Commons:Deletion requests/File:Clover (40670426730).jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Clover (40670426730).jpg

[edit]

Not educationally useful. Image does not support or explain Unicode character in an educational format as described in the description. Perpetuates misogynist views of women and tech. COM:PS, COM:PORN Seazzy (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment This is not censorship. This image is freely available online for anyone to use. It does not, however, have any use on Commons. It's presence and the dialogue around maintaining it has a serious chilling effect on women and others who are using Commons for research and educational purposes. That is censorship. It creates a culture of exclusion that is directly counter to Commons' stated claims to inclusivity. -Seazzy (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Proofs that deleting this image are not an act of censorship? And proofs that this images make an "chilling effect on women and others who are using Commons for research and educational purposes"? He have almost 60 million images and are these dozen of images that make women participate less in Commons? Or are their other reasons like the unfortunate fact all Wikimedia and Wikipedia projects have a lot more men then women. And many of they dont have or link this images. A few images in tens of millions of images are the fact that stop women from participating in Commons, albeit the fact that all Wikimedia projects suffer the same problem despite the fact that they share the same unfortunate fact of female participation, despite all efforts and projects in all Wikimedia projects to revert that.
I could take the same route as you and besides talk again that you never contributed nothing to Commons in the last three years, point out the fact that could point to your talk page and say that your have serious problems with copyright violations in your uploads and say that so deduce that "many of the arguments this user has made do not have any relevance to the requirements for inclusion in Commons, and are frequently false or misleading", but that last fact would be irrelevant and an ad hominem attack like the one you just did. Instead i will point to my block log and invite people to see that almost all blocks since 2012 were reverted for those blocks being abusive, unwarranted, against policy and were all reverted by other administrators. Besides that, see my archived talkpages and see why was i blocked and why almost all were reverted (and two of those blocking administrators have been desysoped). You will see that i do not have an "extensive history of bad faith and abusive behaviour" contrary to the false accusations of Seazzy. And, to the contrary of what you claim below, "Many of the arguments this user has made do not have any relevance to the requirements for inclusion in Commons, and are frequently false or misleading", please see what the unsuspected Fæ had to say in other related deletion request. Please provide links, like i do, that proofs of what you claim that i have an "bad faith and abusive behaviour, including having been blocked from Commons at times

Besides a comment by are not" and that "many of the arguments this user has made do not have any relevance to the requirements for inclusion in Commons, and are frequently false or misleading", speacilly the part about those being "frequently false or misleading". Either you show proofs what you claimed about me or your making some "frequently false or misleading" "arguments" and statements. Tm (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I would like to ask a question to the (male or female) that call themselves feminists and that voted to delete this images. But first let me state that i think this this are good images about naked art, and this shows that many of this images are in use, and so in scope per Commons:Scope.
These are women, working as models, but your comments seem to denigrate their work. Comments as calling their work as misogynist, creep, worthless, no-educational, i usually see in religious extremists, anti-women rights people. But from feminists (male or female) admires me the most, shaming adult and free women that make art as models. Those are people that made a choice to pose nude or semi-nude freely and willingly. In these times of of strong attacks on women rights (work, personal, moral, sexual, reproductive) it frightens me to see some people that call themselves feminists attacking the choices of other women, calling their work, creepy, no-educational, worthless, etc.
Dont these women deserve respect for their choices and work, instead of name calling? And dont these comments seem almost like be "anti-women"? It reminds me of the slut-saint dichotomy and of the slut-shaming that i thought was being thrown into the garbage bin of history. Tm (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment And to all delete votes, if this images are non-educational, why them did reputable and educational newspapers, websites and feminists and sex educators, covered this Exey Panteleev, his projects and this photos, publishing them to boot. Just as an sample the The Next Web, GQ Italy and the french newspaper Libération and Violet Blue "an American journalist, author, editor, advisor, and educator". Or are they not reputable and educational sources? Or are they so crazy to publish images with the same subject and of the same author and speak about his photos and work in praise. Or is an sex educator be really confused. Tm (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Please see user Tm's talk page for their extensive history of bad faith and abusive behaviour, including having been blocked from Commons at times. Many of the arguments this user has made do not have any relevance to the requirements for inclusion in Commons, and are frequently false or misleading and in bad faith. -Seazzy (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment First some of the models work\worked with this photographer since the begging of the project ten years ago until today. So you have adult and free women that choose to participate in this project "GEEKOGRAPHY", an ensemble of images that fuses artistic nude photography and technology, covered by several tech, photo and generic media outlets, like the ones i linked above. But there is a lot more coverage, like the cover of the Russian "Hacker Magazine" of January 2012 was by him" or of the ukrainian "SHO Art Magazine" of July\August 2012 had an article about his project.
But to show that this is really an conceptual artist and not some creepy random dude, let the people that are the artists speak. He not only had photos published in a "nude art photography" book, but he won Winner of The Best of Russia 2011 (and selected as one of the 55 best between 309 winners), an photographic award organized by the Moscow Contemporary Art Center Winzavod and with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. An he was nominated in 2011, 2012 and 2013 in the american International Colour Awards.
Second claims. in these or other DR that "These women at least had the choice to do so anonymously" is plainly inaccurate if it was make unaware or clearly fake if made aware of who this photographer is? No model is participating anonymously, you can clearly see their faces and names (Olya, Darina, Y., Olga, Olga, Alena, Maria, Anna, V., Margo, Polina, Agneta, Masha, Marusia, Alexandra, Luiza, Kristin) on his website, besides the many flickr images that show their face, the vimeo videos and the photos published in many news articles i´ve linked. So no, they are not participating anonymously in his work of ten years.
And, last but not least, the claim here or other DR that "sometimes women do degrading things for money" and then add that "These women at least had the choice to do so anonymously" is appaling, shocking and demeaning to "these women". Besides the fact that i stated before that these are not anonymous models is a fact, but now, because of your comments this is not only a question of scope and educational use, but a question of basic human decency and dignity of this models. By saying that they did this work anonymously (false) and only for money (proofs of this statement) and not for example for liking of his work and contribute to it, and them add the claim that they thought this work was "degrading things" is almost, if not totally, slut shamming them, by blame the models for their choice of work. We are talking of professional models, working in their field of work, posing to a reputable and famous photographer for several years and situations. Or are you implying that he coerced 17 models to pose for him, against their own free will?
Please show some respect for this models, their work and their free choices or show hard evidence of your claims. Or show solid proof that this models made the "Participation in a patriarchal capitalist world does not make you approve of that world" i.e. that this models posed only a anonymously (a false statements), that they that did this because they thought this work was one of those "degrading things" "sometimes women do (...) for money". If not, your only making wild and inaccurate claims that attack the integraty and professionalism of the photographer and denigrates, slut shame, undervalues and makes misogynist claims on these models and their work by mocking, denigrating and lower their own choices? Is it not something that could said to be a patronizing and moralistic view, that shames and lowers one woman for their choices, typical of people that attack the political, spiritual, sexual, moral, reproductive and other basic rights under the cover of "moral, religious or pudency reasons".
Funny, also, that Violet Blue, an reputable and famous feminist, tech and sexuality writer, sex educator makes good comments about this images and the photographer. Is she a member of the "patriarchal capitalist world"? Tm (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. --Strakhov (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Clover (40670426730).jpg

