User talk:Dbachmann

IBNELER ötünü sikeyim!

• archive1: 19:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) – 18:26, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• archive2: – 04:10, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• archive3: – 08:23, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• archive4: – 09:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• archive5: – 2:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

size matters?

this is ridiculous. The balance of usefulness to annoyance of this image is tilted so much towards annoyance that it's simply reckless to claim it should be as big as possible. I'm sorry but I cannot believe that you defend this disruptive and probably copyvio'd image in all honesty. If we cannot get rid of it if some people are so much in love with it, or with getting their way, reducing its size is the least we can do to reduce its potential for abuse. dab (ᛏ) 11:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Every single one of your arguments above seems to be predicated on the assumption that the picture is innately offensive, whereas a large minority of editors have voted it suitable for inline display. You also argue that the disruptive effect can be mitigated by taking a step that would reduce the utility of the image. This is unacceptable for any encyclopedic image. We have a thumbnail facility in the image tag for performing the task of reducing the size, if and when it is needed. The way to tackle abuse of Wikipedia is to stop the abusers, not remove information from the website. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're annoyed enough to be making what could be interpreted as threats to vandalize threats to degrade the picture quality repeatedly. The fact that vandals choose a picture of a chap sucking his penis in preference to an image of the Codex Argenteus is presumably because they think the former would be more annoying. But a less annoying picture is not necessarily more encyclopedic, and vice versa. Both the Codex and Autofellatio guy would be unencyclopedic intrusions in almost all articles in the encyclopedia. A more detailed picture of autofellatio, or anything else, is of more use to the user than a less detailed one, and can be resized for display using the controls provided. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS: The "suck-a-cock" vandal is osmanoglou, who has been vandalizing articles and user pages related to Nagorno-Karabakh, Safavids and the like. I'm preparing evidence in the related arbcom case. Ignore him. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry for using the term vandalism inappropriately. I withdraw and apologise. I happen to disagree strongly with Jimbo's opinion, and he has made it plain that he wishes the community to reach its own decision on this image. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, dab. --LIGerasimova 13:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)