Image talk:Autofellatio 2.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: To prevent the use of this image for vandalism, it can only be used on pages for which it is specifically allowed. To use this image legitimately, such as in an article about human physiology, contact an administrator either directly or by posting a request on the Administrator's noticeboard.

Contents 1 Proof of copyright status 2 Not orphan tag 3 Failed vote to delete 4 Who is screwing around? 5 New and improved license 6 Flexibility 7 FPC 8 Failed vote to delete 3 9 Question 10 Idiocy 11 File links 12 TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

[edit] Proof of copyright status

This is the relevant email I received from Rob of Rude Media, Inc., to prove the copyright status of this image. —Christiaan 19:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From: webmaster-at-wowboy.com

Subject: RE: Permission to use image on Wikipedia

Date: 28 March 2005 2:16:43 am BST

To: [address removed]

I uploaded several autofellatio images we own. You can take a look and pick out whichever one you want to use on Wikipedia. We want it noted that the image is provided by Hornyboy.com and copyrighted by RudeBox Media, Inc., but it can be used freely with this mention.

Naturally we wouldn't mind having a link to hornyboy.com on the Wikipedia autofellatio page, if that's possible. Although it's an adult site, you won't find many other sites more relevant to autofellatio.  :) Thanks.

You can view the images and download the one you want from here:

[address removed]

Regards,

Rob

[edit] Not orphan tag

I see someone has needed to add a "not orphan" to this image. Why does it not have a link to the Autofellatio article? —Christiaan 09:28, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe that's because it's linked using the {{linkimage}} template, so autofellatio doesn't show up in What links here. TIMBO (T A L K) 17:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not actually the template's fault, per se; images linked inline don't get mentioned in the "File links" section or "What links here" at all. —Korath (Talk) 20:39, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Well that's a bit of a bummer. —Christiaan 20:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Failed vote to delete

This image was voted on for deletion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Autofellatio 2. There was no consensus. dbenbenn | talk 17:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How can this be gay porn? I mean, he doesn't have anybody with him, right? Or do I just have too little information? We must keep this, if only to prove to doubters (of which I was one an hour ago) that such a thing could be done by a human being. — Xiongtalk 11:35, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

Who said it's gay porn? —Christiaan 12:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This image has been used to vandalize others wikis like Infosecpedia. Gbiten 13:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While this does look a little more tasteful than the other picture, why do we need it when we've now got two illustrations demonstrating self same act? Chris 23:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This topic has been covered extensively already on Wikipedia. —Christiaan 19:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where are the rules on consensus? How did a 64 to 48 vote to delete fail to result in deletion? In the deletion vote page we are told voting is closed and we should come to this page to discuss. What is there to discuss? Can something be said or done here that would result in deletion? I expect answers from an Admin. Thx. JDG 08:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) ADDED-- Nevermind. I hunted down the rules (actually, non-rules) regarding "consensus". Very, very shoddy and Wikipedia needs to get real about this and similar policies. It's plain that consensus should mean simple majority. If you don't get real about these things Wikipedia will lose all chance of becoming a serious, widely used reference. This magnificent project and its brilliant underlying software will become a windy desert stalked only by "look at me, ma, I'm a radical!" types who crave acceptance even while obsessively pushing images and articles unacceptable to any community of somewhat sound mind. Get real people.

There are very very good reasons why we use consensus and not majority as our decision making method. These are covered in great detail elsewhere, for example try WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy, Wikipedia talk:Consensus, and Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. See also consensus and Consensus decision-making. There are probably a dozen other places its been discussed as well. Thryduulf 08:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think I'll decline to sink more time into reading yet another Wikipedia gabfest. Obviously, any three or four or fifty people could go on endlessly about what best constitutes consensus, and beyond that, whether this project should be a democracy, oligarchy, monarchy, anarchy or any of two hundred other shades of governance. And, of course, no individual or faction among them could be shown to hold opinions of intrinsically higher merit. So, to reserve some small bit of time, energy and sanity, the workaday Wikipedia contributor must consult his own good sense and ask himself "Does this project have a future while those who promote gigantic images of things like Autofellatio hold sway over those who reject them? Am I, given this balance of power, devoting my energies to a project which will certainly not settle in as a serious, widely consulted reference work?" I'm afraid the negative answer will, from this point, become rapidly clear to most of the good contributors and 2006 will see a mass exodus leaving a core group of comfortable white suburban homophile 20-something cyberanarchists at the controls of a disintegrating runaway train. JDG 09:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A vintage year then? —Christiaan 18:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