[edit]

contenido pornográfico 177.232.91.174 02:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Hanooz 22:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Clover (40670426730).jpg

[edit]

Inappropriate use of a pornographic image to display the four leaf clover symbol and its respective unicode. I came across this while searching for 'clover' on Wikimedia. 2A02:C7C:B249:5500:B14A:84FF:D215:4C80 12:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • We definitely need to not only keep this highly educational image but also need to categorize it into "Four-leaf clover in art" and "Jameson bottle". Also we definitely need to name this image "Clover" and show it unfiltered in search results to anybody by default, including children, people not intending to get distracted with offtopic images and people at work.
That it is pornographic is not valid rationale for deletion, we're only not a place for "low-quality" "amateur" porn but strive to become the porn website of the future, we just lack the videos but that will change at least in 50 years or so. Users of this community volunteer to make WMC pages well-indexed in search engines and we do not censor. Are you asking for censorship?!!!
Prototyperspective (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I honestly can't tell if Prototyperspective's comment is supposed to be sarcastic or not, but, if not, where in the Wikimedia mission is the goal of becoming the "porn website of the future"? —Tcr25 (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prototyperspective is engaging in continued irony and sarcasm, unhelpful in any case and particularly tasteless in the chosen examples («children who come here need to see porn» — wtff?!). We’ve seen people sanctioned for much less. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean with tasteless in the chosen examples? I'm just translating what your decisions mean. It is to be expected that children browse categories relating to children's games or specific foods. Pictures like the above are currently categorized into them. I'm describing the current situation and the one sanctioned should be those who put those porn images into those categories which however isn't reasonable until there is a policy that requires that such is not done. Is it the person pointing out a problem that should be "sanctioned" for no reason or is the person who causes said problem? Prototyperspective (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're purposefully presenting your opinion in a sarcastic way, which is bad enough, and you’re mentioning children for shock value in your jokes. Regardless of the point you’re trying to make, that alone should get you blocked. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So now sarcasm is disallowed by people screaming censorship!!1 when just asking for porn not to be put into categories about specific foods or children's games. No, it's not for "shock value" and it's not "jokes". I find your calls for blocking based on absolutely no policy or rationale interesting. Not sure why people try to silence me this hard. Also you did not address any single argument I made but that's okay. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You’re really not thinking this true. Read again what I wrote and then reply to it, if you want to, or drop the stick. Your initial post (13:19), which I replied to in this subthread, was void of any substantive argument — it was all sarcastic mudslinging. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You said you’re «asking for porn not to be put into categories about specific foods or children's games» — finally a serious argument! If that’s your actual concern, then work open a CfD and/or recategorize the files in question. Deleting files jst because they are miscategorizes is not policy, to put it mildly. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that out, although it did go right over my head at first. I agree that there is pretty much no educational value to this (or the related images) and it's most likely out of COM:SCOPE, but there is a strong lobbying effort to keep consensus on the side of including them. —Tcr25 (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there’s strong lobbying against this kind of images drumming out all the usual moral panic arguments. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not interested in wading into this fight, but that the images are remaining regardless undercuts your argument. —Tcr25 (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The images we can see are the ones that were not deleted, M. de la Palisse. This series has been able to resist the moralists’ assault because it’s a well known work of a a well known photographer. Even if all attempts at misplaced censorship were failed, though, it’s the fect that attemps were made that shows such strong lobbying, exists, not their outcome. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep: If you don’t want to see sexual content popping up in your search results, apply any of the many tools available to ensure “safe” search. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are none, and that is good.
