Belle Delphine pretending to orgasm on the Main Page

[Ritchie333]

DYK discussion
Talk:Main Page discussion

Belle Delphine (T-H-L)

A few days back, I noticed there was a DYK queued up with a lead image of a young woman pretending to orgasm. I didn't think this would go down very well when it hit the main page, saying "Is it a good idea to have a woman pretending to orgasm on the front page? Is it a good advertisement for Wikipedia? It is appropriate when we're still trying to address the gender balance after years of trying?" but was generally refuted and ignored with lots of WP:NOTCENSORED .... and lo and behold, all hell has broken out as soon as it got there. Colour me surprised.

[Zoloft]

For the visual learners among us:



Stay classy, Wikipedia!

Ahegao (T-H-L)

[Smiley]

How do you know she's pretending?

[Ritchie333]

How do you know she's pretending?

I AGF'ed.

[Hemiauchenia]

It's like when The C of E tried to make an April Fools DYK making a joke about the Namibian politician Adolf Hitler Uunona, Template:Did you know nominations/Adolf Hitler Uunona (T-H-L) who has received significant coverage solely for his unfortunate name, which he has expressed his displeasure about,
which resulted in the article being deleted , see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive326#Adolf_Hitler_Uunona (T-H-L)

[Smiley]

It's like when The C of E tried to make an April Fools DYK making a joke about the Namibian politician Adolf Hitler Uunona

Yeah, he's got form...

Did_you_know_nominations/Little_Cockup
Did_you_know_nominations/Fucking_Hell
Did_you_know_nominations/Wan_King_Path
Did_you_know_nominations/Top_Totty
Did_you_know_nominations/Sheep_shagger
Did_you_know_nominations/Segar_Bastard
Did_you_know_nominations/17_Million_Fuck_Offs

[AndyTheGrump]

I don't think that 'pretending to orgasm' is an accurate description of what Ms Delphine is doing. 'Imitating a fake-orgasmic facial expression from a subgenre of cartoon pornography' would probably be closer.

As for hell breaking out, that was probably the objective behind putting it there in the first place. In terms of actually being offensive, as opposed to merely a convenient target for righteous indignation from people who enjoy drama, it rates about 1/10 compared to DYK's real excesses, which tend more to revolve around gratuitous libel than women sticking their tongues out and rolling their eyes. Wikipedia probably shouldn't be boosting Ms Delphine's career further, but beyond that, I'd call this a fuss over nothing.

[owl be it]

I think it's a pretty lewd image, but maybe I am just old.

[Jim]

I don't think that 'pretending to orgasm' is an accurate description of what Ms Delphine is doing. 'Imitating a fake-orgasmic facial expression from a subgenre of cartoon pornography' would probably be closer.

As for hell breaking out, that was probably the objective behind putting it there in the first place. In terms of actually being offensive, as opposed to merely a convenient target for righteous indignation from people who enjoy drama, it rates about 1/10 compared to DYK's real excesses, which tend more to revolve around gratuitous libel than women sticking their tongues out and rolling their eyes. Wikipedia probably shouldn't be boosting Ms Delphine's career further, but beyond that, I'd call this a fuss over nothing.

Well shit, Andy, that's twice in a week now that you've said everything I would have said, leaving me with little to do but:


I suppose if I had to add anything it would be that DYK's excesses probably include gratuitous promotion as much as (or maybe even more than) they do gratuitous libel. (but you kinda already alluded to that with the "boosting career" bit, so I'm ninja'd again, even on that... ) I offer no judgement here on which is more of a problem though - that would be a whole, new equation...

[Jim]

I think it's a pretty lewd image, but maybe I am just old.

Children keep you young.

I showed it to my 18 year old for a reaction and she just said, "It just looks pathetic and sort of silly, Dad, she's obviously just hoping it'll get lots of views, and most of my friends would just groan[sic] and move on".

(Before anyone considers any silly "you showed it to your 18 year old???1!!" faux indignance - yes, she's an adult now and watches TV a bit and YouTube a lot, and often laughs at our generation for being so "uptight", while generally considering puerile crap like this a complete waste of her time - so I considered her an excellent example of the obvious target demographic...)

