Land 15:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep this project 

message: This is not in line with the goal of our project, but I'd think that Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names/Trollderella might be of interest to many of the members here. "Troll*" appears to be a banned username if you believe in voting "keep" on VfDs. Hipocrite 12:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if they're going to name yourself after an offense against the rules, they might expect to have their actions looked into a little more closely. If I set up a business called "Fubar's Thievery and Extortion", I'd expect to get investigated. Likewise, a user named "troll" or "POV pusher" or "Personal Attacker" or whatnot, should expect some resistance. --FOo 14:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For someone that has the word "fuck" in their username, you certainly are willing to take that first step down the cliff. I respect your opinion, but I disagree. The user in question isn't a troll whatsoever, and no one has alledged that they are. Hipocrite 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not a troll, perhaps, but someone here is. --FOo 15:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me? I'm merely pointing out that by taking this (worthless) step against usernames, you, or I, could be next. Who wants a hypocrite editing here, especially one who can't spell? Who want's someone who is Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition, but hiding it? That I am a troll dosen't mean I'm trolling. That his username had "troll" in it, means neither that they are a troll nor that they were trolling. Hipocrite 16:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  For those interested in more meta issues: 

message: Starting with porn:
 Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The comment was lined out and kiddie referred to mental age, not actual age.  --Noitall 05:14, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
* Latest  news:  , so called consensus ( = minus 3 Bobbi Eden pics ) , published by a well known Zombie, who possibly have returned for that purpose . MutterErde 12:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree with that consensus. The pictures are terrible - the box covers are just stupid to leave out there without comment.Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text:  em , but you have reverted the attacks of the mullahs ?! How can this version ( = minus 3 pics ) be a consense ?  Confused MutterErde 16:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The box covers don't make the article better - both from an informative perspective, and from a visual perspective. The big picture to the right does. Find more glamor shots and I'll defend them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here comes "decency" 

message: by  the way: This is not wikipedia:USA , this is  wikipedia:en , and that includes not only the christian mullahs , that includes some more english speaking countries round the world.
For example: While Mom is buying a newspaper in Sydney her kids  can watch all these gorgeous boobs on the covers. They seem to whisper: "Buy us! Buy us! When you have not enough money , help your Mom washing the dishes. You will get a little money and then come back.We have not only gorgeous boobs - we can show you what your Daddy loves most on your Mom." 
Lucky minors outside the USA ! 
:Image:GoddardPlayboyEspana0195.jpg , :Image:PBSamanthaFox11-88.JPG , :Image:PBDrewBarrymoreGreeceFeb95.jpg , :Image:HollyWitt-PB-February1996.JPG , :Image:BoDerek-Dec-1994.JPG
MutterErde 08:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is NOT wikipedia:USA 

message: Let's actually use this project for its purpose and now is our chance:
images up for deletion
It appears many images that were released under the GNU FDL are up for deletion by a user called THOR with no explanation given as to the problem. --ShaunMacPherson 15:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship Alert 

message: made a recent test run of the WP:TOBY proposal, which basically calls for people to put the Toby image on any pages they object to for any reason, so that other people won't see those pages any more (through a requested software feature that hides all pages containing that image, and makes it impossible to remove the image once in place). In other words, a censorship policy. Maybe some people should go to that proposal's talk page and explain why it's not a good idea. Radiant_>|< 08:03, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
:Toby is more complicated than that - for one, it's opt-in, so images are only hidden from people who choose to have images hidden. Also, it's not forever - there's some complicated algorithm (Wikipedia:Toby/Do) that allows it to fade over time (or something like that, I don't quite get the idea). But do feel free to come comment on the proposal. ~~ N (t/c) 17:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship alert 

message: see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joe_Beaudoin_Jr.#I_expect_your_excuse
MutterErde 20:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About "porn", "crv" and more 

message: I have made a userbox easy for people to use.

Thanks to whoever made it originally (I saw it somewhere an added it to my page, then improved on it and made it a real template, you inspired me. :) --Mistress Selina Kyle 01:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox v2 

message: See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doggy_style&diff=prev&oldid=32040635
Editor is trying to remove nude image (that doesn't actually even show anything just is suggestive..), keeping only drawn pictures.
Reasoning in Talk:Doggy style#Image is "Nobody has ever been offended by an orange, but many are offended by sexual photos" (User:Hedley).. I'm not involved in this but I thought I'd point out what the problem is in a more articulate way than the poor paniced newbie :) --Mistress Selina Kyle 01:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Doggy style]] 

message: Hi, I'm sorry you did not feel the issue at Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights was worth of notice on the notice board.  The notice board states:
:This notice board is intended to inform members of the project of votes or other current Wikipedia events which warrant their attention with regards to this project. Please do not list articles in need of attention here, but rather votes for deletion, votes for policy change or other current and ongoing events which warrant the immediate attention of the member base of this WikiProject. Please remove notices when votes are closed, or the event is no longer current.
and this is clearly a question of policy change.  I also respectfully disagree that the question is related to censorship.  Censorship takes many forms, one of which hides itself as adminstrative privelige.
I am adding my notice to the talk section here, in case other members of this assoication feel that the issue is worth consideration.
--BostonMA 18:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do see how the proposed policy could be indirectly related to censorship, but the connection seems weak at best. I imagine most of the people watching the notice board are more interested in issues directly related to Wikipedia censorship. Perhaps a better place to promote the policy would be Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Kaldari 21:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights]]

message: Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights is a proposed policy / guideline that has been supported by Wikipedians who are concerned that the long term neutrality of Wikipedia depends upon input from minority viewpoints. Continued input from minority viewpoints, in turn can be assured only if the actions of admins and ArbCom are applied fairly and with an even hand. Although the proposed policy / guideline is under active discussion , , there have been attempts to close the discussion on the grounds that "there is not a snowball's chance in hell"  that such a proposed policy / guideline will be accepted. One editor was sanctioned  for an allegedly "disruptive" edit, of removing a "rejected" template while discussion was ongoing . Your input on this matter would be greatly appreciated. (The current version of the proposal appearing on the page is a semi-blanked version which was semi-blanked by opponents of the proposal.) --BostonMA 14:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC
:I do see how the proposed policy could be indirectly related to censorship, but the connection seems weak at best. I imagine most of the people watching the notice board are more interested in issues directly related to Wikipedia censorship. Perhaps a better place to promote the policy would be Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Kaldari 21:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 30 Dec 2005