1,756
edits
Talk:Brongersma: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→revert warring on deletion tag
Leucosticte (talk | contribs) |
Leucosticte (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
Key: ''solely or substantially.'' No content has been referenced or even alleged which is "dangerous and harmful." There is "child pornography" hosted on [[Wikimedia Commons]]. Nobody would claim that such was the substantial or sole purpose of Commons. (But people do object!) Brongersma was not a pedophile, and did not -- to my knowledge -- advocate legalizing true adult-child sexual relations. And if he did, that would be historical; after all, he's deceased, and a site documenting his life and work is not advocacy. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 20:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC) | Key: ''solely or substantially.'' No content has been referenced or even alleged which is "dangerous and harmful." There is "child pornography" hosted on [[Wikimedia Commons]]. Nobody would claim that such was the substantial or sole purpose of Commons. (But people do object!) Brongersma was not a pedophile, and did not -- to my knowledge -- advocate legalizing true adult-child sexual relations. And if he did, that would be historical; after all, he's deceased, and a site documenting his life and work is not advocacy. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 20:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
:Is it a revert war if you cite a different deletion reason the second time around? I dunno, maybe it's a gray area. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 21:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC) | :Is it a revert war if you cite a different deletion reason the second time around? I dunno, maybe it's a gray area. Wikimedia Commons does not host child pornography; there are no images there of children exhibiting their genitals lasciviously. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 21:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC) | ||