User talk:Jon Harald Søby

some one has been vandalism parts of the wikinuk! with hateful insults of homofobia, the article for kiss showed a beautiful picture of a mural of two women kissing, they werent even neccisarily lesbians or not, just a friendly kiss and embrace, and they put an ugly picture with a boy and girl kissing, that doesnt seem encyclopedic, more like a myspace cell phone picrture, and says it was removing "decadant lifestyle pornograpghy" also someone changed the picture of the sex table on the main page, a picture of fellatio with nothing, saying it was illegal, i told them wikipedia was not censored and if its illegal in their jurisdiction tough, bcause this sis on americanservers, plus they cant determine whats ok, it was for educational, but alas i chose an even better picture, a french painting from the 1500s from Mayflower/Commons great tool for replacement and yet still again they changed kiss article. how can someone be blocked? (unsigned)

The sight of two men engaged in graphic anal sex makes most people's flesh crawl. It makes my blood boil. People who want to see this kind of stuff have places they can go to see it, where nobody else has to be bothered by it, because there are warnings. The front page of a MediaWiki foundation Wikipedia is not one of those places. You will not see pornography on the front page of any of the 250 wikipedias, except when they have been vandalized, then it is the person who has put the pornography on the front page who is blocked, not the person removing it. 70.16.252.23 15:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The IP is right in one thing: There should not be any sexually explicit images on a Wikipedia front page. Wikipedia is not censored for minors on articles where one would expect such things, but the front page is not such a page. Also, if there are sexually explicit images on the front page, that could (and most likely would) drive potential contributors away from wanting to edit Wikipedia, because they get a wrong perception about what it really is. Jon Harald Søby 15:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

but it was a tiny thumbnail of a painting, i mean what else should describe the sex topic? furthermore this user added various pictures of the same couple kissing to the articles for love, kiss, and the main page, and possibly others. this user does not speak inuktitut and has also removed text the article for love, a very short article, the caption read.. "people like these two women show love by kissing and hugging" and replaced it with a very small image of a cartoon heart with no caption. the users comments have threatened me to stop or else hell tell people about what im doing, he accused me of being gay, he called gay people a "decadent lifestyle" and a "sexual preferance" and also told me to stop adding "illegal pornography", this user hasnt from what i can tell added anything positive to the wikipedia and will not dialogue. except apparently for the front page image. it was originally a picture of a women performing fellatio on a man, but later i changed it to a french painting of two men having sex on a bed with a slave fanning them in egypt, which i found to be very encyclopedic, the user replaced with a picture of a man kissing a women, which i find to be less encyclopedic and not very illustrating of the topic "sex". i will check other articles and see what this user has done. i also would like to know what happened to the page history, the previous image i couldnt find it in the history, did he erase it? maybe i think the main page should be semiprotected so that only registered users can edit it. and maybe semiprotect kiss and love aswell? i think it should also be mentioned that the original picture was of a heterosexual act and that when i typed in sex on mayflower a picture two men was the prettiest and was what mostly showed up. i dont care if its men or women so i didnt mind. and it should be noted that the vast majority of people wouldnt not consider a painting such as that to be pornography, they dont have playboys in museums and they do have paintings like this, the wikipedia article for rape uses a roman painting of a rape to illustrate it. i dont see how art cant be on the main page. but i will find an alternative picture of non-graphic sexual pating, maybe one with the covers over the participants, i wonder if the user would be offended by a man-woman picture from the kama sutra, or perhaps there existance of an article on sex. funny how he doesnt have a problem with Anatomia del corpo humano.jpg for the category for human body/anattomy which also shows a penis. i was also accused of trying to "recruit homosexuals" and "using wikipedia as a platform" to do this. i would like to be stopped being insulted and accused. and this man is crazy, how could you possible recruit people to be homosexuals? and even if i had posted somthing up on an article saying, wanna to be gay? i can help? let me recuirt you? which i didnt, i fail to see how a picture of a kiss on an article about a kiss or a portrait of sex for the category sex recruit homosexuals. i wonder if he thinks that the picture from the kama sutra on the article for sex helps me recruit heterosexuals. "love" and "kiss" are the ones hes vandalising. i put up a non graphic picture for the sex category. the "sex" article hes left alone, oral sex too, i wonder maybe because heterosexual sex and oral sex is shown, this is not about appropriate content this is about homophobia.Qrc2006 02:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

main

inuktitut oikipitia ariuttaq katimajjutiksanut ilagiaqsiniq gavamaup kiinaujalirijjutiginiaqtangit oikipitia mappitaq unniit 100+ mappitaq. [1] Inuktitut wikipedia is not included in the main wikipedia page even thought it has inb hand 100+ articles.[2]

I put it there now. Jon Harald Søby 16:11, 24 ᐊᐃᐳᕆᓪ/aipuril 2007 (UTC)

wow thanks so much!!! maybe we see more traffic now. but it only has it in syllabics maybe you can put it in roman too with a slash like the other multiletters languages^Qrc2006•ᐊᓪᓚᖁᑎᒃᑲallarkutikka•ᑕᓕᐊᖅtaliaq 23:48, 25 ᐊᐃᐳᕆᓪ/aipuril 2007 (UTC)