User talk:Horologium
---For a fast response, contact me on my talk page on the English Wikipedia: User talk:Horologium. I don't check here for messages very often. ---
interesting...[change source]
Just checking, but this seems borderline censorship. It's a lithograph which is over 70 years old, it's not porn, and it does illustrate the activity in question. I don't disagree with the removal of the whole section on goat sex (it's probably just one of many zoophilic relationships we could discuss here), but the illustration doesn't appear to be "paraphenalia", just classic art. Why remove it? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't check the provenance of the lithograph, but it seemed to be more of the same regarding the freaky obsession with goats. I assumed it was added at the same time as the rest of the nonsense. I missed it on the first edit, otherwise I would have deleted it all at once. That whole section was so mind-numbingly violative of WP:UNDUE that I don't know where to begin. (One of the cited statements I removed noted that sex with goats is the fourth-most-popular bestiality coupling. There was, of course, no mention of the top three.) Feel free to readd the picture if you feel that it's needed, but I saw it as something added by a fetishist. Horologium (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I understand. By the way, we don't have WP:UNDUE here. I'm not bothered about the lithograph but somehow it seemed so much better than something "homemade". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm (obviously) not terribly familiar with the conventions here. Does a lack of such a policy mean that it hasn't been codified in the smaller simple.wiki, or that the policy is not valid here? There is a world of difference between the two... (wry grin) Horologium (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wry grin indeed. Right now there are two schools of thought on "missing" policies/guidelines etc. First one says "if there ain't one, there ain't one", the second one says "if there ain't one, go read en.wiki's one instead...". Eventually these policies/guidelines will be embodied on simple, but only when someone commensurate in "Simple" can spend the time doing it. We recently had a minor spat over the MOS (which is hardly surprising given the amount of crap spouted about it on en.wiki)... It's same same but different around here...! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Gahhh. I thought simple was supposed to be blissfully free of strife and conflict. (grin) I don't envy whoever decides to try and convert the MOS to simple format. As to missing policies, I honestly have to say that I don't spend enough time on this wiki to make it a pressing concern for me. Maybe on en.wiki, but not here. FWIW, the zoophilia article on en.wiki has better pictures to illustrate the subject than the litho I removed. There's a nice frieze from a temple in India that illustrates the concept better than that litho, and avoids the whole goat issue. Horologium (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, welcome once more, from a en.wiki veteran and a Simple admin! As I do a large portion of my wiki work at, well, work, I don't frequently visit the Zoophilia page just in case it's NSFW (I learnt that a while ago!). So as long as that frieze is free to use, i.e. on Commons, we can use it here. Fair use and all that is still taboo (more taboo than screwing a goat it would appear!) here... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Gahhh. I thought simple was supposed to be blissfully free of strife and conflict. (grin) I don't envy whoever decides to try and convert the MOS to simple format. As to missing policies, I honestly have to say that I don't spend enough time on this wiki to make it a pressing concern for me. Maybe on en.wiki, but not here. FWIW, the zoophilia article on en.wiki has better pictures to illustrate the subject than the litho I removed. There's a nice frieze from a temple in India that illustrates the concept better than that litho, and avoids the whole goat issue. Horologium (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wry grin indeed. Right now there are two schools of thought on "missing" policies/guidelines etc. First one says "if there ain't one, there ain't one", the second one says "if there ain't one, go read en.wiki's one instead...". Eventually these policies/guidelines will be embodied on simple, but only when someone commensurate in "Simple" can spend the time doing it. We recently had a minor spat over the MOS (which is hardly surprising given the amount of crap spouted about it on en.wiki)... It's same same but different around here...! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm (obviously) not terribly familiar with the conventions here. Does a lack of such a policy mean that it hasn't been codified in the smaller simple.wiki, or that the policy is not valid here? There is a world of difference between the two... (wry grin) Horologium (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I understand. By the way, we don't have WP:UNDUE here. I'm not bothered about the lithograph but somehow it seemed so much better than something "homemade". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)