As to the question of linking from the Wikipedia main page to an article describing the subject as a "South African-born English Internet celebrity, pornographic actress, model, and YouTuber."? Well, no - that's not what an "encyclopedia" would do, in my opinion, but then maybe "I'm just old" too, since I'm not fully convinced even that an article on this person is at all worth having, despite its 70! references...

[el84]

Thankfully DYK appears to be on a twelve hour cycle at the moment, so the ahegao'ing Belle is no longer on the front page.

[Smiley]

Thankfully DYK appears to be on a twelve hour cycle at the moment, so the ahegao'ing Belle is no longer on the front page.

Phew!

We now return to our regularly scheduled programming...

[Jim]

Thankfully DYK appears to be on a twelve hour cycle at the moment, so the ahegao'ing Belle is no longer on the front page.

I note that Belle's article was deleted at AFD once, and re-creation was declined (in 2019).

This kind of timeline seems to me to happen so much that one, if cynical, could be led to believe that just repeatedly re-creating stuff and hoping nobody notices is the "way to go".

[rhetorical] Is there really no mechanism to monitor previous deletions/declines against "new" article creation and give the opportunity to check if something has actually changed so that an article might now be "ok"?[/rhetorical]

[Smiley]

I note that the article was deleted at AFD once, and re-creation was declined (in 2019).

This kind of timeline seems to me to happen so much that one, if cynical, could be led to believe that just repeatedly re-creating stuff and hoping nobody notices is the "way to go".

To be fair, Belle has been busy doing notable things since that deletion review:

her pet hamster was stolen at a party so she vandalised that person's car in retaliation

she released the smash hit music video: "eat my ass"

[Jim]

Yeah, my bad, I entirely missed those claims to notability in my initial, superficial skim. Now I look:

In 2021, Delphine posted images of a staged-kidnapping fantasy shoot, which led to several Twitter users accusing her of promoting rape.

So it's not like she hasn't been busy...

In fact:

Delphine defended her post, stating "there is nothing wrong with enjoying power-play and BDSM where both people are consensual.

But above all else:

Delphine markets herself as a 'gamer girl', which engages with a very specific stereotype about women in gaming. In the gaming community, there's a longstanding perception of female gamers as desperate attention-seekers who sexualise themselves to get more views and capitalise on horny dudes' desire for nerdy female counterparts.

And, much as I love you, you're on you're own if you want to go there...

[Vigilant]

Lord, she's a GamerGate beard.

[Jim]

Lord, she's a GamerGate beard.

That's maybe not entirely fair.

That's just WP "editors" desperately trying to keep GG in any way relevant, by shoehorning that kind of crap into articles, as far as I can see. It is, however, quite educational to see that they are still attempting that shit.

She's a different, simpler kind of irrelevant, imho (but still a desperate YT attention seeker who deserves no article.)

[Vigilant]

Lord, she's a GamerGate beard.

That's maybe not entirely fair.

That's just WP "editors" desperately trying to keep GG in any way relevant, by shoehorning that kind of crap into articles, as far as I can see. It is, however, quite educational to see that they are still attempting that shit.

She's a different, simpler kind of irrelevant, imho (but still a desperate YT attention seeker who deserves no article.)

I mean that differently.

She's reinforcing the idea that gamer girlz are all about the inanity and are purely sexual vixens whose only talent(?) is wanting to sleep their way to the top.

[Jim]

I mean that differently.
She's reinforcing the idea that gamer girlz are all about the inanity and are purely sexual vixens whose only talent(?) is wanting to sleep their way to the top.

In that case I rescind any disagreement you may have perceived.

She's certainly doing that, intentionally or otherwise.

[Vigilant]

I mean that differently.
She's reinforcing the idea that gamer girlz are all about the inanity and are purely sexual vixens whose only talent(?) is wanting to sleep their way to the top.

In that case I rescind my misunderstood disagreement.

She's certainly doing that, intentionally or otherwise.

I can't imagine Chelsea van Valkenberg/Zoe Quinn is happy to see someone setting up an archetype that enshrines all of the most misogynistic elements of GamerGate as the default behavior for women in gaming.

I've been a gamer since before Zork.
While this isn't new, it's certainly much more intense with social media.
I wonder how many little girls are, at this moment, turning towards the meme this woman is monetizing.