JDG, I have trouble believing that this is such a huge issue. For one to see this image, one would have to type in autofellatio, then click on the link at the side that expressly states that you're going to see a photo of a man autofellating. Why is this so outrageous and dire? TIMBO (T A L K) 20:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It really is very annoying to see this tired old characterization of the substantial minority that voted to keep this picture as cyberanarchists. Can't the deletionists make an argument that acknowledges that to many people this may seem a perfectly innocuous, even charming, picture on a very interesting sexual topic? We don't all live in the same country, and we cannot possibly all have the same standards and expectations. Those who have a problem with sexual images do not have to download them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, even if you're adventurous enough to read an encyclopedia article about autofellatio, you're spared the "shock" of seeing it in the article – you can choose to click on the image link or not. TIMBO (T A L K) 03:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, plus, I shall have to take issue with someone who seems to use homophile as if it were an insult, notwithstanding its inapplicability in the case occupying us, given that masturbation is not generally considered (as far as I'm aware) an homosexual act.--81.42.152.4 01:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Who is screwing around?

Somebody has screwed with this image and now all inclusions of it are broken! Grrr. — Xiong熊talk 00:35, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Check out Village Pump – apparently this is to combat (very persistent and annoying) vandalism, and I think it's a great idea (as long as it's not used for censorship!). TIMBO (T A L K) 14:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's a good idea. A loophole in this is that people can still redirect other people's talk pages by doing this:

#REDIRECT [[:Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg]]

There should be some program that detects vandalous edits and stops them from making it on our articles. [[User:NazismIsntCool|Nazism isn't cool]] 08:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New and improved license

I am in contact with the copyright holder, negotiating for a freer license. — Xiong熊talk 15:19, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

• What do you mean? This is about as free as it gets without public domain. A simple attribution license. --SPUI (talk) 15:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • As far as I'm aware the current license is compatible with GFDL. I do wonder what else short of "use it without any attribution at all"--something we wouldn't want to do in any case--could be more free. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Such things can be debated -- I'm with you, which is why I'm working on a freer license -- to jerk the rug out from under anyone who tries to quibble over the license. Eh. — Xiong熊talk 01:25, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

[edit] Flexibility

OK, I'm suprised. This appears to be a pretty much normally endowed male, more an example of what a contortionist can accomplish than an example of a (normally flexible) man whose penis length is what makes the act possible. The drawing in the article, on the other hand, seems to significantly distort the length of the torso to make it appear as if the head can easily reach a slighter larger than average penis. -- DavidH July 3, 2005 05:58 (UTC)

[edit] FPC

Please see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Autofellatio and Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Autofellatio. Thank You! — Xiong熊talk* 14:41, 2005 August 18 (UTC)

[edit] Failed vote to delete 3

This image was nominated for deletion again on August 15, 2005. Consensus was to keep. See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Autofellatio 3 for the archived discussion. Coffee 17:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Now all we need is an image for Autocunnilingus, I still dont believe that one is possible though... but I guess I said the same thing about Autofellatio, God bless Autofellatio 2.jpg for proving me wrong ;) - UnlimitedAccess 06:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I love Rama's autocunnilingus drawing. Notice the inverted Klein bottle on the shelf in the background? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

hahaha. Sadly though the drawing makes it seem impossible to actually do. I wonder if thats true. By the look of the drawing on the autofellatio page it would seem you need a penis the size of your left arm to do it, but I guess thats a myth Autofellatio 2.jpg again disproves. Autofellatio 2.jpg proves size doesnt matter :) - UnlimitedAccess 22:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I know that censorship is not a complicated issue but I am not asking for it. It is just that my 10y/o nephew told me about it. Now, that's a complicated issue.-71.28.243.246 17:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see how your 10-year-old nephew telling you about it is complicated. Perhaps it put you in a situation you found awkward because you were apparently unhappy with the parental oversight afforded to your nephew and/or his own responsible use of the internet in accordance with principles he has been taught. It is not complicated for Wikipedia - Wikipedia is not censored for minors. ^L_Wizard @ 18:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Just tell him The Story of Little Suck-a-Thumb. That should cure him. -- 80.171.34.9 22:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Just tell him he'll understand when he's 16. --Victim of signature fascism 22:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Why 16? --FlareNUKE 20:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Idiocy

What kind of idiotic behaviour you're engaged in ? I keep getting this wanker porno image on my discussion page. Let someone normal delete the trash. Bardon Dornal 12:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] File links

There appear to be a number of military biographies listed here, none of which I can see as having included this image recently. Purging those articles and this page has no effect. What's the problem? -- Beland 22:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)