Talk:Pricasso

Sources to use

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG2PLzF8wMg&feature=youtu.be
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oDT99KKvdE&feature=youtu.be
• http://www.lanacion.cl/pricasso-el-artista-que-cobra-por-usar-su-pene-como-pincel/noticias/2012-01-20/222218.html (http://www.webcitation.org/6DNplSpGx)
• http://fifi.voima.fi/artikkeli/2012/huhtikuu/munamaalari-pricasso (http://www.webcitation.org/6HCheWfig)
• http://nie.com.pl/archiwum/6627 (http://www.webcitation.org/6HChhZvEn)
• http://metro.co.uk/2007/10/03/meet-pricasso-the-penis-painter-212951/ (http://www.webcitation.org/6HCj9SxK9)

Has anybody read the references?

If so you'd have seen that Pricasso is not an artist (which should be completely obvious) but a porn star wanabee. He says "I have never been awarded a grant and have entered many art compertitions but never won any . I have sold thousands of paintings but probably would not have sold to much without also becoming a soft porn star which might be a contributing factor of why I feel they dont really know how to judge me." Pricasso at [1]

There's no way he can be presented as a artist - he's a sideshow at Sexpo. He certainly does not pass WP:Artist for notability. If it is left as an artist article, I'll list it at AfD.

What I suggest is that somebody who is interested in saving the article actually read the references and just present the facts as written there, which would make him a part-time construction worker, porn star wanabee. I'd guess that it wouldn't pass WP:PORNBIO, but at least you might have a chance at it not getting deleted. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Without taking a position on the issue you raise, I just want to mention that he need not pass either WP:ATIST or WP:PORNBIO provided he passes WP:GNG. Are there multiple independent sources? EdChem (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There are no independent art critics or sources that have evaluated Patch's work. Certainly wikipedians are in no position to make any kind of judgement. Looking at the sources, there could be some copy-vios (e.g. the word "furore" was used in the source reporting on the exhibition on the Brisbane Gold Coast). All the sources seem flimsy and most of the article is drawn from interviews with Patch. It is impossible to verify that he is related to Thomas Patch. The material about erections should be removed as it is WP:UNDUE and non-notable. Given when it was added, Russavia's intention seems to have been to continue his campaign of disruption, much of which involved bringing wikipedia into disrepute. My own personal feeling is that the article should be pruned down to a stub with what verifiable factual information can be salvaged from the sources. So far there are almost no reliable sources. Looking at the few that there are, a number of details appear to have been omitted. He apparently failed to gain admittance to one art college in the UK, his father was born in Exeter, he was 56 years old in July 2006 and he worked as a builder when he first arrived in Australia. Equally well it is important not to rely almost exclusively on his own statements about himself or what he does. That seems to be the case at present. That is why a stub seems to be the way to go. Mathsci (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

That is not really what he says as he is talking about the difficulty people have in labeling him, not saying he is a porn star or considers himself one, but more that his work lends itself to that categorization. He most definitely identifies as an artist and if you looked at that source you would see many examples of artistic expression. If the paintings of Koizumi, Bush, and Obama, are products of his own artistic expression then he is most definitely an artist by any meaningful barometer. Would it be considered quality art? Certainly there are artists who do better using other methods, and could probably do better using his method if they committed to it, but quality of work is not a determining factor in labeling something art.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Er, am I missing something here? BBC, Sydney Morning Herald, Bild, News limited are all unquestionably reliable sources that cover the subject in-depth, not in passing. Artist and pornbio are rather irrelevant sub-notability guidelines when he quite clearly passes WP:GNG. Let's not let the sins of the creator color the character of the creation. Tarc (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. This would damned near be a Speedy Keep if dragged to AfD; a 100% certain Keep for multiple, independently-published sources dealing with the subject in a substantial way — a pass of the General Notability Guideline. The footnotes showing in the article aren't decisive, the universal set of sources which exist would be what one looks at in this or any case. Moreover, Special Guidelines for artists and pornstars are separate metrics designed for those who do not otherwise pass GNG. GNG outweighs the Special Guidelines. Further: the exceptional nature of the artist's, ummmm, technique, would get extra consideration. None of these facts reflect in the slightest my distaste for the troll or personal attack or whatever you want to call it that took place when one of Jimmy Wales' enemies or staunch critics commissioned a particular portrait, or the ethics of trading a Wikipedia biography for a portrait — as has been reported by Kevin Morris, "How Wikimedia Commons Became a Massive Amateur Porn Hub," The Daily Dot, June 25, 2013. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Article title

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise recently moved this article from Pricasso (the artist's professional stage name) to Tim Patch (his birth name). Given WP:COMMONNAME, and the article's assertion that the man is "more commonly known by" the stage name, was this move appropriate? I had a skim through a dozen or so of the references, and all of them mention both names for the artist. There is no consistency as to whether "Pricasso" or "Tim Patch" is preferred, though often "Pricasso" appears prominently in the title or lede of the referenced work, with subsequent references being "Patch". It's therefore clear that the artist is commonly known as Pricasso, though it's less clear whether he is more commonly known as Pricasso than as Patch. Given that his notability stems entirely from his unorthodox artwork, and that he always uses the name "Pricasso" in connection with his art, it seems that "Pricasso" is a more appropriate title for the article. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

