Forum:Pedophilia and child pornography

From Uncyclomedia, the UnMeta-wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Forum: Home > Pedophilia and child pornography

Dear users of UnMeta, please watch attemptly the images below:

The original files are uploaded at Wikinet. Well, I summon you to judge by yourselves if images of this nature shall be banned from all Uncyclomedia wikis or if shall remain the rule of "anything goes". I must remember you that pedophilia and child pornography are crimes at most of countries. --Helder Oliveira (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


Comments

What the hell is this, Mgs? Uncyclomedia sites are no porn sites............. CartoonistHenning (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I deleted all files. Mgs 00:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem isn't the fact to be a crime. Crime by crime many others uncyclos committed others "crimes". The point of the matter is: there is no funny in these images. Alhazred (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to have an ED/OhInternet-copy on Uncyclomedia sites, just because we're too civilised for it. Uncyclomedia sites are not only visited by adolescents... CartoonistHenning (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
So take down Wikinet, just let me download the database to not lost all the work that we have in this wiki. Mgs 16:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
What other crimes, are you suggesting? Could you tell us, Mr. Alhazred. Rhubella beach.jpgRhubella Marie, the rat sockpreppie 2085 preppieditsRhubella.jpg 14:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Where do we draw the line between pornography and humour? Cthulhu.fhtagn (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I also am against any kind of pedophilia, and also unnecessary pornography. However, I know Helder's intentions. He opened this thread, not because he want to report pedophilia in Wikinet, but because he wants to take it down (Não sei como se escreve "tirar fora do ar" em inglês, e o Google Tradutor não está me ajudando, mas só sei que o Helder tá fazendo birrinha por causa de brigas que ocorreram no passado, e que já estão resolvidas, e mesmo sem pedofilia na Wikinet, o Helder vai fazer de tudo para tirá-la fora do ar). DARK FALLEN ANGEL Lord of DarknessHAIL SATAN 16:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Dark é Take the site down! Rhubella beach.jpgRhubella Marie, the rat sockpreppie 2085 preppieditsRhubella.jpg

Calm

"What would you say of a man wearing lace on your nightgown like me?"
 :~  :gl:Isabel II de España e Galicia .

"Stay calm and carry on..."

~
pt:Isabel II do Reino Unido

Not wish to prolong this subject but I believe is what you can qualify to define pornography or not. I confess that some (of many) uncys have pornographic images but the major problem is whether they are applicable to a humorous article. In my position, I believe it is best to define the extent to which an image can be considered pornographic or not. In my opinion, I believe that a pornographic image which can sexually explicit or dismissal. On the other hand, women in bikinis or swimsuits are not seen as pornography. Rhubella beach.jpgRhubella Marie, the rat sockpreppie 2085 preppieditsRhubella.jpg 17:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Others kind of crimes? Calumny (calúnia). Defamation (difamação). Injury (injúria) (Itens 138, 139, 140 of the Brazilian Penal Code - artigos 138, 139, 140 do Código Penal Brasileiro). Among others. Alhazred (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Relax! Everything, which is under Uncyclomedia, is under the Canadian laws... If Brazilian people want to sue you, they'll have to do it through an international court X-P CartoonistHenning (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, I just answered Renard. And, we know that in practice it is little different, we have cases of sysops who were psychologically pressured by brazilian lawyers. Even if the site is hosted in Canada, they (the lawyers) justifies saying the calumniator/slanderous/injurer is Brazilian, after tracking the IP of who edited. In other words, the process is not against Desciclopédia itself, but against the individual person. Alhazred (talk) 02:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
It was exactly what we wanted to question. Rhubella beach.jpgRhubella Marie, the rat sockpreppie 2085 preppieditsRhubella.jpg 03:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Just.... child porn is not funny, about pedo's are many jokes, but the story behind is sad... just delete that crap, not a discussion worthy. Whatever which law it is, the Policy of the site where it was uploaded to should say enough. If not, it fails. Roye7777777 ~ Talk 10:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Exactly that is the problem, some sites do not know how far it is considering whether or not a pornographic image. Logical that images of naked people having sex (or not) is characterized as pornography. However, a common consensus among our wikis do not allow this kind of thing. Logical that images of naked people having sex (or not) is characterized as pornography. However, a common consensus among our wikis do not allow this kind of thing. Rhubella beach.jpgRhubella Marie, the rat sockpreppie 2085 preppieditsRhubella.jpg 20:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Notice only users Malucopedia and Wikinet in portuguese
I gave clear warnings about this type of behavior inopportune have witnessed in recent days as this:

