Your editing is disruptive for WP: Chilling moment a stranger 'attempts to abduct' a boy by You have already commented twice you could have spoken to me about the issues on my talk page or yours and abreviate your comments please. One person selecting a picture from WP Commons and inserting it into an article is not a consensus. In general, processes are much better illustrated by movies than by still frames. Between those locations you have posted something like edits in the past week.
Japanese forced penetration
Re-read the intro to this RfC. Strongly Oppose -- It has long been determined that censoring articles because of objectionable content by placing them behind inline links is not acceptable. How am I guilty of disruptive editing - it was you Atom who put in superfluous content of a dubious origin, that another editor has repeatedly argued against. There are no videos on the page about urination, so if it is not deemed necessary there, then why on this page is it thought necessary to use video footage? This is something that professionals may not realise, he added. The four images only show one spurt and the "abundance" is somewhat a matter of opinion.
Japanese forced penetration - Porn Pics & Moveis
The right place to me seems to be with the two illustrations. This is because treatment for testicular cancer is much more effective if the cancer is diagnosed early. No doubt I could get a great deal of fun from looking up recent changes, and then reverting vandalism, I am not knocking those who do so. Having his photo sequence of ejaculation on the Wikipedia Ejaculation article only gives this guy free advertisement for his own money making "masturbation for hire" porno business. I suggested that a common flaw for new editors was to fall into a deletionst role of wanting to remove things they did not agree with.
From the template box at the top of the Talk: They want to cite First Amendment rights and all sorts of other legal protections rather than entertain the idea of a compromise and a solution. Neither the video nor the image sequence ought, IMO to be removed from the article. But if the image as displayed does not in fact act as a promotion, the uploader's wish that it would is of no interest. Now, you said no-one here cares about this but me. Editor Cyclopia is correct in his last assessment. You are trying to impose your views on the community.