See WP:STAGENAME for guidelines. People articles are named after the person's civil name by default. A stage name takes precedence only if it is overwhelmingly more common than the real name in reliable sources. Since your review of the sources confirms the impression I had, that both names are usually used side by side, I don't think it meets that threshold here. (The wording in the article itself, about "more commonly known", is of course irrelevant, since it is itself unsourced.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything in WP:STAGENAME which requires the stage name to be "overwhelmingly" more common. It just says to use "the name used most often to refer to a person in reliable sources". As my preliminary survey was inconclusive, perhaps someone with more interest in the topic can do a more thorough survey of the article's sources to determine which name is actually used more often. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me that he is known for being an artist and his art is produced under his stage name. As such, the article should use his stage name as the title.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted this back to the original title per the stage name guideline. If anyone wants to take the matter further, please open up a WP:RM. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• My opinion, for what it is worth — "Pricasso" is the correct title. Carrite (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The link to Commons media

It would probably be a good idea to stop adding this, as it contains a link to the image that Russavia edit-warred over and got banned because of. Including a BLP-violating image in the article is no different than linking to it. That the target commons cat contains the image 1 level down is not enough of a safety net, IMO. Tarc (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

That is just your opinion as you mentioned. Is there a new en:wp policy that states that we can no longer link to commons categories or are you just making one up on the spot?--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

As I noted in the reversion text, is there a comprehension issue here? Inserting BLP-violating material is no different than linking to BLP-violating material, this is extremely basic common sense. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean this policy? "Subjects who have legal or other serious concerns about material they find about themselves on a Wikipedia page, whether in a BLP or elsewhere, may contact the Wikimedia Foundation's volunteer response team (known as OTRS). Please e-mail info-en-q@wikimedia.org with a link to the article and details of the problem; for more information on how to get an error corrected, see here."--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to interpret that. Surely you're not implying that one needs to wait for a living person to complain about a BLP violation against them before we can act upon it, as such an implication would be exceedingly absurd, so perhaps you could clarify. Although, Jimbo has already made his concerns known about the image, considering it to be trolling and sexual harassment. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

We have had many BLP subjects that complain about content of Wikipedia articles and Mr. Wales is just one more. Do you actually know of a policy that forbids us from linking an article on an artist to their category in commons? If not then I will add it back.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Then I will once again remove it, and bring you before the appropriate discipline board such as WP:ANI. We have policy that prevents denigrating or harmful material from being added to any Wikipedia article, it doesn't matter where it is, only what it is. That the repository in question happens to be another Wikimedia site is regrettable, but on the whole irrelevant. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I have read that policy numerous times. Which section refers to not linking to commons? If Mr. Wales is truly concerned then he should either chime in here or email WMF and complain privately.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm The part that says images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light will do, although again, it is really more of a common sense thing. I pinged NYB about it here, as he was the one who blocked Russavia for trying to put the image in the article, and seems to concur that linking to it is just as bad of an idea. Jimbo has already made his opinion known, as linked above. Do we have any other ground to cover? Tarc (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how that clause applies to this situation—surely it is not "out of context" to provide a link to an artist's portraiture in an article about said artist and his portraiture. I suspect there may indeed be a good policy-grounded reason for prohibiting the link, but surely this isn't it. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

When the image in question is a cock-rubbing, yea, it is kinda out of bounds. Tarc (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

But, respectfully, "cock-rubbing" is what this particular artist does.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Then he can go cock-rub someone else's image. The problem here is still the same as it was on Day 1; Russavia commissioning this particular image of Jimbo Wales out of spite. The Commons slackjaws can do what they will with their gallery, the en.wikipedia has higher standards. Tarc (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I will walk away from this one as well. If other editors think that preventing links to commons should only be the case with Mr. Wales then so be it. If you look at other BLP articles that link to commons there is a horror show of bad images taken by fans over there. By leaving this article unlinked then all the other subjects could claim favoritism and bias. I have said many times that we treat these subjects very badly. If they ever decide on a class action suit against WMF I may be the first in line as a witness for them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. It was kept at Commons and Jimbo, being Jimbo, surely has it within his ability to get the image deleted in spite of that should he so wish it. Many BLP subjects get furious at depictions of them that they consider unflattering, but Jimbo is a public figure and that means he has far less basis for claiming harassment over such depictions. In this case, it is not even as severe as a public figure being burned in effigy, a free image of which we would not hesitate to include in an article where it was pertinent. Here we are not even talking about including the image, or even a link to a page containing the image, but a link that includes a link to a page containing the image. The image, is just a portrait of Jimbo that was kept following a Commons discussion that saw widespread participation and any offense is due to its mean of production, which can only be seen by clicking on the video. In other words, this is basically saying that this category can only ever be linked from here if the image is deleted on Commons or removed from an appropriate category on Commons. Sorry, but that is just stupid.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's just kinda too bad, now isn't it? The Commons crowd made their decision to go skinny-dipping in the deep end of the cesspool, that doesn't mean en.wiki is required to do a lemming act and follow them. Tarc (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I voted keep and would vote keep again, but am not part of the Commons crowd nor am I unsympathetic to Jimbo's concerns. However, as a public figure he simply doesn't and shouldn't have the same protection given to private individuals. Many images of Jimbo exist that are quite direct in their intent to reflect poorly on him, and many exist on Commons. I am sure you can find the same for any number of public figures on Commons. Here we are saying that an image of him is offensive because it was created using parts of a person's naked body, even though that has no impact on the appearance of the image. The idea the method for creating the image is so offensive that a link to a page containing a link to a page that includes the image is off-limits is just absurdly over-protective.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

