Talk:Virgin Killer/Archive 4

Sockpuppet removals?

Any chance the new users who keep replacing the image are the same person? Is a checkuser necessary? --Moni3 (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the vandal admits to using sockpuppets. See the taunt over at User talk:Ves Seer threatening to do just that. No checkuser necessary for obvious cases. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every case where the image in the infobox has been replaced by WikimediaMosaicCapture.png is the work of the same person using sockpuppet accounts. This means that even semi-protection is of limited use, and only full protection will stop this sort of nonsense. It is not ideal, but users who are not administrators can request an edit by using the editprotected template.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The better solution is to modify or enhance exactly what "semi-protection" means, and what is needed for a user to be able to edit such a page. Currently, this sock-puppet git makes about a dozen edits to some random user page, adding and removing sequential keyboard letters. Those edits are apparently enough to grant one's account the necessary rights to edit semi-protected pages. This is an obvious weakness in the system, but I am at the moment unsure of where to bring a discussion about altering this. I tried AN/I a month or so back, but it petered out. Suggestions? Tarc (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case raises some interesting questions about Wikipedia's anti-vandalism measures. The current system can be exploited by a determined person, as this case shows. One possibility would be to fully protect an image without affecting the rest of the page, but this would require a change in Wikipedia's software.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This person will get bored and move on. No need to change how semi-protection works for this. Chillum 14:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, we have WP:LONG for a reason y'know. There are many, many cases of persistent, years-long vandalism that current mechanisms are unable to cope with. Dismissing this in a "they'll get bored" manner is a bit naive and not at all helpful in getting a resolution to this vandalism, as this person is deliberately gaming the system to bypass protection. Tarc (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is now full-protected, after I requested it yesterday. The admin protected it with misgivings, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, I have been around here for a long time. The vandal will get bored, just don't feed them. Until then if any consensus for change forms use {{Editprotected}} or just drop a message on my talk page and I or another admin can make the change. Chillum 00:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the solution is to be clever about it. Dump the infobox into a subpage, fully protect that and transclude it in here. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good idea. Could User:Mattbuck test it to show that it works? If the HTML of Virgin Killer can be edited, would it still be possible to remove the whole infobox?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole infobox could still be replaced. Chillum 14:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CAN some JS be applied here to show nude content warning and on accepting OK then only image shows up, i know its possible but whether its in Wiki standards or not am not sure. Deepkamal 14:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOIMAGE is similar to this, but in line with Wikipedia policy, there are no disclaimers in articles.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the vandal known as Tile join (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's been vandalising for at least three years now. His usual bit is to replace the Evolution page with the first chapter of Genesis, hence his sobriquet The Genesis Vandal. His edits are very bot-like, in fact, I wouldn't be suprised if it is a bot. He makes dozens of socks at a time, seasons them in the way mentioned above, and then strikes his targets with multiple hits. He's the reason the article was fully protected for several months at a time. He is on a Mission From God; he will not "get bored and go away." I figure there should be some sort of edit filter that can be created to stop him, but that would be beyond my abilities. Auntie E.

A minor point of interest is that from the time zone of the edits, I'm fairly sure that this person is British. He (guessing here) seems to have little better to do in the evenings than to make the same tedious points about the image in the article over and over again. Short of flagged revisions, this stunt would be hard to stop.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very easy to stop - indefinite full protection. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely that the admins would grant this, and our regular friend would see it as a victory. However, a period of full protection would not go amiss at the moment. I still think that flagged revisions are the best solution, as it removes the satisfaction of knowing that silly edits will go out directly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