[Jim]

I can't imagine Chelsea van Valkenberg/Zoe Quinn is happy to see someone setting up an archetype that enshrines all of the most misogynistic elements of GamerGate as the default behavior for women in gaming.

I don't see this ultimately inconsequential girl as "setting up" anything in particular, but I do see her as misguided, and I see her "misguidedness", and that of many of her peers, as a very dangerous product of real faults in our society right now.

[Smiley]

I don't see this ultimately inconsequential girl as "setting up" anything in particular, but I do see her as misguided, and I see her "misguidedness", and that of many of her peers, as a very dangerous product of real faults in our society right now.

Well we were all young and full of misguidedness once.

[Jim]

I don't see this ultimately inconsequential girl as "setting up" anything in particular, but I do see her as misguided, and I see her "misguidedness", and that of many of her peers, as a very dangerous product of real faults in our society right now.

Well we were all young and full of misguidedness once.

Twice. I got away with it the first time.

[Vigilant]

I don't see this ultimately inconsequential girl as "setting up" anything in particular, but I do see her as misguided, and I see her "misguidedness", and that of many of her peers, as a very dangerous product of real faults in our society right now.

Well we were all young and full of misguidedness once.

The internet is forever.
Forgetting is a gift whose time has gone.

[Smiley]

The internet is forever.
Forgetting is a gift whose time has gone.

Good point.

I'm so lucky I didn't go online until the age of thirty.
The thought of those awful teenage haircuts alone makes me want to curl up and die.

[ArmasRebane]

Aside from inanity involved, she is probably notable, even by the standards that there are phenomenally popular Youtubers and Vtubers and TikTok stars and other people that us olds just don't get and we don't have articles about because a) olds are writing most content, and b) traditional reliable sources don't cover these people.

I'm not sure what worries me more: that in ten years, this woman and internet celebs like her will have deep regret over the record they cannot easily scrub from the internet, or in ten years, this woman and internet celebs like her won't care because we've warped society that much that clout-chasing and online presentation is the only thing that matters to a large segment of the youth.

Now, she's only notable because there are sad horny dudes on the internet who signal-boost these people while also hating them, but if GamerGate and basically every internet brigade has amply demonstrated, these people usually only amplify the thing they profess to hate.

And DYK probably shouldn't exist given all the pain it involves and tons of editor time (and lack of real quality control despite all that investment), but I guess the question is if you got rid of it, where would all those people churning out subpar articles so they can get some mainspace pageview dopamine hits go if that avenue was taken from them.

[Beeblebrox]

Part of the issue at DYK is the quid pro quo requirement that was instituted some years back. The rule is something like "if you have submitted three or more DYKs, you have to start reviewing someone else's submission every time you submit a new one". This means most of the initial reviews are done by users who have submitted their own DYK, and it is a pro forma part of the process. There is often some secondary vetting as a nomination moves through the stages toward the front page, but questionable stuff still gets through sometimes.

Personally I find the image involved more stupid than offensive, but in a way I can see how it contributes to the reader's understanding of the article subject, not necessarily in a good way.

[Vigilant]

Part of the issue at DYK is the quid pro quo requirement that was instituted some years back. The rule is something like "if you have submitted three or more DYKs, you have to start reviewing someone else's submission every time you submit a new one". This means most of the initial reviews are done by users who have submitted their own DYK, and it is a pro forma part of the process.

Encourages nepotism and cronyism by design. Nice.

[boom]

I find Belle Delphine's impression of what your average Wikipedia admin looks like when they find a technicality allowing them to block a long-term productive contributor without getting instantly desysopped quite good actually. Haters gonna hate.

[Ming]

Encourages nepotism and cronyism by design. Nice.

Well, it doesn't really, since the point is that you only have to review another, not that it has to pass. What is more likely to happen is that people do a shoddy job of reviewing. One of the ways that Fram made enemies in he past was by shooting crappy noms down, in his usually cranky way of course.

[Smiley]

*plays glissando on the swannee whistle*

[Beeblebrox]

Well, it doesn't really, since the point is that you only have to review another, not that it has to pass. What is more likely to happen is that people do a shoddy job of reviewing. One of the ways that Fram made enemies in he past was by shooting crappy noms down, in his usually cranky way of course.

That's what I meant by characterizing it as pro forma. You just have to do it, you don't have to do a good job.