To me, the issue is one of WP:DENY. What should occur if an editor with a troubled past finds or commissions an image that trolls a member of this community? Perfection, particularly in matters of formulating universal laws, is not achievable, and we should not be concerned about some logical problems with the decision to DENY exposure to the trolling image. Of course the really great feature of trolling is that no one can prove it was trolling—so we could argue about that. However I am capable of recognizing the message that was being sent with that image, and the community must reject it. Johnuniq (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the Commons discussion settled the whole affair. People from Wikipedia participated so it wasn't a Commons-driven discussion and all the arguments being made here to keep out the link to Commons were made to delete the image from Commons. Given that, I fail to see why we can't consider this matter to have been resolved by the community and at least re-add the Commons link here. The barrier to getting to the image from this article is low enough as to render any concerns trivial.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, as far as I am concerned, what the Commons crew decides means precisely fuck all outside of their walls. Page protection expires on July 1st; what you and Canoe (hey, that rhymes!) or others decide to do at that point is entirely up to you. We'll probably land at WP:ANI to settle the matter, and who knows, maybe consensus there will uphold your opinion, or maybe it will cite NYB's Russavia block as precedent. My actions here carry precisely zero chance of a block, as all I am doing is advocating on concerns of BLP violation. You, on the other hand? A roll of the dice, homeslice. Tarc (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

@TDA: Everyone here knows that there is zero chance of an image like the one under discussion being deleted with the current Commons structure. That is precisely why I think DENY applies—it would not be helpful to establish a precedent that anyone can get a trolling image of a Wikipedian on Commons, then link to it "because it exists". Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

We're talking about a link to a page, with a link to a page that has an image that is not inherently harmful to the living subject. It is a classic WP:NOTCENSORED case as a public figure merely taking offense to the artist's method of creating the artistic work should not be enough to keep images of said work from being accessible from this page.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If I had written "because Jimbo said so", your reply would be appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of how you spin it, this just comes down to someone offended Jimbo and doing everything you can to suppress the offending material. We are treating Jimbo better than we treat all other living people, including private individuals who would have far better cause for offense over their portrayal on Wikipedia. It was kept on Commons after a lot of discussion, it isn't being added to the article, it isn't on the page being linked, and yet you insist that some policy or essay says we shouldn't add an interwiki link here because one could potentially get to the image from that link? No, this is strictly you keeping it out because you don't like the image or don't like who was responsible for uploading it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Fine thoughts, but not related to what I wrote. Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

What you originally wrote likened Jimbo to any other random Wikipedian, which is similar to likening Obama to any other random American. Any talk of it establishing a precedent for anyone, even public figures such as Jimbo, is nonsense.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I've re-added the {{Commons category}} template to the article. Wikimedia Commons is an established sister project of the English Wikipedia and we've long held that these types of cross-references, particularly in the external links section of an article, are appropriate for inclusion. Wikimedia Commons contains a category (commons:Category:Pricasso) relevant to the article subject and should consequently be cross-linked. Whether Commons should have such a category is a question for Commons, just as whether the English Wikipedia should have such an article is a question for the English Wikipedia. I'm fairly well-versed in BLP matters and I don't see any particular BLP issue with the category as it is today, though it's certainly possible that I'm missing important historical context. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You are missing out on quite a bit, and I have just removed it again. I suggest checking in with NewYorkBrad, as it was he that indef'ed Russavia in the first place over this. Tarc (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tarc. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Here is Russavia's full block log on the English Wikipedia. I see no mentions of Newyorkbrad. Similarly, here is Newyorkbrad's full log of blocks performed on the English Wikipedia. I see no mentions of Russavia. Can you please clarify?

Regardless, I don't think individual editor disputes (should they exist) are relevant to cross-linking. The Commons category is objectively relevant to the article. Is there any dispute about this? --MZMcBride (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

NYB did not block Russavia, he topic banned him from Jimbo Wales. [2] As you can see from the block log, he was later indef blocked for the same issue by another admin. --Conti|✉ 16:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for clarifying. That's very helpful.