First, I must remind you that "import" pages from other wikis than Illogicopedias constitute a breach of copyright (unless the original page is deleted, then no problem).

Second: Tell it to the owner of this Crapedia to use real names in these fucking is a crime and I will not hesitate to make a police report if you see my name there. in [1]

and:

I just came here because I've heard about the swim and not walk-frills way of enjoying this conversation. But once I ask peace between the projects and events they are being taken some internal problem in UnMeta now I just go wash your hands and let the case exposed. This time there are other wikis that users will interpret the problem with the neutral point of view, which to some people claim that I am unable to do. I in [2].

What appears to other users a complaint bids actually perishes another round of a fight between two wikis. Unfortunately, I see that Helder is right to complain but to my eyes it seems to me one more reason to continue to watch this idiotic war.

I have seen the situation explicit notice the lock in the user administrator Helder Dragomaniaco in UnCommons alleging pornographic content. This in itself justifies the opening of the user Helder. However, its justification is in the administrator CartoonistHenning claim is unjustifiable.

"When Dragomaniaco was sysop at DP he used to summarily block users, why should I treat him different?"

~ User:Helder Oliveira|Helder

I'll be judging this protest because I feel nice, but I want a commitment that all involved wikis do not come back to have more conflicts. Immediately notice that the Crapédia, although not belonging to Uncyclomedia, has eliminated the article that was giving problems to Uncyclopedia by my responsibility and also deleted the same article in Çciclopédia created to prevent new conflicts. Rhubella beach.jpgRhubella Marie, the rat sockpreppie 2085 preppieditsRhubella.jpg


Ok, I also was involved in prostitution. But this is not considered pornography.

I ask other users who read this forum carefully. It is justifiable under the protest of Helder two arguments:

  1. Although pornographic images of actresses can yield good articles, images are not pedophiles and that hurts in many respects and that all Uncyclopedias and illogicopedias do. However it is common thing that many uncys includes Hentai material in your articles and I wonder if that has relevance also in this increasing discussion. Logically, we can not protest the uncys residing on the servers of Wikia, belonging to but Uncyclomedia sites like Desciclopédia and Desgalipedia contains such material. Although we control this same type of material.
  2. While Cartoonist said that he did not want to see an ED here, from the beginning that Wikinet was designed with certain concepts of ED, although the proposal is an Internet-based humor. However, I noticed a year ago there was a disagreement on certain articles of actresses and models with sexy images. Well, this remained so even for items not featured in my view some kind of violation of laws.

Well, Well, to end my argument. My question to Alhazred was precisely that kind of ruthlessness this problem. Although he thought I was accusing him, I just wanted him to, being a neutral user, inform other users to sense the size of the problem and this done, I have my position on the issue.

  • In a way, although the sites belonging to unmet can not be processed before the justice of your country it is possible that the administrators can instead undergo some sort of legal trouble.
  • All users are well aware to what extent are responsible for their work here. We know very well that although we can make a joke about a fact under license limits to this. That is, although we can acrecentar an image with some content illegal pedophilia can not be admitted on the grounds at humor.

I think this ends the matter, Rhubella beach.jpgRhubella Marie, the rat sockpreppie 2085 preppieditsRhubella.jpg 20:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Desgallery of pornographic images used for humor

Just duit :D Rhubella beach.jpgRhubella Marie, the rat sockpreppie 2085 preppieditsRhubella.jpg 21:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal tools
View and edit namespaces data

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Reports and requests
Community
Contact
Toolbox