So I notice it is protected and stuff, it might be nice to have a thread up for discussing that since people can't edit it. Do you guys think it might sometime be changed to semi? I think people with accounts in good standing over a few years can be trusted. Tyciol (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a problem with semi-protection, as noted in the section above; vandal(s) have figured out how to game the system so that semi-protection is effectively neutralized. Tarc (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is depressing that the article is fully protected again, but it is the only way to prevent the tiresome image switching stunt. Flagged revisions would prevent this, but the proposal is still at the discussion stage for the English language Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the issue I tried to bring up before was that what it means to be "semi-protected" is absolutely meaningless, but that was pooh-poohed by a now quite naive "This person will get bored and move on" sentiment. Tarc (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful to have a WP:CHECKUSER on the IP addresses being used for this stunt. It is unfair to have the page held to ransom in this way, although even a WP:CHECKUSER is no guarantee that the stunt would stop.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't hesitate to poke me when he comes back, I'm keeping tabs here and working on rangeblocking whenever possible. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like contributions came back as contributions, who is now indef blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A look at the page history shows that most edits since January have been nonsense by this "user". The current proposal at Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions would stop this stunt, since semi-protection has its loopholes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Checkuser request made here. R. Baley (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image filter 131

Special:AbuseFilter/131 was created to prevent people from moving/removing/replacing specific images in the Muhammad article. This filter has been working well. It also allows the article to go unprotected, allowing people to edit it, while surgically prtecting a tiny piece of it. See the discussion at Talk:Muhammad#Image Protection Filter.

Instead of protecting this article, we could unprotect it while using filter 131 to protect the placement of the controversial 'Virgin Killer' image. I asked the author of this filter about it, but he replied that this article already has such a filter. I'm not seeing anything but manual administrator interventions, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was working fine for awhile, but now the idiot meat/sock-puppet movement that is bound and determined to protect us from naughty bits has resorted to other methods of vandalism, so now we're back to full protection. The current tactic is to take random infoboxes, from Diana to moose, from other articles and insert them into this one. Tarc (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I thought the infoboxes were being replaced, not just added. I may be assuming too much, but I thought Filter 131 also protected against movement of an image within an article, so possibly the addition of an infobox above it would trigger the filter. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks useful to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Internet censorship" section

Most of the section seems irrelevant (or only remotely relevant) to this page. It is better suited to the requisite page on censorship/censorship of wikipedia with a link here as to what it refers to. I've removed some of the info from here as it pertains to wikipedia and the FBI, with only a reference to this site. (one can link Virgin killer from that site)

Also the wikipedia wikilink is WP:Overlink. People know wikipedia if they are on here.Lihaas (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant to this page as it is about both this page and the album artwork. The wikilink is appropriate, so long as it appears only once. Verbal chat 07:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certain content on the section is, but other content regards the reaction between wikipedia and the body with a fringe interest here hence the link to the other page (and i presume the link to this page from there)

(please, dont revert the source while the discussion is ongoing, conesensus is not gained just yet. although we are makign good progress in civil debate)Lihaas (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that the section is irrelevant. It summarizes the December 2008 incident without going into too much detail, and gives a "main article" link to Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia. Since the controversy over the original 1976 album cover is one of the key features of the album's notability, Virgin Killer should cover it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is a summary of the main article with a link and is about the recent reaction to the album. Also, please have a look at WP:BRD and get consensus for your changes if they are opposed. Thanks, Verbal chat 08:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not remove the picture? It's very offensive and I think it's illegal in many places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaimoconn (talk • contribs) 00:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the note at the top of this page: Important notice: Prior discussion has determined by broad consensus that the Virgin Killer cover will not be removed. If you find this image offensive, it is possible to configure your browser not to display it. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored. See the image talk page for the archived discussions. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few things. First, to the best of my knowledge there has not been a court anywhere in the world that has made any ruling on this image so there has never been a determination that this image is illegal outside of personal opinions (which do not have legal authority). Also I think if there were any real legal issues regarding this image they would have resolved by by now since the album is over 35 years old. However, if you do have evidence that this image has been deemed illegal by a court of law fell free to present it. Also to reiterate the policy on not censoring content covers the offensive argument. Finally, another reason not to remove this image is the ironic fact that the original attempt to have the image taken down by the Internet watch Foundation actually made the image more notable than it was before. This made the image in question more relevant to the article and actually in the end strengthened the case for including the image in the article. In the end barring a court of law declaring this image to be illegal this is here to stay.--76.66.187.132 (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 4 February 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