But (mostly directed at Tarc) what does all of this have to do with cross-linking/cross-referencing commons:Category:Pricasso with our article of the same name? Our readers have an expectation that we will cross-reference like this: we have an extended gallery of media related to Pricasso on Wikimedia Commons, while largely discussing (as opposed to illustrating) Pricasso here in our encyclopedia article, but we make every effort to link the two as a service to readers. I'm hardly a fan of Russavia and I hold Newyorkbrad in quite high regard, but I don't see what this has to do with cross-referencing Commons with the English Wikipedia. Unless you're suggesting that Pricasso isn't notable and should have his article here and the related Commons media deleted? --MZMcBride (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, NYB topic-banned Russavia from Jimbo-related issues because he edit-warred to include the "Jimmy-Wales-by-Pricasso" image directly into this article. Spartaz then blocked him for continued disruption regarding same. IMO, linking to the Commons cesspool here the image can be found is little different from including it directly in the article on en.wiki, so I pinged NYB as to what his thoughts were, and he appeared to concur. So I dunno, take his opinion as you will Obviously NYB isn't god or the final arbiter of everything Wikipedia, but I generally find his opinions to be thoughtful and well-reasoned. Tarc (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• I can see the commons link as being an edit war by meat puppets avoiding 3RR until the article is locked again in a 'wrong state'. Before that happens and sanctions are taken on more editors then consensus should be reached. In my opinion the link could be left out pending consensus and Mr. Wales' return. The timing is awkward with this issue but we are not in a hurry here. This is merely my opinion and simply something others may wish to consider as Mr. Wales is part of the issue.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, Tarc has been determined to keep out the interwiki link. There is no policy here or on Commons that forbid the creation of the Jimbo image or that mandates its deletion. Linking to it in a way that doesn't even directly link to it is beyond a non-issue from my perspective. Perhaps Tarc can explain why the Commons link is so inappropriate, while it is ok to link to Wikipediocracy. As far as I can tell, there are no fundamental differences if one is acting under the belief that all living people should be treated exactly the same.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Bit of a difference between

a) a person (Wales) complaining about a vindictive editor (Russavia) who commissioned a penis artist to rub himself on a canvas in the likeness of the complainant.

b) a person (Mathsci) complaining about a blog (Wikipediocracy) that chronicles his years of misdeeds, a situation that'll be moot once that blog is off the front page in a week.

• Seriously TDA, you should be smarter then insipid "but THEM" arguments. Tarc (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• No one's adding the image to the article or even a link to the image, but a link to a page that contains a link to a page that contains the image. I imagine far more people have and will see the image due to the rancor generated over it than from visiting this article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Heh heh that's certainly true. If the indignant masses had just ignored the whole issue instead of raising multiple delete and block requests, we'd just have a little viewed article on Pricasso, with or without a picture of Jimmy Wales, and nobody much would have heard about it. As it is, RussAvia has had the podium he or she no doubt craved. All publicity is good publicity and all that...  — Amakuru (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If everyone would have ignored the issue, the article would have likely ended up on the main page. With the picture of Jimbo. --Conti|✉ 17:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Amukuru, if you feel all of this is harmless then why don't you send a picture of your grandmother (or mother or significant other, whoever) to the artist, so that he may "paint" a picture that we can use on the article? Hell, I'll even front Pricasso's $200 fee. Is Paypal ok? Tarc (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'd like to point out that "There is no policy against X, therefore we should do X." has never been a valid argument. Pointing out that there is no policy against linking the image is circular reasoning: Of course there is no policy against it, if there were, the entire discussion could be closed immediately and we'd do what policy says. There is no policy mandating a link to commons, either. So let's have a discussion that, hopefully, will reach some kind of consensus, instead of pointing to lack of policies covering this very specific case. Personally, I don't think we should link to commons, for the same reason why we should not add the pictures in question to this article. They're clearly not wanted by the subject, and (in my very humble opinion) were commissioned on bad faith to spite the subject. We should not support that, directly or indirectly. --Conti|✉ 17:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• As far as I am concerned the people dedicated to keeping the link out have ulterior motives. Either they don't like Russavia or they are drunk on the Jimbojuice. Neither of these are good reasons for keeping out something that is harmless from any rational perspective. Jimbo is a public figure first, the figurehead of the project second, and a registered editor third. We would allow freely-licensed Pricasso works featuring any other public figure to be directly present in the article. To say we should not even allow a link to a page with a link to a page with an image in this case is just absurd and obvious evidence of a double standard.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• I can only speak for myself, obviously, but if any other public figure would complain as vividly about the image as Jimbo did, I would support removing that picture and not linking to it as well. And you are ignoring the (alleged) intention behind the image, which is also a very important factor. --Conti|✉ 18:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Motives of the uploader, something about which we can really only speculate, are not an important factor in deciding on whether to include an interwiki link that does not even go to a page with the image on it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, they are. Motives have been playing an important factor in the topic ban and block of Russavia, as well as in the decision not to have the image in the article. I don't see why linking to commons is any different. --Conti|✉ 18:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Conduct decisions are not relevant to content decisions. As far as the image being in the article or not, I daresay it was not about motives and more about it displeasing the Godking. However, there is only so far we should go in appeasing our Dear Leader.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• You're wrong. There's really nothing else I can say about this. --Conti|✉ 00:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• The motives are of critical importance here, and were demonstrably proven in the news article in which the artist was interviewed and stated that yes, he was commissioned to paint Jimbo specifically. Tarc (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Not to nitpick, but at present (as The Devil's Advocate and, surprisingly, the opening post notes), a link to commons:Category:Pricasso is not a link to any pictures of Jimmy Wales. As I said, I'm a big proponent of protecting biographies of living people, but I don't see any issue here. We have a category on Commons that directly relates to the subject of a local article. I can't see why the two would not be linked. This is very longstanding practice. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure it is a longstanding practice, but as you surely know, these days there's a bit of a philosophical gap between the standards of en.wiki and the standards (or lack thereof) the Commons. What was for years an innocuous thing (inter-wikimedia project links) is now not-so-innocuous due to that divide. But hey, at the end of the day I'm just one person within a sea of idjits (I love that word, straight out of Dukes of Hazard). If it is restored again, I guess we'll see where the matter escalates from here. Tarc (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I created a gallery sans Jimbo so now there really isn't an issue as you would have to click on the category at the bottom and then click on the sub-category before you could see the image.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I dare say it's only a matter of time before someone adds the Jimbo images to that gallery, but we'll see. --Conti|✉ 11:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of principle, I don't think there should be any link to the Jimbo pictures, however indirect. You can still navigate to those pix just by hitting a couple of links. While the video might be considered the most intentionally insulting file, the one most obviously against Wikipedia rules (to link to) is the file with the picture of Jimbo and the text "Obvious troll," in big letters below it on the picture itself. Wikipedia is not a battleground or a soapbox. I'm sure if TDA or anybody else for that matter would have a painting of them with "Obvious Troll" on it, they would object to any link, direct or indirect. We just can't link to that, so I've removed the link. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No one else took to re-opening this dispute after my compromise measure and I think it is disruptive for you to re-ignite it. You could just as easily argue that we shouldn't have any Commons images of Pricasso at all as the same tenuous link can be used to get to the Jimbo image from those pictures.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It's rather silly to accuse me of being disruptive here. The entire article was designed by Russavia to be disruptive; you've defended Russavia and argued to keep the article "as is", and even to put it on the main page, all the way. Then you've said that this "isn't even a huge dispute." Your "compromise," all of 3 days old, was your work alone and posted during a holiday. I don't think that having a link (of any type) to the intentionally offensive pictures is a compromise at all. I'll remove the link. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

