User talk:70.109.144.96: Difference between revisions

Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you removed topically-relevant content from a Wikipedia article. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Cameron Scott (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand Wikipedia policy on offensive images. The image does not need to be merely "topically relevant". In addition the image triggers 2257 record-keeping requirements and thus violates Wikipedia policy on such images. Learn the rules before you invoke them.70.109.144.96 (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Cameron Scott (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whining about censorship sidesteps the issue. 1. The image is illegal as it triggers 2257 record-keeping requirements, which are not satisfied here at Wikipedia. 2. The image is patently offensive and without value added to the article. Not every offensive image is includable on the basis that "Wikipedia is not censored". Please, if you want to get serious about keeping Wikipedia's content at a high level, avoid invoking rules which you do not fully understand. 70.109.144.96 (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Cameron Scott (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... except that I'm not disrupting Wikipedia. I'm protecting it from 1) violating its own rules, and, perhaps more importantly, 2) violating federal law by violating the 2257 record-keeping requirements. Maybe next time you decide to come down hard on another user, you should take the time to understand the rules. 24.61.244.32 (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I am quite sure that there is no rule in wikipedia requiring in photographies the things that you asked. If I am wrong, then please link the relevant page in Talk:Autofellatio, so the others editors can see for themselves. Wait, I might be wrong, the description page of the image claims that it has record keeping according to USC 18 § 2256 (you linked to 2257 instead of 2256, I suppose they both belong to the same law).

If you think that the image is illegal, then go to the actual image, which is hosted in Commons, and ask that the image is deleted. It's quite easy, in the left side there is a section called "Tollbox", and there you will find a link called "Nominate for deletion". Click it and explain the reasons, and a request for deletion will be created. A Commons admin will eventually close the request for or against deletion. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not per se illegal-- as long as it was produced by a non-U.S. citizen outside the U.S., and no U.S. entity reuses it without providing the required information. The problem is that even though the creator may well be a non-U.S. citizen, it cannot be displayed in any Wikipedia pages at the very least, since that would be reuse (Wikipedia IIRC is hosted in the U.S. state of Florida). I will try to remember to nominate the image for deletion, but unfortunately cannot do it at present because I am not auto-confirmed yet. KirthMersenne (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Autofellatio. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Autofellatio. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

There was, of course, no such attack. Excuses and intentional mis-citations and misconstructions of Wikipedia rules seem to be used frequently to block/ban people with whom certain editors don't agree here. This is a good example. 70.109.144.96 (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the merits of your argument, getting blocked repeatedly for sockpuppetry is unlikely to persuade anyone that you're right. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing someone of sockpuppetry is a personal attack directed at me. Please stop. 70.109.144.96 (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]