529:, which argues that we shouldn't include hardcore porn images in Knowledge articles. There was much fighting about this, it was MfD'd (and kept), there was edit warring within the article, it went to mediation, and so on, with the end result that the essay contains a section more or less the effect of "Why this essay is wrong". It' still there now I believe. I was against this and think it's an extremely bad idea, arguing that essays should not have to contain their own refutations and this would lead to constant sterile warring -- instead, writing a counter-essay and pointing to in in the original essay's "See also" section is fine and much more elegant and fair and productive.
649:. The inappropriate suggestion of moving discussions from Jimbo's talkpage to this page's talkpage seems to have been dropped (and in any event is unlikely to be allowed to be implemented), so there is no longer any good reason to delete the page outright. The page is now defensible as a Knowledge space essay, since essays need not express majority or consensus views, but given its confrontational nature I think it probably belongs better in userspace. For what it's worth, see
118:
sounding board for community concerns, but as it is also in reality a user talk page, he can and does archive or even delete threads outright as he sees fit. As far as I am aware, Jimbo has not decreed that certain topics can be shunted off to other spaces, so the intent of this "essay" is for all intents and purposes moot. There has already been a tag-team attempt (
146:
Jimbo's talk page involving yet another
Commons thread, a good alternative to deletion is moving the page the talk page of this page. People can continue discussing the topic, a link on Jimbo's talk page will point to the discussion, while Jimbo's talk page will be free of yet another screen filling discussion on politically incorrect body part pictures on Commons.
625:
be in userspace if it were not publicly editable. And there shouldn't be any reason why both positions cannot be accurately rendered together. Of course, the fact that the essay is a thesis of the one side rather than the other should be preserved; it will be strengthened if it is rebutting a more
277:
until Jimbo decides. He may well wish to shunt the commons image discussions like this to another project or discussion forum. This page may stay as an essay, become a project, or just a sub-page of his talk page to discuss concerns on commons. I don't think it is a pointy page nor disruptive. Other
188:
There may be the germ of a legitimate idea for a
Knowledge-space essay here, but this page is not it, and especially not under this title. Beyond that, the proposed plan of routinely moving things from Jimbo's talkpage to some other talkpage elsewhere strikes me as completely inappropriate, but MFD
117:
that he does not wish to be there, i.e. Knowledge
Commons porn/smut/pedophilia-related topics, and dump them onto the talk page of this 1-paragraph essay. I believe it is obvious all-around that that simply isn't going to happen. Jimbo has always let it be known that his talk page is like an open
238:
I find Count Iblis' chosen title to be pointy and insulting to many of those who participate in discussions of
Commons. This is an extension of the tactic used by Count Iblis and others to dismiss discussions about Commons as an "anti-porn crusade". I am not anti-porn and there is no "anti-porn
145:
Tarc (who is himself a moderator of Jimbo's talk page), misrepresents what is going on here. Geni most likely isn't aware of this page. He removed a discussion he thought is inappropriate on Jimbo's talk page. His deletion was reverted and Geni reverted again. In such a case of a revert war on
763:. This would be OK as a userspace essay, but I think it's too partial and intentionally provocative to be acceptable in Wikispace. Keeping this as a Wikispace essay (particularly under the current title) implies a kind of authority or widespread acceptance it doesn't currently have.
449:. "I disagree with what you say but acknowledge your right to say it" is a good policy (within reason) and is operative here I think. I have argued for the deletion of other essays, but this one doesn't mean any of my criteria for essay deletion (or userfication), which are:
339:
Please note that the page has evolved significantly since some of the above comments were posted. This doesn't mean that all those comments are now irrelevant, but it bears on the suggestion that people are trying to censor something.
719:
My hunch was to userfy, that this really just represented one editor's hobby horse, but judging from the page's history, that doesn't seem to be the case. I still wouldn't object to userfication, but deletion seems a bridge too far.