We have one editor who accepts having the gallery link despite not liking it, and the many editors who supported adding earlier links. Despite several days passing, no one else has taken to supporting your action. All that together seems to be enough to call consensus. By your logic any image of Pricasso from Commons would be just as unacceptable as they also have the Pricasso category that can take them to a link to a page with the Jimbo portrait, and the images are far more prominent then this little interwiki link. Unless you are going to start removing the images, an action for which I think you will find far less support, then there is no logical reason why we shouldn't have this interwiki link.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Asserting that there is consensus to include the link is simply fantasy. You should stick to the facts, and avoid edit warring. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no guarantee of stability with the galleries at commons. There seems to be no pressing need to link to commons. The collection of wikiquotes that Cirt has gathered seems more interesting. Mathsci (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The "obvious troll" image is actually a reference to the image itself, and not to Jimbo. It was used in the deletion discussion to point out that the image and video were, well, obvious trolls. --Conti|✉ 09:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll just note that Russavia has participated in the documentation of the image, and has expressly approved this image. In any case, my logic about removing the link works just as well with the video as an example. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Conti|✉ 14:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Conti, your comment above (11:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)) appeared to be an implicit acceptance of TDA's "compromise" of hiving the offending images one link further from the link being questioned in this article. Was I misinterpreting you? And if not, have you now changed your position? As far as I can tell little has changed in the past few days, the video and the "postcard" version of the Jimbo image are both not on the linked category page.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

My position has not changed. I prefer not to link to commons at the moment. But I don't feel so strongly about this that I'm going to edit war over it or try to convince everyone that my position is the only correct one. I can understand the argument that the images in question are always X clicks away, whether we directly link to commons or not, and if TDA (or anyone else) feels so strongly about it that they absolutely want a link, then so be it. It's not an unreasonable position to have, I just don't agree with it. --Conti|✉ 15:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Should the Jimmy Wales/Wikipedia controversy actually be mentioned in this article? (Or elsewhere?)

We now have a reliable source about it, courtesy of the Daily Dot:[3] Such a section would have to be very carefully written to avoid violating NPOV and BLP, but I think it could be a legitimate inclusion in this article. On the other hand, while it's caused a huge fuss over here, I'm not really sure how notable the Jimmy Wales controversy is in the context of this artist's life. Overall, it's probably best avoided on this article, but might be worth mentioning in Wikimedia Commons or List of Wikipedia controversies. Robofish (talk) 11:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fine to mention at the commons and the controversies pages, but I'm 50/50 on it being here. The source focuses on the failings of the Wikipedia and the trolls who can manipulate it to their own ends. Mr. Pricasso was just the means to an end. Tarc (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Reliable source? This article is a piece of crap and does what several en wiki users usually do: reduce Commons to a site storing Penis images. If you read this crap (and other user's comment) you'll get the intention over 50% of the images at Commons are Penises. --Denniss (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe the phrase you're grasping for there would be "get the impression" not "get the intention". Sorry if the truth hurts, but that's pretty much what Commons is, an amateur porn repository. It has nothing to do with numbers, I don't think anyone seriously believes literally half the site is dick pics. The prevailing concern is that there is simply too much of such things, that the Commons regulars go to great and retarded lengths to keep them all, e.g. outdoor penises, Asian penises, penises in public, and so on. None of this has really much do do with the penis in question here though, of Mr. Pricasso. Did you have a point to make about the article or a suggestion for editorial improvement, or were you just sticking your point (hurr hurr) in our general direction? Tarc (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

@User:Tarc I don't agree with your pessimistic on Commons. Sure, it has too many dicks and vaginas and things, but that is really a by-product of its true claim to fame which is an internet free image repository rivalled only by Flickr. I scour Commons not only when writing Wiki articles, but also in other areas of "real-life" for example when searching for icons to use in software packages.

