User talk:Ben Dawid/

RFC for Man

Hi. In the light of the current dispute regarding the inclusion of an image in the article Man, and the heated exchanges that have led to the need to temporarily protect the article, I have started an RFC at Talk:Man#RFC: image in article. Please do add your opinion, and hopefully we can achieve a policy-based consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Man

Man(sorry it was there), in the light of the edit war, I would like to present my views to you. One, I agree with you on the graphical shock of that photo. But in this case, the image is needed to illustrate the subject. And also you might want to take a look at WP:CENSOR. Thanks--Talktome^(Intelati) 05:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Minnow

Plip!

The picture is not the most important thing in the world, please find a compromise and be thankful in it.--Talktome^(Intelati) 04:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Mind you, now I remember my fave part of the bible Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!--Zucchinidreams (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, whoever you are. I don't really know which of my comments reminded you of the final verse in psalm 137. That is a psalm about the persecution of the Lord's people by the Babylonians — a barbaric, heathen people who used to smash infant Jewish heads against the stones to kill them. So the Lord says that 'blessed', or 'happy' (asher in the original language), would be the man who repayed the Babylonians with this rough justice. But as far as you and I are concerned, my friend, the sixth commandment applies: 'Thou shalt not kill' (Exodus 20:13). Ben Dawid (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry

Apologies for removing that comment of yours from the Man Talk page - I removed one comment too many when getting rid of the duplicates. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries, that is fine. Ben Dawid (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ben Dawid for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for the notification. As I suppose will be discovered in due time, I have no 'sockpuppet' accounts, and no interest in engaging in 'sockpuppetry'. I am interested in the truth, and in the case of the recent dispute that has stirred up these allegations, I think that I, and others on my side (from this corner of the globe and elsewhere) are simply doing what we can to prevent Wikipedia from morphing into something completely useless and obnoxious. Explicit photographs are popping up everywhere in places where they are not expected - at Man, Woman, Humans and even Boys (underage?). Surely nude photographs are hardly relevant to these topics, and their inclusion is definitely not neutral - it's unnecessarily offensive, pushes the extremist FKK POV and is just plain wrong. Further, Jimmy Wales' edits on the site show that even 'relevant' photographs may be dealt with as unacceptable for Wikipedia. Finally, perhaps the abusive editor (check here and elsewhere, where he swears at other editors and curses their holy books) who nominated me and my friend for this investigation could be politely asked to settle down. Sorry for the long response, but this is probably the best place to justify my recent disputings. All the best, Ben Dawid (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Good to see at least the 'sockpuppetry' matter brought to a satisfactory conclusion. Ben Dawid (talk) 10:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)