-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
If pictured by themselves, clearly part of a ball bearing, if pictured with a child then the point is moot - can you honestly see a situation where a child posing with 1-inch diameter metal balls is relevant to a Wikipedia article (unless, say, it's in a lolicon article in which case the image would obviously be sexual)
Cynical
Sean Barrett wrote:
David Alexander Russell stated for the record:
Not if we wrote it properly. The only way a policy can be 'gamed' if it is written ambiguously or in a way that is down to interpretation (e.g. CSD T1 - what exactly 'divisive' means is down to the individual, and two people acting in good faith can interpret it in completely different ways). If, for example, we simply wrote it as:
Any image depicting children engaged in sexual intercourse or posing with sex toys
There is nothing in that (that I can see) which could possibly be 'gamed' or misinterpreted.
Cynical
A pair of one-inch diameter metal balls. Sex toy, or parts of a bearing?
-- Sean Barrett | We completely deny the allegations, and sean@epoptic.org | we're trying to identify the alligators.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l