On the subject of Pricasso and Jimmy Wales, I don't regard this event as notable in the context of the artist, and I think only Wikipedia navel-gazers would believe it is. One slightly obscure source does not a story make! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC on Commons gallery link

Should this article contain an interwiki link to this gallery on Commons?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Summary

An editor uploaded a portrait of Jimmy Wales by this artist to Commons and added it to the page. It was removed as Jimbo said he considered the image sexual harassment and the editor who uploaded the image was subsequently sanctioned. In a deletion discussion on Commons the image was kept. Since then, editors have tried to add links to the Commons category at the bottom of the page, but been reverted on the basis that linking to the category where the image was contained was as bad as having the image in the article. This reverting continued even after the image was moved into a sub-category on the basis that it was still an indirect link. I created a gallery of Pricasso images excluding the portrait to try and resolve those concerns. However, an editor has argued that any indirect link, even as indirect as having to look at the category on the bottom of the gallery page and then go to a sub-category, is still inappropriate.

Survey

• Support I can see no good reason why being able to get to the image of Jimbo from the Pricasso gallery is cause for removing the interwiki link. The image itself is still viewable in this article's revision history and the same indirect link from the gallery would apply to any image of Pricasso added to this article. A Commons interwiki link is not terribly prominent in the first place and categories for content pages are also not terribly prominent. Removing the link on the basis that someone might click through two non-prominent links and then click on another link to get to an image that anyone can see in the revision history seems excessive. Images from Commons are far more prominent in the article and would have the same issue as the gallery.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for reasons exhaustively explained above, I'm not going to reinvent the wheel. Linking to galleries of images created for assholish intentions is no different than inserting such images directly into the article. Tarc (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons previously explained. There is no educational reason to link to commons. Mathsci (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • My support below doubles as a direct reply to your comment. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Regardless of the method used to paint it, this is still just a depiction of Jimbo's head, not any other part of his body. And a link is still better than having the image in the article. Abusus non tollit usum (Abuse of a right does not invalidate use). --Auric talk 19:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral. Of course there is an educational purpose for linking to the Commons gallery; we do this on hundreds of other artist articles in order to let readers explore the artist's work and associated media. Not only can we link to Commons in such cases, but we actually should do so that we may fulfill our mission of providing the world with freely licensed educational content. The only question, then, is whether there is some policy-based reason which would in this case trump this educational imperative. So far no one has been able to point to the specific part of any policy which unequivocally mandates removal or omission of this link. (WP:BLP clearly doesn't support this course of action, despite the proclivity of certain contributors here to invoke it. Nor does WP:DENY, which has also been invoked repeatedly but isn't even a policy.) I do believe that Russavia probably commissioned and contributed the portrait partly because he intended to annoy the subject, and in light of this I think that we should impede his efforts where possible. I'm just not seeing any way we can do this under the current rules. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tarc - "assholish intentions" seems particularly apt. "No personal attacks" "Not a battleground" "Not a soapbox" all apply. @ Auric "Just a depiction of Jimbo's head"? You obviously missed the video. @ Psychonaut - there is no requirement anywhere that we must include a link to Commons - it's a matter of editorial judgement and consensus. We don't need a new rule to remove an intentionally obnoxious link. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me about the video. We're talking about the portrait here, not the video.--Auric talk 22:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is about neither (or both, depending on how you look at it). This is about a link to commons. Both the picture and the video can be reached within a few clicks from there. --Conti|✉ 23:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can click on the pictures from Commons included in this article and get to the image with a few clicks or look through the revision history and get to the image with one click. What about the other language wikis? There are already four other translations of this article and there are still several major languages outstanding where it may appear as well. Are you going to remove Commons links from those articles as well since those articles are linked from this page? What if the editors on the other language wikis disagree and insist on having the Commons link? Would you remove links to those other language wikis where the editors insist on having a Commons link? Wikidata is live now so you'd have to remove them there to remove them here and then what if the Wikidata editors object to that?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• No Link – I don't believe that any link to the image and video is appropriate, we are talking of a link to material created for the purpose of provocation of a living person who has indicated a strong objection. The idea that the link being more indirect is unpersuasive both because the link is IMO unlikely to remain indirect and because we are talking of a case where editorial discretion applies. My judgement is that the link is neither necessary nor (in this case) appropriate. I hope this RfC will lead to a conclusive outcome so that the slow-motion edit war and other bickering about this issue is ended. EdChem (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral. I'm torn between WP:DENY and WP:NOTCENSORED. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support (I think? The wording's a bit unclear, but I think there should be a commonscat link). Wikipedia links to Commons. It does so for probably half the articles that exist, and 90% of the ones which have images available. To do otherwise for this just because someone found an image offensive seems quite ridiculous. What other artist, who has media on Commons, doesn't get a Commons link? We link Carlos Latuff despite the unsavoury nature of some of his depictions, which I'm sure the subjects would like hidden. This is really no different. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support: It's long-standing established practice to include links to Commons when Commons contains additional media related to an article subject. I see absolutely no reason to abandon this practice here. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support commonscat. A page about an artist is unambiguously improved by linking to examples of their work. Don't punish our readers because you don't like Russavia. Kilopi (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Noting the official requirement for "least astonishment" there is no encyclopedic need for the "gallery" usage. Collect (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support linking to an artist's work should be allowed. I agree with The Devil's Advocate that since the image is already viewable to anyone who cares to look for it, having links to a gallery excluding the offensive image hardly seems inappropriate. I would go on to say that including the image in the gallery should be allowed because the article is about the artist, not the subject of his paintings. New to this so be gentle with me. :) Wickedlizzie (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Good God that's pathetic. Why don't we simply trash all the Wikipedia servers so nobody can possibly trace through them to find links to the piece of offending content? Wnt (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tarc, per WP:DENY, Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, and per general human decency. As long as Commons continues to host this image, we should not link to them. Anyone who wants to find the image can still do so, but there's no reason why we should make it easier for them. Robofish (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose linking from en:WP to a gallery of gutter trash on Commons. Whilst it's one thing to include a gallery of works of art to the artist's page, it's quite something to link to pictures of his "paintbrush" and a naked artist holding his "work". It's clearly NSFW and NSF children readers, unless you want your ickle Johnnie to start learning to paint with his equipment :-) . -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 15:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, yes. God forbid an encyclopedia article about a man who paints with his penis link to a picture of a man painting with his penis. Psychonaut (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, God forbid that we facilitate Russavia's harassment of Jimbo Wales by linking to the picture that Russavia commissioned from the artist for said harassment purposes. Everyone who has given some weak-assed version of "it's just a link to Commons and we always link to WMF sites!" is missing the point entirely. Whether that point-missing is intentional or stems from ignorance is academic. Tarc (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I agree with Tarc's reasoning for consensus to not link it. If it was created for the wrong reasons then we can decide to not link it for the right reasons. When in doubt, leave it out.