850:
I don't think the issue is whether or not it's a valid viewpoint – or whether people agree with it – it's about if this is appropriate enough for a mainspace essay and if it wasn't simply written out of battlefield mentality. —
742:. After further review of the page, I find it overly combative and ill-suited for W-space. I still wouldn't like to see it deleted outright, however. That feels like censorship, which would just be too ironic for my tastes. --
222:
if Jimbo wants conversations on his talk page to be routinely moved elsewhere he's perfectly capable of saying so himself. It isn't appropriate for other editors to take it upon themselves to do this.
780:. An essay that almost exclusively pertains to some activity on Jimbo's talk page, as far as this Knowledge is concerned anyway, doesn't belong in this Knowledge's space. There is something called
315:
278:
readers can ignore links to it or add to sections there if they wish. If discussions are moved from there to here without permission or consensus then that would be pointy and disruptive.--
502:
To my mind the main purpose of essays is to provide a shortcut link such that one doesn't have to type or copy in the same arguments over and over, and this serves that purpose.
92:
88:
537:
to be if we're to run this site on a fair basis -- so have at it me hearties and let us well use this two-edged blade gifted to us by the folks who so opposed ].
359:- this serves no purpose other than to be divisive. It ridicules and marginalizes those with whom the author disagrees. There's no way this is appropriate. --
80:
130:
by another editor). I will do the same myself if I see another attempt. It'd be best all around to throttle this thing in it's bed before it learns to walk.
309:
239:
crusade". I have no problem at all with nudity. What I do have a problem with is the uploading of people's nude images on
Commons without their consent.
394:
Where in the essay does it mention
Wikipediocracy? Maybe you should add that, Wikipediocracy reader Prioryman... Don't forget to cite your sources...
376:
As Silver says, it's certainly a valid viewpoint and has some useful observations about the ongoing campaign by
Wikipediocracy members on this topic.
533:, so I'd have to say that the opposing principle was de facto established. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, I guess -- and really
525:
permitted, I think, for editors who don't agree with the essay to add a section refuting the essay's point in a separate section. I wrote an essay,
584:- Pointy battleground essay. On the other hand, if you really want to greenlight this sort of paranoid crap, Knowledge is not paper...
789:
805:
and remove all shortcuts. Fine for a personal essay; does not have widespread acceptance and so does not belong in project space. --
650:
84:
17:
866:
841:
820:
797:
772:
751:
729:
709:
683:
662:
635:
610:
593:
576:
546:
511:
441:
426:
403:
385:
368:
349:
334:
287:
269:
248:
230:
212:
198:
176:
155:
139:
61:
304:
671:
244:
75:
67:
323:
Seems like a valid viewpoint and comment about Jimbo's talk page. Is there a reason that you're trying to censor this?
164:
1. Regarding "a moderator of Jimbo's talk page", that's news to me. Is this a tenured position? Is there a stipend?
296:
885:
457:
Is it very badly written, semi-literate, complete nonsense, an egregiously unfunny attempt at humor, or somesuch?
40:
487:
No, it's not. It's just an essay. I'd rather it didn't exist, but it's not going to harm us to any great extent.
695:
However as it is now I feel it's a perfectly reasonable essay on a known community issue. Let's let it live. --
240:
295:
It certainly seems representative of some views in the community and thus is perfectly suitable as an essay.--
421:
260:. If essays have to have consensus, there's quite a list of them to get rid of. If not, then let it sit.
793:
785:
569:
329:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below.
881:
658:
542:
507:
345:
208:
194:
151:
114:
36:
52:. There is really no consensus here. Let us give ourselves some time and renominate say in half a year.
463:
Does it make an extremely minor point, such that it's not worthwhile cluttering up essayspace with it?
859:
167:
2. Regarding "a good alternative to deletion", I have a better alternative; mind your own business.
475:
Is it just one person's outré opinion, that at best only a very tiny minority would likely endorse?
381:
283:
57:
813:
768:
707:
555:
526:
438:
416:
257:
837:
679:
589:
559:
399:
324:
832:
seems like a valid viewpoint to me, and I do agree with a few things mentioned in the essay.
654:
606:
538:
503:
341:
204:
190:
147:
110:
880:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
854:
692:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
784:; it may belong there because of the inter-project frictions. If this is kept, I expect
377:
279:
172:
135:
53:
459:
No, it's not. It's not great but it's within standards for a wikispace essay, I think.
