User talk:Marymary

Last warning - continue what you are doing and you will be banned. --Eloquence 17:47 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm just writing an article about censorship, Wikipedia:Censorship that's all and linked it to the uncensord_Cli*** page to show it as it is. I don't know if other people added naked picture or anything but that was not me. Calm down! JohnQ

You have recreated the Clitoris uncensored page, which is plainly unnecessary and annoying -- if you want to resolve the issue, use the talk page and provide the necessary copyright information. Creating pages to piss other people off will simply get you kicked off the wiki. --Eloquence 17:54 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Well, I though the "CENSORED" would have been a good monument. As you want. It's not possible to kick people off wiki, you know that. But don't worry, I'm listening to you. JohnQ.

It is very well possible to ban users, and you would not be the first. Users can be banned by IP number and username, they are still able to read, but can no longer edit. --Eloquence

My IP is dynamic and username are fickle. But again, it doesn"t mean that I don't listen to you and that I don't abide by the common rule. JohnQ

Just because your IP is dynamic and your username "fickle" doesn't mean you cannot be banned -- your dynamic IP can be blocked as needed, and so can any new usernames you use. We've done it before. --Eloquence

I belong to very large network and I have many accesses to the Internet.(and very good knowledge in computing) If you want to do so, it would be just easier to close the web site, I think! lol. But, again, don't worry, I like to participate here in a postive way. JohnQ

There's no problem in blocking IP block ranges. Trust me, you can't win against us. You can either cooperate or play elsewhere. --Eloquence

If you want to block the IP range of all AOL members, all Yahoo members, etc etc. Well, you may remain the last one able to have access to the Wiki. And finally, there are tunneling methods allowing people to use virtually any IP. Really, you cannot do anything against me. But anyway, what for? I'm not here to bother you, really. JohnQ

We don't have to do that. You simply can't change IPs as fast as we can ban you when you do malicious edits. What for? If you continue creating articles like "Clitoris uncensored", it may become necessary. --Eloquence

Are you kinding. I have just to disconnect and reconnect to get a new IP. No no, no worry, I'm juste working on.... "PEnis uncensored" Joking! ;-) JohnQ

Sure. And how often do you intend to do that? Seconds after you have made your first malicious edit from a new IP, you're banned again. If wiki was so easy to attack, it would have been gone after the first slashdottings. --Eloquence

Well, how could you know the second time that it's me again? Of course I won't leave cookies on my computer! No, really, there is no way to do it. Trust me. Stealth JohnQ

We would know it from your actions -- human behavior is much harder to vary than an IP address. If someone with a changing IP address keeps creating nonsense pages, then we know it's probably the same person, and we will keep blocking their IP and/or username. You're right about one thing: If you don't do anything stupid, you can probably manage to stick around under various IPs. But if you deliberately try to create nonsense pages or vandalize articles, then it is trivial to keep you from doing that. --Eloquence

I'm not vandalizing. You're not very nice with me. JohnQ.

You seem to follow all my steps very closely. Btw, I'm gonna add many things to the financial audit page (as I work in one of the fat four). But, right now, I gotta go! (nice weather outside, rollerblade!) Don't delete it before I have the time to put some interesting contents. CU! JohnQ

---

JohnQ, I think there is something you don't understand, there are almost 120,000 articles in wikipedia. All of them are as they are merely because no one has reverted or edited them (yet some surely contain controversial opinions or POV material). By using your freedom to edit them as you wish, you grant others the right to revert it back or change it as they wish, this is a part of the deal. When conflicts arise, they are usually settled in a civilized manner (at least some of them). If you keep changing or adding articles or content in a manner that is not accepted by other wikipedians, they will simply revert what you did, again and again.

You can, if you want to avoid the magic circle, discuss the matter and persuade others why they shouldn't revert what you do, or start a poll. Rotem Dan 18:59 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

As I told everyone before, I won't attempt one more time to do anything. My though about that is summed up at Wikipedia:Censorship. I have nothing to add. JohnQ

Anyway, Welcome to Wikipedia ;), writing an encyclopedia is a very interesting intellectual challenge, I hope you'll choose to stay. Remember that Ignore all rules is an accepted policy by most wikipedians (at least for the ones who have voted), please don't abuse this freedom, note #7 at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, wikipedians (especially administrators) don't want it to be a Mere vehicle for testing anarchism or the socially imposed limits of free speech, for the matter, so I guess that's where the hostillity comes from.. Rotem Dan 20:02 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

The negative responses are because of edits such as this one (http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Amphibology&diff=905789&oldid=905788) and the upload of a picture of a penis in place of the Wikipedia logo. (see Image:wiki.png (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:wiki.png)). Many other very similar edits were made under other user names after JohnQ was blocked. -- sannse 20:17 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

It seems that JohnQ has been trying to make a useful contribution on the Financial audit article, labeling a user as a Vandal or Banned will surely not make him/her want to contribute further in the future. I agree that what John did is not constructive, but again, JohnQ was willing to discuss the issue, that is surely not common for vandals, who usually do it in the hit-and-run technique, and try to make as much destruction as possible. Rotem Dan 20:32 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

---

"as I work in one of the fat four" -- you mean you work for one of the big four financial companies? Funny, from your actions I had figured you as a 12-year old boy. There's one of you, and hundreds of us and if you persist in making certain types of edit, we can revert them as soon as you make them. Your call. -- Tarquin 19:52 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

---

Despite your controversial entrance into the community, I would like to welcome you to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page and experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. MB 18:32 14 May 2003 (UTC)

same thing... Special:Ipblocklist

Vulva picture

Hi!

I have obviously not seen the whole discussion.

The picture of Marymary itself - not knowing which discussions and debates arose around it and in which context it stands - is IMHO absolutely worthy of an encyclopedia and no different from pictures about anatomy in European biology books, and I would wish for other versions with marked labia, urethra and other pecularities. I do not see obscenity.

I think forbidding illustrations of those - and in no way unimportant! - organs would counter the claim of an encyclopedia, which has to present scientifical knowledge. Lechers are not the intended audience of lexical articles; and the encyclopedia should not account too much for them. From all experience, they have other sources in the internet for pictures (ironically most of them hosted in the US), so they won't bother the wikipedia.

To consider people that go to anatomical articles and feel offended by illustrations, one could hide the illustrations by a "Picture"-labeled text link.

It should also be considered that in my country, we made the experience that ignorance in this matter, coupled with failure of the parents to properly provide answers and education about sexual matters, stands in direct porportion to unwanted teenage pregnancies. Since the mandatory introduction of sexual education in biology in our equivalent of High school, this problem virtually ceased.

As I know that sexual education is very controversial in the US, I think it very important for a freely accessible encyclopedia to provide such knowledge. No teenage girl should have to find out about those things no sooner than at birth in my opinion.

I hope to have made a factual contribution in this matter.

--Dingo 23:13, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Clitoris photograph legal status

Please see Talk:Clitoris#Legal status and comment on the legal status of your clitoris photograph. Thank you. Rafał Pocztarski 04:11, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)