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Actually, the vote is perfectly equal currently. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't disagree with your argument, Tarc, so no need to be snarky. I was mocking Ohconfucius's ridiculous and long-discredited notion that Wikipedia must be bowdlerized into something supposedly workplace- and children-friendly. Why weaken your own rather sensible position by leaping to the defence of this rather risible one? Psychonaut (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support: I can see some good arguments either way on whether WMF should host the images and video in question, but Commons has already had that debate and decided to keep them. Local projects are free to decide whether to have an article on the artist and whether to use the media directly in the article; excluding a conventional link to relevant Commons material seems to me to be an attempt to forum-shop in order to subvert Commons deletion process. That's not a valid argument, and we should discourage its use. The same argument could be used to exclude inter-wiki links if an editor disagreed with an editorial decision made on another language Wikipedia. If you feel strongly about keeping this material out of Wikipedia entirely, I encourage you to propose/support a Commons or global policy that would exclude material of this type. Interfering with work-a-day inter-wiki links is not the right venue. Bovlb (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Y'know, inter-linking shouldn't be considered a god-given right; if there are problems identified n other wikis, then we should have the flexibility to say "no", until the source complies with en.wiki policy, particularly WP:BLP. This isn't unprecedented, as last year some egregiously bad material was inserted into the fr.wiki version of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, so we removed the inter-wiki link form our article until it was resoled; see this discussion. Tarc (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for that link Tarc, I was unaware of that precedent. That discussion didn't reach a definite conclusion, but I think I would agree with Fat&Happy that while there may be some short term relief in excluding inter-wiki links to troubled content, it's better for Wikipedia as a whole for the other project to fix the article and sanction the user, and with Escape Orbit that we should not trying to police other projects in inter-wiki links. That case differs because the French Wikipedia had not (AFAIK) had a formal discussion with wide participation that decided to keep the article that way, or any discussion of the user's behaviour. Bovlb (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oh, and we're not talking about rights or gods; we are discussing an editorial issue about content. Linking to relevant Commons categories is our normal practice. We have a template for it that seems to be transcluded 379,533 times. I can see no guidance in the template documentation that would prevent its use here. I could see a case for temporarily excluding a link while a Commons deletion discussion is taking place, but the discussion has concluded and we ought to respect that, not seek to undermine it. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that it is our normal practice, but IMO this is something that should be an exception. Russavia was blocked from this project indefinitely because he was trolling Jimbo by putting the image in the article here. If the image is too problematic to use in this project, then linking to it is the same sort of problem. Tarc (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Since you bring it up, although it's not directly relevant to this survey, I've been trying to work out why Russavia got an indefinite block. It's a little hard to untangle as it all happened a couple of months ago across several high-traffic pages, and there were some page moves and deletions involved. My understanding is something like this: 1) Russavia included a portrait of Jimmy Wales by Pricasso in a user-space draft of an article about Pricasso. 2) There was some edit warring (and page protection) over inclusion of that image. 3) On 2013-06-15, Newyorkbrad imposed a BLP-based topic ban on Russavia regarding Jimmy Wales, mainspace and images. 4) Russavia stopped adding the image or any reference to Jimmy Wales (to the English Wikipedia), and instead added a Commons category link to pictures about and by the artist to the (now mainspace) article. 5) On 2013-06-19, Russavia was indefinitely blocked by Spartaz for violation of the topic ban. Is that a fair summary? If so, then the Commons category link is only implicated to the extent that it was perceived as a breach of the topic ban. Or did I miss something? Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• Bovlb's analysis is correct; it's only Russavia, not the rest of us, who is formally barred from adding this link. But even if Tarc is right that insertion of this link was judged to be a blockworthy offence in and of itself, let's keep in mind who the judge was: a single (or at best a small number) of administrators. All administrator actions are subject to peer and community review, which is exactly what we're doing here—we have the right to revisit the precedent and determine whether or not there's any policy-based grounds for upholding it. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but are you fucking high? Russavia was blocked because both image & link were considered to be WP:BLP violations; he was first topic-banned by NYB then indef blocked following an ANI discussion. If something is determined to run afoul of BLP, it is off-limits of all, not just the first mover. I've seen some poor arguments in my day, but this one seems to take the prize. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Determined by whom? Just because one particular administrator says that something is a WP:BLP violation doesn't mean that they're correct, and that their decision is absolutely final and binding on everyone for all time. It's clear from discussion here and elsewhere that not everyone agrees that WP:BLP applies. Please let the discussion continue, without insulting those you disagree with, so that we can eventually come to a consensus on this matter. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have asked Tarc to participate in discussion without insulting other users. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Not everyone agrees, no, otherwise this would be a snow close. But enough do...and the admin that made that determination, NewYorkBrad, is held in fairly high regard in this project. Tarc (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• I believe the determination being referred to here is "while I have no authority on Commons, I think it is grossly inappropriate for you to include it there either, and I instruct you not to link to it.". So far as I can see, this is firstly an opinion that the portrait should not be hosted by Commons, and secondly an extension/clarification of Russavia's topic ban to include a link to Commons; construing it to be an opinion on the inclusion of the Commons category link seems a reasonable extension. I note that this instruction came after Russavia's indefinite block, as did the ANI thread I linked below. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have found an ANI thread that gives some more information on Russavia's indefinite block. I didn't find this thread before because Russavia was not notified about it. In that thread the blocking admin indicates that the block was for taunting remarks made in a discussion of the topic ban, so apparently I was wrong to conclude that the indefinite block was for a breach of the topic ban. Although one contributor to that thread does mention the Commons category link as a reason to endorse the block, there was no substantive discussion. So in conclusion, Russavia's block does not seem to be relevant to this survey. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment. I can see this issue being a slippery slope. We have many BLP articles that link to commons categories that contain lame images. If we set a precedent here then other subjects may claim unfair treatment and wish their links to commons removed as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• So then...remove them? Anything that distances us from the WikiSmutHub, the better. Tarc (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That may need broader consensus. If we start removing all the links to commons then some editors will want to start making large galleries in articles to compensate. I can see this creating a huge mess of edit warring over gallery inclusions. We may wish to seek broader consensus elsewhere. If we discuss it here it will just add the Streisand Effect that it seems have become already. This article as the main example may not be the best as it will reflect as favoritism to many.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Tarc, the gallery does not include the Jimbo portrait and nearly all the images in the gallery were uploaded by Russavia in January, before Russavia even created the userspace draft as his AE block here had not yet been overturned. The only images not from January are a cropped version of an image that was uploaded in January and an image I uploaded just a few days ago. To suggest these images of the subject were all uploaded with "assholish" intent is completely without basis.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• TDA, with all due respect, put a cork in it and stop insulting our intelligence. All you've done is move the offending image form 1 click away to 3 clicks away. You're just obfuscating the problematic content, not addressing it or solving it in any way. I put your intentions in this matter on par with Russavia's. Tarc (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