remove virgin killer.jpg

UnMathew (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Please explain your request. This has been contentious in the past and it remains because we have a policy against censorship. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the previous consensus was clearly against removal and I have seen nothing since the failed attempt by the Internet Watch Foundation to indicate that there would be any change whatsoever.--70.24.208.34 (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is ironic that the Virgin Killer article on German Wikipedia does not feature that photo (virgin killer.jpg). Since the album is from a German rock band and the photo was taken in Germany, and given the fact that the photo is not even displayed on German Wikipedia, why are we insisting that the image be kept on English Wikipedia? --BrianJ34 (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

German law has no concept of fair use, and there are no copyrighted images on the German language Wikipedia as a result. Here is the German language Wikipedia article for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. No album cover here either.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this technically illegal here in the United States, since child pornography is illegal completely here and Wikipedia is run here? I feel dumb for asking, since it has probably been asked before. But if we have this image, why do we not include an image sample at Child pornography? What's the reasoning behind that? Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nudity is not the same as pornography. That is the distinction. Lots of art has nudity featuring people of all ages, if we made it all illegal we would have to have a big fire outside some of the major museums. HighInBC 17:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Things were different back then. It was relatively normal in the 80's and 90's to be exposed to or have a picture of oneself in the nude, as a child. What you're forgetting is that we had a whole post war era and a hippy movement before the 2000's started to emerge. Heck, even i have a few childhood photos' of myself as a child with my penis dangling out. Are the FBI supposed to arrest my mother and myself now? Technically if such images were classified as pornography, i would be a criminal simply for having a photo of myself as a child? To be honest i think the more you make a big deal out of this the more dirty minded a person you actually are. A normal person doesn't see a sexual image of this prepubescent girl on the album cover. In fact i bet it's the real pedofiles who are screaming the loudest to get the image removed, because it triggers them. Meanwhile those who are not interested in sexualizations of children look at the album cover and see art, nothing more, nothing less.

My 2c.159.100.84.247 (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect use of the word 'sic' in article

""pedophilia. [sic]"" is the proper spelling of pedophilia, and the one used on wikipeida. The inclusion of sic here is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.46.68 (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a WP:ENGVAR issue. Someone may have added the [sic] to prevent it from being changed, as the usual British English spelling is "paedophilia".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of German quote

Reference [11] cites: "We loved and protected children and did not sleep with them" ("Wir liebten und beschützten die Kinder damals und schliefen nicht mit ihnen").

I think the translation should be "Back then, we loved and protected children and did not sleep with them". "Damals" means something very similar to "back then" and I think this is very important in the sentence, which references the pedophile incidents and this topic's excessive press coverage.

I did not change the quote myself (considering that this is a "hot" article to touch), please share your opinions! 81.183.213.3 (talk) 09:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The previous translation excluded "damals", which means "back then, at that time, in those days".[1]---♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015 case in Sweden

Re this edit: the source is in Swedish, so I have had to rely on online translations. The case involved a 53-year-old man who had a million child porn images and was sentenced to six years in prison. He also had a copy of the album Virgin Killer but was not sentenced for this, although the court considered the image to be child pornography. The article could be clearer about this, as the current wording is rather vague. However, my Swedish translation skills are not up to the job. I've asked User:J 1982 for a comment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Majority is about the controversy

When I read through this entire article, I saw that a great majority of its content is about the controversy, and that the track listing, a significant part of the actual album, is listed at the bottom. Is it possible that we can include more information on the album itself aside from its controversies? We could possibly also split the article into Virgin Killer controversies. This article has been here for a long time though, so it may be a bit set in stone at this point, but I'm just saying it eats on me just a little bit that it's not like a balanced teeter totter for the "informational" things (about the album itself) and the "controversial" things (reactions from other people). Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete that pic.