806:
764:
747:
725:
696:
691:- When I sarcastically created the redlink, I didn't expect it to become blue. Well,
631:
492:
482:
435:
265:
788:
to be created soon thereafter, because he takes so much space on Jimbo's talk page.
599:
delete, unless I get to rewrite it to give an accurate view of the opposing position
833:
675:
585:
395:
224:
203:
Please note that the page has evolved significantly since I posted this comment.
602:
434:. This is not so much an essay as it is more of Count Iblis' POINTy nonsense.
364:
674:. I don't have any policy-based rationale, but this seems reasonable to me.
168:
131:
743:
721:
627:
261:
491:
Is it just trolling, or is there some other consideration such that a
256:. It expresses an opinion that some people disagree with, like, say,
465:
No, not in my opinion. It's a minor point but not completely trivial.
360:
481:
It it materially damaging to the
Knowledge to host it, such that a
521:, not just for the closer, I encourage everyone to read this." It
477:
I don't think so, no. A minority, but not a very tiny or mad one.
874:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
469:
Is there an existing essay(s) that make the points just as well?
626:
realistic position rather than something viewed as a strawman.
126:) to close a discussion on Jimbo's page and ship it off here (
781:
186:
Userfy to the extent this is a mini-essay; otherwise delete.
109:
This is just plain disruptive, bordering on the farcical.
127:
123:
119:
100:
96:
653:
for my view as to why the essay is overly simplistic.
601:
Right now it's a misrepresentation of the opposition.
113:
thinks he is going to summarily move discussions from
189:is probably not the best forum for discussing it.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
888:). No further edits should be made to this page.
621:That is a reasonable request. After all, it
8:
7:
48:The result of the discussion was
24:
18:Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion
693:I forgot the beans, apparently.
531:But I did not win that argument
1:
672:Knowledge:Role of Jimmy Wales
76:Knowledge:OMGNUDEHUMANBODIES
68:Knowledge:OMGNUDEHUMANBODIES
908:
867:07:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
842:06:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
821:02:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
798:01:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
651:the talkpage of the essay
495:delete would be in order?
485:delete would be in order?
62:11:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
877:Please do not modify it.
773:16:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
752:23:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
730:23:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
710:11:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
684:21:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
663:15:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
636:01:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
611:18:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
594:17:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
577:16:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
547:15:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
512:15:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
442:13:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
427:08:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
404:18:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
386:07:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
369:03:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
350:13:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
335:03:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
316:01:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
288:01:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
270:00:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
249:21:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
231:20:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
213:13:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
199:18:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
177:22:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
156:18:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
140:16:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