  By that logic you should close down Wikipedia completely, because from any one article you can get to another which has a commonscat link, and from any category on commons you can eventually get to the Pricasso category. I counted 9 clicks from (random article) Swimming at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's 100 metre breaststroke. Is that too few? Should we remove the image from that page just to be safe? That would add a click or two. What about James Peter Quinn - that's 4 clicks to see the portraits... -mattbuck (Talk) 23:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Question: Does anyone really believe that COMMONS can't or won't decide to include the pic and video in the new category, or just remove the extra category? EdChem (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

  What new category? Category:Pricasso has images of the artist, and the subcat Paintings by Pricasso has the paintings by Pricasso. I don't see why they'd be combined - we on Commons honestly don't care enough to change it. -mattbuck (Talk)

• Oppose. We should not reward trolling. Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 13:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: ellipsis in final sentence

The ellipsis in the final sentence should have preceding and following spaces per MOS:ELLIPSIS (e.g., "quicker ... They"). Also "|deadurl=no" should be appended to the sentence's ref, since the original link isn't dead. czar · · 19:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 22:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Good grief!

That's all I have to say. Sca (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Commonscat link

I have gone ahead and added the {{Commonscat}} link to the article. I have gone through the discussion and am dumbfounded as to why a link to Commons would be removed, when links to other versions of this article in other languages are present, and those articles include the image that caused an overblown shitstorm. Such actions, whilst being not only grounded in douchebaggery, are also disruptive as it stops readers from finding more media which exists in the freely licence repository that is Commons. 197.86.197.99 (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)