This article has gotten so popular because of the controversy related to its Child Pornography Photo. That picture is shocking and i as an enlighted human would never include this shit in an encyclopedia which is intended to cultivate people, including children. Just delete it or replace it with the secondary photo of the band. Thank you. Jombagale (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't child pornography, and has never been found to be this in a court of law. Nor would it be on Wikipedia if it was illegal under United States law. It is a controversial photo which was used as an album cover in 1976. The consensus of past discussions is that Wikipedia is not censored and that the image should stay.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This album is also 40 years old, I can't imagine the entire US legal system overlooking obvious child porn for that long.--76.69.214.83 (talk) 05:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to learn the difference between nudity and pornography. Nudity is legal in all forms. Also Wikipedia isn't censored.

--Fruitloop11 (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a (self proclaimed) enlightened man you sure seem to have a hard difference distinguishing art from pornography. Are you calling children disgusting? What is your point here? We should be ashamed of children if they are not covered up? Doesn't this ring any bells? Such stigma, it's been applied in other countries yknow. (Cough burka cough)159.100.84.247 (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite dizzying, bewildering, flabbergasting, to see both extremes of human stupidity expressed in so few lines of text (the original comment from this thread posted on 2016/07/25, and this reply above posted on 2019/03/08).--Abolibibelot (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reception lead sentence

I personally do not like the way the lead sentence in this section is worded:

"The success of Virgin Killer was similar to other Scorpions albums featuring Uli Jon Roth as lead guitarist; it "failed to attain any serious attention in the United States" but was "quite popular in Japan"[6] where it peaked at number 32 in the charts.[7]"

That wording, to me, appears to be a weasely way of implying that the lack of success of all the albums Roth played on was due to his presence in the band. It's illogical as it makes the age old "because A happened, then B happened, A must have caused B." The statement does not take into account the more encyclopedic conclusion that A and B are coincidental. In fact, the inline citation doesn't make any connection at all between the two facts. I'm going to change the wording to the following if no one objects:

"Virgin Killer "failed to attain any serious attention in the United States" but was "quite popular in Japan"[6] where it peaked at number 32 in the charts.[7]

I see no reason whatsoever to mention Roth at all in the statement, as doing so is extremely POV in my opinion. There is no reason to believe that if he had stayed the rest of their albums would not have done just as well as they, in reality, did. Thoughts? SentientParadox (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that the band's commercial breakthrough in the USA and "the West" in general coincided with Roth's departure, and Roth's departure was mainly caused by his disagreement with the artistic direction the other members wanted to take by then. And Roth's other ventures never reached that kind of success. So it must have been related at least to some level. It doesn't change the fact that the Scorpions' albums featuring Uli Jon Roth are among their very best, and among the best of the 1970's (especially Taken by force), and are sadly underrated (no Scorpions album in Rolling Stone's "500 greatest albums" list, or in the stupidly titled "1001 albums you must hear before you die" book, which contains quite a few commercially-successful-in-the-USA duds).--Abolibibelot (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While that may be true, it is not sourced in the text, so it's a synthesis of one fact to imply another. It either needs to be sourced that Roth's departure opened the way for the band's wider success, or (preferably) it should be reworded. I agree that Roth doesn't need to be mentioned in that sentence. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2021

This edit request to Virgin Killer has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to edit some of the wording and representation on the page on the album "Virgin Killer" by the metal band, "The Scorpions". Where it said, "failed to get any attention in the United States" in the Reception section, I would like to cite a source in which it shows the album's sales in the U.S. and its territories. I would also like to do away with the album cover entirely as that is literal child porn on a publicly acessible website dedicated to information. Thiscant (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please provide a link or information on your reliable source for the Reception section. As for the album cover, please visit the top of this page, where you will find messages directly related to your edit request. — TGHL ↗ (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Artwork" section sentence

"Photographer Michael von Gimbut emphasized that his wife--the model's mother and sister--and three female assistants..."

Can someone change the dashes to commas? I had to look up the source for verification because the way it reads right now seems like a Chinatown situation with Von Gimbut's wife being both the model's mother and sister. Unless that's really the case and something is lost in the translation from German to English, the source says "He, his wife, the child's mother, sister, and three assistants...", clearly three different people. 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:A567:367B:E89B:D11D (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]