Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sukumizu Girl.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
File:Sukumizu Girl.jpg[edit]
Bottomless lolicon. This image depicts a underaged children without the bottom piece of her school swimsuit (sukumizu). This is basically child pornography. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep No sexual activity, no pornography, no realistic reinterpretation of an actual child. Perfectly legal and no child porn at all. -- /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 苦情処理係 18:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)- delete as useless drawing Bulwersator (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep I see blue top and skin colour bikini bottom. What do you see? It illustrates a young girls Sukumizu with two parts. Seems to me she is even way past puberty. Honi soit qui mal y pense! --Paddy (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I see anime anatomy --Carnildo (talk) 09:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep, agree with analysis by Niabot (talk · contribs). And also Paddy (talk · contribs) has it right — it's a skin-colour bikini bottom. -- Cirt (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete - per lack of any encyclopedic value / COM:SCOPE - Alison ❤ 23:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete - per Alison --JN466 00:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete - lack of educational value, out of scope. Also, that it's hard to tell whether she's wearing bottoms or not suggests that the quality is poor. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep:Uh...I think it's not child pornography, and users could use it on "Hentai" or "Ecchi".The quality is poor because it is created by mouse...--KOKUYO (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Perhaps recoloring the bottom to something other than skin tone would solve part of the problem. Also, isn't the average sukumizu a one piece swimsuit? --Kramer Associates (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&page=File%3ASukumizu_Girl.jpg – KOKUYO is the image's creator, and KOKUYO has said, "Users could use it on 'Hentai' or 'Ecchi'." This means that the image is a bottomless lolicon; she isn't wearing a "skin-colored bottom" as claimed by Paddy and Cirt. Can the closing sysop please take note of this while weighing Paddy's and Cirt's !votes? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Addendum: The "Users could use it on 'Hentai' or 'Ecchi'" comment is also an indication that the image's creator does indeed see a sexual use for the image. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please stop this stupid play of word bending. There is no differentiation between hentai and ecchi in most Asian languages, including Japanese in the first place. Additionally it's usage is widely spread. It can mean anything from perverted to a very mild form of sexy, while other terms like R18 or Adult are more common to describe what we usually refer to as hentai. That ugly construction you made of is your faulty interpretation. Honi soit qui mal y pense! -- /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 苦情処理係 10:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am appalled and disgusted at how Michaeldsuarez tells the closing sysop how to weigh Cirt's and my vote! --Paddy (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Why don't you simply admit that you were wrong about the "skin colour bikini bottom"? Assumptions that turn out to be wrong, such as yours, should be weighed less. There isn't anything shocking about that. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Take a look at the lines at the bottom. If you have at least a little bit of skill in drawing, then you know that this lines would look very different if the bottom part was missing. You just see things that aren't there. Or better said you don't see things that are there. -- /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 苦情処理係 12:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- If the character really were wearing a "skin-colored bottom", then why did the image's creator suggest using the image on the "Hentai" or "Ecchi" articles? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Now I'm getting really annoyed by your inadequate and moronic comments. I would beg you to stop writing, until you have read and understand what ecchi and hentai really is, and why it would be a suitable illustration for both topics even if it isn't sexual in nature at all. Or didn't you still realize that KOKUYO isn't referring to the English meaning? *head->desk* -- /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 苦情処理係 13:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I know what both of them are, but you're denying the obvious. Here's some more of you denying the obvious: [1], [2]. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- LOL. Honi soit qui mal y pense! -- /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 苦情処理係 14:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- @Michaeldsuarez you are very good at telling people what to think and what to do. Maybe you should apply as dictator in some country? I am sure you would do a great job. --Paddy (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I know what both of them are, but you're denying the obvious. Here's some more of you denying the obvious: [1], [2]. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Now I'm getting really annoyed by your inadequate and moronic comments. I would beg you to stop writing, until you have read and understand what ecchi and hentai really is, and why it would be a suitable illustration for both topics even if it isn't sexual in nature at all. Or didn't you still realize that KOKUYO isn't referring to the English meaning? *head->desk* -- /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 苦情処理係 13:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- If the character really were wearing a "skin-colored bottom", then why did the image's creator suggest using the image on the "Hentai" or "Ecchi" articles? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Take a look at the lines at the bottom. If you have at least a little bit of skill in drawing, then you know that this lines would look very different if the bottom part was missing. You just see things that aren't there. Or better said you don't see things that are there. -- /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 苦情処理係 12:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Why don't you simply admit that you were wrong about the "skin colour bikini bottom"? Assumptions that turn out to be wrong, such as yours, should be weighed less. There isn't anything shocking about that. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Addendum: The "Users could use it on 'Hentai' or 'Ecchi'" comment is also an indication that the image's creator does indeed see a sexual use for the image. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Viewed at 4x, it looks like bottomless is more likely than otherwise, but we could always ask KOKUYO what his intentions were. Wouldn't replacing this with a more refined version of something like this then revdeleting the original solve all problems with this image except for questions of scope? --Kramer Associates (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- File:Sukumizu_Girl_recolored.jpg – Niabot has made and uploaded a derivative that clearly includes a blue bottom. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 05:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- ... and it uses exactly the same outlines at this part as the original. -- /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 苦情処理係 08:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
PS: If you want't to keep the recolored version you will need to keep the original as well. This is enforced by the GFDL license which requires that the file history must be kept intact. Otherwise it would be a copyright violation.- AFAIK attribution is required, but "Author KOKUYO (original)" is probably enough. Bulwersator (talk) 11:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- That alone wouldn't even be enough to comply to CC-BY-SA. The GFDL is even more restrictive. -- /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 苦情処理係 11:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- [3] – I see that you game the system in other to have things done your way. You also nominated the derivative to be a "quality image". I guess that you did that because you believe that Commons would never delete the original if the derivative were deemed a "quality image". Is there anything in GFDL that says that the original and the derivative must be hosted on the same website? Deleting the original from Commons doesn't mean that it won't be available elsewhere on the Internet. What if an external website were to host the original and your derivative on Commons were to link to it, would that satisfy the terms of GFDL? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- The GFDL requires a complete version history and therefore you would have to include the original if you can't ensure that it would stay accessible for everyone. Thats kind of a hard rule. But it is a requirement. I nominated the recolored version as i did with other pictures. That isn't necessary, even if you would like to see it as that. -- /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 苦情処理係 12:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Does that mean that the original and the derivation must be hosted on the same website? I could import the history onto another wiki. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- How could we guarantee that it would stay there, as long we host the recolored version? I guess we can't. -- /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 苦情処理係 13:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- http://www.webcitation.org/65oZumlIT – Is this good enough? If it isn't enough, then it appears to me that GFDL doesn't do a good job at making content free (i.e. easy to share and modify). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- How could we guarantee that it would stay there, as long we host the recolored version? I guess we can't. -- /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 苦情処理係 13:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Does that mean that the original and the derivation must be hosted on the same website? I could import the history onto another wiki. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- The GFDL requires a complete version history and therefore you would have to include the original if you can't ensure that it would stay accessible for everyone. Thats kind of a hard rule. But it is a requirement. I nominated the recolored version as i did with other pictures. That isn't necessary, even if you would like to see it as that. -- /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 苦情処理係 12:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- [3] – I see that you game the system in other to have things done your way. You also nominated the derivative to be a "quality image". I guess that you did that because you believe that Commons would never delete the original if the derivative were deemed a "quality image". Is there anything in GFDL that says that the original and the derivative must be hosted on the same website? Deleting the original from Commons doesn't mean that it won't be available elsewhere on the Internet. What if an external website were to host the original and your derivative on Commons were to link to it, would that satisfy the terms of GFDL? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- That alone wouldn't even be enough to comply to CC-BY-SA. The GFDL is even more restrictive. -- /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 苦情処理係 11:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- AFAIK attribution is required, but "Author KOKUYO (original)" is probably enough. Bulwersator (talk) 11:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- ... and it uses exactly the same outlines at this part as the original. -- /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 苦情処理係 08:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- File:Sukumizu_Girl_recolored.jpg – Niabot has made and uploaded a derivative that clearly includes a blue bottom. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 05:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Thats exactly the reason why Wikipedia switched to CC-BY-SA (dual licensing). -- /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 苦情処理係 14:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#GFDL_question_.E2.80.93_Must_Commons_host_the_original_in_order_to_host_the_derivative.3F – I'm seeking a third opinion in order to clarify the issue. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just read 4. MODIFICATIONS: »I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence.« We can only ensure the history is preserved if it is kept on WM commons. --Paddy (talk) 17:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&diff=67714662&oldid=67714383 – We are obliged to keep the history, but we aren't obliged to keeps the code / bits that makes the JPEG itself. We can handle this the same way we move GFDL images from Wikipedia to Commons. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&diff=67759561&oldid=67757182 --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&diff=67714662&oldid=67714383 – We are obliged to keep the history, but we aren't obliged to keeps the code / bits that makes the JPEG itself. We can handle this the same way we move GFDL images from Wikipedia to Commons. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment:I only want to share my old work for everyone.......and "Hentai" or "Ecchi" is not same as "Lolicon". (P.S:English is too hard to read and write for me....)--KOKUYO (talk) 08:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- There are plenty of other photo-sharing websites that you can use instead: en:List_of_photo_sharing_websites, [4], [5]. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I recommend to upload it at flickr.com licensed as CC-BY-SA, so that i can upload it at Commons because i think that it is a valuable addition for the content on Commons. Feel free to enjoy the irony. -- /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 苦情処理係 14:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your jackassery comment. I was only telling KOKUYO that if this image is deleted, it won't be the end of world, since there are other websites that he or she can use to host and share these sorts of images. Sharing via Commons isn't necessary. Niabot, I recommend that you stick to using Commons in order to aid Wikimedia's encyclopedic and educational endeavors; I don't recommend using Commons for the sole purpose of "sticking it to the Man" or to anyone who disagrees with you. Commons isn't here to prove your points. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- @Michaeldsuarez yes from this discussion it seems to be the place where you prove your points. Your original accusation was that it is a lolicon. The author says it is not. The only difference between you and a god is: that a god knows everything but you seem to know everything better than anyone else including a god. --Paddy (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your jackassery comment. I was only telling KOKUYO that if this image is deleted, it won't be the end of world, since there are other websites that he or she can use to host and share these sorts of images. Sharing via Commons isn't necessary. Niabot, I recommend that you stick to using Commons in order to aid Wikimedia's encyclopedic and educational endeavors; I don't recommend using Commons for the sole purpose of "sticking it to the Man" or to anyone who disagrees with you. Commons isn't here to prove your points. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I recommend to upload it at flickr.com licensed as CC-BY-SA, so that i can upload it at Commons because i think that it is a valuable addition for the content on Commons. Feel free to enjoy the irony. -- /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 苦情処理係 14:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Instead of driving away new users i welcome KOKUYO and thank him for providing and sharing its content with all of us. You are welcome. -- /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 苦情処理係 14:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- My comment about alternative hosting websites is there is aid KOKUYO in case this image is deleted; it isn't there to drive him out. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I just started to read between the lines as you did and thanked him for his courage. So what? -- /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 苦情処理係 15:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose you people haven't considered telling him about the existence of Booru boards such as Safebooru or Danbooru which contain similar pictures, and therefore would be only too happy to receive his art? Damru Tespuru (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for telling people to go away. So nice of you :-( --Paddy (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- If there is one thing that i dislike, than it are comments on deletion requests as the first edit. But if you want to contribute media to commons, then you are welcome. -- /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 苦情処理係 17:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Would you consider this contribution -> File:Hmong-Kinder.jpg <- as educational? The uploader is another German dude. You teutonic guys in here sure like those little girls and boys. Probably the FBI department would be, as well, only too happy to give some people here a crash course in law! Damru Tespuru (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please stick to the topic. And keep your false and racist allegations to yourself. And yes I know the law and a I do not care about you or the FBI --Paddy (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I consider it very well as educational. It shows children as they are. Everyone is born without clothes, you were born that way as well. There is nothing wrong with this picture, except that you imagine things that aren't part of this picture. -- /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 苦情処理係 19:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, how many images of lolicons are needed on this project? There's already File:Kogaru1.jpg and some others. Damru Tespuru (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Would you consider this contribution -> File:Hmong-Kinder.jpg <- as educational? The uploader is another German dude. You teutonic guys in here sure like those little girls and boys. Probably the FBI department would be, as well, only too happy to give some people here a crash course in law! Damru Tespuru (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose you people haven't considered telling him about the existence of Booru boards such as Safebooru or Danbooru which contain similar pictures, and therefore would be only too happy to receive his art? Damru Tespuru (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I just started to read between the lines as you did and thanked him for his courage. So what? -- /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 苦情処理係 15:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- My comment about alternative hosting websites is there is aid KOKUYO in case this image is deleted; it isn't there to drive him out. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- There are plenty of other photo-sharing websites that you can use instead: en:List_of_photo_sharing_websites, [4], [5]. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- More accurate description says it all. -- /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 苦情処理係 19:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Have you thought that Hentai and Ecchi can be illustrated which adult cartoon girls, thus avoiding any problems? Damru Tespuru (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- It could/can't/shouldn't be done that way, because #1 there aren't such alternatives, #2 it would be lie in the face of the reader since it is part of the style that even older women are depicted as young (kawaii). -- /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 苦情処理係 20:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Keep I fail to see any pornography in this and besides en:Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors#United States states that there are no issues whatsoever to host any illustrations on Commons as long as they are not obscene. It is also in scope since some of the derivatives are in use. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&diff=67714662&oldid=67714383 – Commons doesn't need to host the original in order to host the derivative. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- All I see is that you and Clindberg obviously have not read the license. Who is Clindberg anyway? Is he a lawyer? --Paddy (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&diff=67759561&oldid=67757182 --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've read the license; it doesn't say what you claim. Not only that, the creators of the license have made their intents very clear, and have never made a fuss about not having all versions for GFDL (or the similar in this respect GPL); no one except archivists keeps all versions of Linux source around, and some old versions of GCC have apparently completely disappeared.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- However, that doesn't affect the fact that it is in scope. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- All I see is that you and Clindberg obviously have not read the license. Who is Clindberg anyway? Is he a lawyer? --Paddy (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&diff=67714662&oldid=67714383 – Commons doesn't need to host the original in order to host the derivative. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- I also agree with this very astute comment by Stefan4 (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep IDONTLIKEIT isn't counted as a reason for deletion. The image is not illegal. The image is free. The image's derivative works are used in articles, and this one also has a potential for that; thus it's in scope. The fact that image uploader has intended these to be used in encyclopaedic articles doesn't mean that we should disqualify any keep votes. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 16:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't say that !votes should be discounted because they suggested articles which they could be used on; I said that certain !votes should be given less weight because their "skin-colored bottom" assumption was wrong. The suggested articles were simply evidence that I used to back up my statement. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, fair enough. But also any closing admin should consider that all the "it's not educational" votes hold little merit, due to the same comment of the original uploader. Interesting how you didn't request that yourself. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 17:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- ... which is word bending per excellence, as i explained above. Also that the bottom would be missing is a lie. It is there, because the lines are drawn that way. You would never draw lines that way if it would be the intention to show someone without a bottom part, especially younger characters. You see this two thick lines near the underline of the top part? This two lines would be absent. Additionally you would no continue the left bottom line as it was done. Please try to draw a person that isn't wearing a bottom part an look at the lines you would draw. This aren't the same. -- /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 苦情処理係 17:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't say that !votes should be discounted because they suggested articles which they could be used on; I said that certain !votes should be given less weight because their "skin-colored bottom" assumption was wrong. The suggested articles were simply evidence that I used to back up my statement. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I tell you what this is all about. It is about a sad character who needs attention namely Michaeldsuarez. He trolls about and sets out to delete images because his mind tells him it is Pr0n. He lacks in understanding the GFDL and even worse he does not have a clue of the human anatomy. He can not draw either. Do I need to say more? --Paddy (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, you should stop trolling Bulwersator (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep per Niabot and Paddy ('s original "keep" votes). en:Ecchi says, "Works considered as ecchi don't show any sexual intercourse or primary sexual characteristics. Instead it's up to the imagination of the viewer." (my emphasis) Given the above discussion, this image would seem to be a fair example of that! [g] I am dumbfounded that anyone could see "bottomless" nudity in this picture... (And, BTW, strongly disagree with using the fact that there is a new version as an argument for deleting the original; IMO, this is a completely inappropriate argument, regardless of whether it's technically allowed.) - dcljr (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete Not used in any projects; educational value unclear. -Pete F (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I see a flesh-coloured bikini bottom, which while a bit risque is hardly child pornography. I agree the blue-bottom version is preferable, but that doesn't mean this one should be deleted. Those who are trying to make people leave or threatening them with FBI visits, please cease doing so. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)