Well you do realise that now you are an admin your days of browsing any type of pr0n are behind you. ;)

You are right, no-one in their right mind would use Commons to search for pr0n. I just did a search for big dick on Google, and there is one result from a WMF project in the Top 100 results -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Donato -- obviously picked up because he was on BIG brother. But amongst the other 99 results from the top 100 there are all sorts of sites one would go to if they wanted to see, well, big dick. :)

In relation to the category Alison raised -- are they in scope? Who the hell knows. I am very liberal minded, and have a very liberal interpretation of scope as it pertains to our projects, and while I struggle to see scope in those images, I am sure there might be some sort of scope there -- even if they were to illustrate an article on the gender gap in computer sciences -- would that be an encyclopaedic topic?

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch@gmail.com> wrote:
When someone said "how come no one makes a big deal about category:foo when category:blahporn is always getting messed with!!"

and i ended up nominating a ton of crappy flower photos for deletion. 

It was pretty funny, and dear god there are some crappy flower photos. Why have crappy photos. It's like we are doing a disservice! 

But, yeah, I'm sure for the most part people aren't sitting around and searching for porno on Commons. I think there are better places for that. 

I use Commons to look at bird pr0n (birds..like...real...birds...the one's that fly and have feathers) and pinball machines. So whatever. 

ps who can now say all these scary things cause she's now an admin on Commons ;)