115:User talk:Jimbo Wales
299:The Devil's Advocate
497:Not that I can see.
471:Not that I know of.
241:Delicious carbuncle
899:
879:
862:
857:
816:
809:
778:Userfy or delete
761:Userfy or delete
705:
699:
573:
568:
563:
424:
419:
332:
327:
312:
307:
301:
105:
104:
34:
907:
906:
902:
901:
900:
898:
897:
896:
892:
886:deletion review
875:
860:
855:
814:
807:
703:
702:
697:
571:
566:
561:
422:
417:
330:
325:
314:
310:
305:
297:
78:
74:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
905:
903:
894:
891:
890:
871:
870:
869:
845:
844:
823:
800:
775:
757:
756:
755:
754:
733:
732:
712:
700:
686:
665:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
614:
613:
596:
579:
549:
515:
514:
500:
499:
498:
488:
478:
472:
466:
460:
451:
450:
444:
429:
415:per canoe1967
409:
408:
407:
406:
389:
388:
371:
354:
353:
352:
318:
303:
290:
272:
251:
233:
217:
216:
215:
182:
181:
180:
179:
165:
159:
158:
128:since reverted
107:
106:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
904:
895:
889:
887:
883:
878:
872:
868:
865:
864:
863:
858:
849:
848:
847:
846:
843:
839:
835:
831:
827:
824:
822:
819:
818:
817:
810:
804:
801:
799:
795:
791:
787:
786:WP:OMGWIKID77
783:
779:
776:
774:
770:
766:
762:
759:
758:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
736:
735:
734:
731:
727:
723:
718:
717:
713:
711:
708:
706:
694:
690:
687:
685:
681:
677:
673:
669:
666:
664:
660:
656:
652:
648:
645:
644:
637:
633:
629:
624:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
612:
608:
604:
600:
597:
595:
591:
587:
583:
580:
578:
575:
574:
565:
564:
557:
553:
550:
548:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
517:
516:
513:
509:
505:
501:
496:
494:
489:
486:
484:
479:
476:
473:
470:
467:
464:
461:
458:
455:
454:
453:
452:
448:
445:
443:
440:
437:
433:
430:
428:
425:
420:
418:Pass a Method
414:
411:
410:
405:
401:
397:
393:
392:
391:
390:
387:
383:
379:
375:
372:
370:
366:
362:
358:
355:
351:
347:
343:
338:
337:
336:
333:
328:
322:
319:
317:
313:
308:
302:
300:
294:
291:
289:
285:
281:
276:
273:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
252:
250:
246:
242:
237:
234:
232:
229:
228:
227:
221:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
201:
200:
196:
192:
187:
184:
183:
178:
174:
170:
166:
163:
162:
161:
160:
157:
153:
149:
144:
143:
142:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
121:
116:
112:
102:
98:
94:
90:
86:
82:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
893:
876:
873:
853:
852:
829:
825:
812:
811:
802:
790:86.121.18.17
777:
760:
739:
738:Changing to
715:
714:
688:
667:
646:
622:
598:
581:
570:
560:
551:
534:
530:
522:
518:
490:
480:
474:
468:
462:
456:
446:
431:
412:
373:
356:
320:
298:
292:
274:
253:
235:
225:
223:
219:
185:
108:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
655:Newyorkbrad
556:WP:BOLLOCKS
539:Herostratus
527:WP:HARDCORE
504:Herostratus
342:Newyorkbrad
258:WP:Fancruft
205:Newyorkbrad
191:Newyorkbrad
148:Count Iblis
111:Count Iblis
882:talk page
716:Weak keep
378:Prioryman
280:Canoe1967
54:Ymblanter
37:talk page
884:or in a
765:Robofish
552:Redirect
39:or in a
856:Richard
834:Legoktm
676:Optimom
586:Carrite
519:Comment
396:Carrite
236:Comment
226:Hut 8.5
89:history
830:userfy
808:Jayron
803:Userfy
740:userfy
647:Userfy
623:should
603:Mangoe
582:Delete
493:WP:IAR
483:WP:IAR
432:Delete
357:Delete
326:Silver
311:cntrb.
220:Delete
782:meta:
668:Merge
562:Scott
331:seren
124:Iblis
97:watch
93:links
16:<
838:talk
826:Keep
794:talk
769:talk
748:talk
726:talk
698:Cycl
689:Keep
680:talk
659:talk
632:talk
607:talk
590:talk
572:talk
558:. —
543:talk
508:talk
447:Keep
439:lute
436:Reso
423:talk
413:Keep
400:talk
382:talk
374:Keep
365:talk
346:talk
321:Keep
306:tlk.
293:Keep
284:talk
275:Keep
266:talk
254:Keep
245:talk
209:talk
195:talk
173:talk
169:Tarc
152:talk
136:talk
132:Tarc
120:Geni
101:logs
85:talk
81:edit
58:talk
828:or
744:BDD
722:BDD
704:pia
670:to
628:Wnt
554:to
535:has
262:Wnt
861:BB
840:)
815:32
796:)
771:)
750:)
728:)
720:--
682:)
661:)
634:)
609:)
592:)
545:)
523:is
510:)
402:)
384:)
367:)
348:)
286:)
268:)
247:)
211:)
197:)
175:)
154:)
138:)
122:,
99:|
95:|
91:|
87:|
83:|
60:)
836:(
792:(
767:(
746:(
724:(
701:o
678:(
657:(
630:(
605:(
588:(
567:•
541:(
506:(
398:(
380:(
363:(
361:B
344:(
282:(
264:(
243:(
207:(
193:(
171:(
150:(
134:(
103:)
79:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.