When I do one I do take it seriously and give honest feedback, but if you luck out and find one that clearly passes it can be done in just a few minutes. I do think it's asking a bit much that the reviewer try to determine if there are copyvios, and the review template is fussy if you aren't super familiar with it, when I said as much I was told I just shouldn't use it to do my reviews
.

[Vigilant]

One hand washes the other.

"You review mine and I'll review yours" in a kind of reverse Prisoner's Dilemma.

[Ming]

...except it normally can't work that way: as a practical matter two people can't review each other's nominations unless one of them puts in more than one nomination at a time. It's been some years since Ming submitted one, but as Ming recalls the main problem was finding anything to review at all, because at least at the time the hopper was inevitably clogged with cases that failed reviews and hadn't been revised.

[Vigilant]

Laura Hale and Ross Mallett aka Hawkeye7.

[DanMurphy]

And the Gibraltarpedia dudes.

[Smiley]

Laura Hale and Ross Mallett aka Hawkeye7.

And the Gibraltarpedia dudes.

Linkies:

Hale DYKs:
DYK licking for fun and profit @ Wikipediocracy forum
Laura in Wikiland @ Wikipediocracy forum

Gibnut DYKs:
Gibraltarpedia - rock solid @ Wikipediocracy forum
Take your pick @ Wikipedia DYK archives,
Houseplants of Gibraltar @ Wikipedia

Best DYK:
Did you know nominations/Wikipediocracy @ Wikipedia

PandoraS Box - Do NOT Open

Off-topic and boring, do something more useful instead

[orangepi]

They should really just shut DYK down for a year and fill the space with re-runs of articles that haven't been deleted.

If some "I won't create articles on crap topics unless I get a gold star from DYK" people leave, good for them.

[Parabola]

someone should really take notice, in the bad way, that The C of E got banned from being extremely jingoistic and racist about the irish and immediately jumped ship to editing mostly pages about the failed white power state of rhodesia. some extremely obvious psychology occurring here

[watis]

someone should really take notice, in the bad way, that The C of E got banned from being extremely jingoistic and racist about the irish and immediately jumped ship to editing mostly pages about the failed white power state of rhodesia. some extremely obvious psychology occurring here

Yeah, it sucks. I took notice in the quiet way a long time ago. I'm not sure how to bring it up further without it just being a dumb fucking headache that goes nowhere. C of E throws shitfits routinely about everything from image hooks to special occasions to the slightest criticism of his horrible, horrible ideas, and so far nothing further than the original tban has stuck.

I think I might have a blog post in me about this.

[Zoloft]

I think I might have a blog post in me about this.

Meet the Wikipedia Editors: The C of E

[FelinaLavandula]

Meet the Wikipedia Editors: The C of E

I’d read that!

[Moral Hazard]

Belle Delphine is unworthy to orgasm on the main page of Wikipedia.

To encourage children to go into STEM, Wikipedia should have Hedy Lamarr (T-H-L).

[Jim]

Belle Delphine is unworthy to orgasm on the main page of Wikipedia.

Well frankly, yes. It's old-hat for today's kids, I'm sure, but there was, not really so long ago, this: I'll have what she's having....

[Moral Hazard]

Belle Delphine is unworthy to orgasm on the main page of Wikipedia.

Well frankly, yes. It's old-hat for today's kids, I'm sure, but there was, not really so long ago, this: I'll have what she's having....

Reports of COVID-19 bankruptcy for Katz's Deli seem to have been premature.

Katz's Deli is open for business and now it ships nationwide.
link

[Moral Hazard]

The fundamental law of Wikipedia:

All this has happened before and will happen again.

[Jim]

All this has happened before and will happen again.

It's surprisingly hard to find a short video clip of the Cylon Hybrid saying just that (which it surely did), or you can be sure I'd have posted it by now.

[Moral Hazard]

All this has happened before and will happen again.

It's surprisingly hard to find a short video clip of the Cylon Hybrid saying just that (which it surely did), or you can be sure I'd have posted it by now.

Getyarn has a 4 second clip in mp4 format, though.

[Ming]

Belle Delphine is unworthy to orgasm on the main page of Wikipedia.

To encourage children to go into STEM, Wikipedia should have Hedy Lamarr (T-H-L).

Hedy is for "mature audiences only", and mature audiences are something one does not find on the internet.