It would be irrelevant if there were because 99.999% of WMC users do not install some obscure hard-to-use tech-savvy gadget hidden somewhere to be found if you search for it long enough. Porn should also be shown in food categories and children who come here need to see porn and e.g. autoplaying decapitation gifs at unexpected places/searches, everything else is censorship. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You’re wrong, again. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, great rebuttal! Prototyperspective (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do those "users do not install some obscure hard-to-use tech-savvy gadget hidden somewhere to be found if you search for it long enough" because they are only avaible in such obscure sites like App Store, Google Play or Microsoft Store. Are the tools, that took a search for a long minute to find in stores, example of "have obscure hard-to-use tech-savvy gadget"? Tm (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most people use Web search engines. You can strike the part "tech-savvy" if you are talking about 'mobile users' and a certain subset of 'parents' only, and all of that only relates to the children-aspect. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a thing called Safe Search on this pretty obscure web search engine called Google that is only has 91,85% of the "Engine Market Share Worldwide" as of August 2023. And those "certain subset of 'parents' only" are in their early 50 or less, so most likely also users of the Internet since its boom(s) beggining in the early 1990´s, i.e. they now how to use technology and so, blocking and other types of filters, i.e. they have the tools available and the knowlodge to use it (or at the lack of it, easy tutorials to learn from). As such there is no reason to say that there are no tools or that only exists "some obscure hard-to-use tech-savvy gadget". Tm (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you are admitting you intend/welcome Google to censor Wikimedia Commons, namely all of it entirely or porn-unrelated categories that somebody polluted/poisoned with offtopic porn because e.g. the name/symbol of the category is written or painted on a body?
-
I don't think that is warranted and showing much respect for those who volunteer to populate these categories with other images. Btw probably most kids don't have SafeSearch set to more than "Blur explicit images" and I don't think it hides links to porn-unrelated Wikimedia Commons cat; also they can still use the search or browse through categories here and with the "subset" of parents I was referring to those who both intend to and successfully can control what their children's devices are like. Prototyperspective (talk) 08:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you know alot about how Google’s Safe Search works, more then I ever did. So, you were mischaracterizing it as an obscure gadget just for sophistry, okay.
As for «Google to censor Wikimedia Commons» — hmmm, as opposed to Wikimedia Commons censoring itself? Well, yeah? Besides, the verb "censor" is doing some heavy lifting in that sentence: Blurring out or excepting some images in a search report, which is transient, volatile, and contingent to each instantiation — that you denounce as censorship we should avoid. But, at the same time, we deleting our own filepages with their media files and its curation, that’s much better somehow?
Meh. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This images has been discussed to death in the last 12 years, in more then 30 related deletion requests such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pokémon GO (28653034981).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fruit ninja game depiction with painted fruit on a naked female.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - How to subscribe to an event.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fake News (48708611322).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - z-index.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Binary prefixes (41983361972).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - before.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:HTML output - Exey Panteleev.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erlang (9690003046).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dogecoin (46535190611).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - display.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Full Stack (Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSS feed icons painted on a naked woman (by Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - QR code.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - Proxy.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - MongoDB's "WHERE".jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radio button and female nude.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - float left right.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SQL - DROP TABLE.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Look of disapproval (51175217328).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rust (43904924980).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Homotopy (51953579939).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alpine (24923864468).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deep Q Learning (52012317170).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:PHP (9686748353).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:OK boomer (50328740462).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poppy Playtime (52084660702).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Compact Casette (51548162138).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology
Better yet, this also already discussed in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev, Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?.
All have time and again established that this files are in scope, as all discussions have been closed as kept and all discussions in VP, AN and related have been in the same way as the DRs, so it is "strange" how this "random" IP´s always, time and again, seem to open this DR´s. Tm (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: In use together with a bunch of other images of this kind; why exactly this one could be deleted as distinct from all other illustrations from here?. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Clover_(40670426730).jpg&oldid=806006496"