| Revision as of 04:53, 2 September 2005 editNoitall (talk | contribs)3,112 edits →Bandwidth← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:02, 2 September 2005 edit undoAgriculture (talk | contribs)1,252 edits →BandwidthNext edit → | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| :::I'm less concerned about breasts than I am about peddling pornography in Misplaced Pages. Box covers of pornographic videos come close to violating ] anyway.--] 04:47, September 2, 2005 (UTC) | :::I'm less concerned about breasts than I am about peddling pornography in Misplaced Pages. Box covers of pornographic videos come close to violating ] anyway.--] 04:47, September 2, 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ::::The edits trying to put every stupid looking box cover that has any nudity at all on it in this article says more about the editor than the subject of this article. The edits are unnecessary unencyclopedic and teenagerish. --] 04:53, September 2, 2005 (UTC) | ::::The edits trying to put every stupid looking box cover that has any nudity at all on it in this article says more about the editor than the subject of this article. The edits are unnecessary unencyclopedic and teenagerish. --] 04:53, September 2, 2005 (UTC) | ||
| Look Hipocrite. I love boobies, MONGO and Noitall, I am sure, love boobies too. Everyone loves boobies. But Misplaced Pages shouldn't have boobies unless they add to the article. Why? Because Misplaced Pages, unlike your local bar, is not a boobie repository. It's an encyclopedia. The boobies you keep adding make it look like a store. We don't need three fregging box covers. Heck, we don't even need one. More appropriate are media stills released for information. Not for sales. ] 05:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:02, 2 September 2005
Design of the Page
I recently redesigned the page using an official Female Actress template, that is used on many pages. User:MutterErde has reverted it. I think that my design is MUCH better!
NewDesign: (By Indication) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bobbi_Eden&oldid=15202129
OldDesign: (By MutterErde) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bobbi_Eden&oldid=15308219
The design should be changed back to the NewDesign, so it meets more standards and looks much better. But i first want to get some comments from you! What do you prefer?
Greetings User:Indication
- Hi ,
1. i guess you have a bigger screen than me or you might have changed your configuration.So you might have a different view than me. I have a 17' screen , 800 X 600 pixel - all normal standard .i haven´t changed anything and therefore i see a clear design in my version and some unsorted pics in yours.
2. I think , it´s not a good idea to start your wikipedia-carreer with "complete redesignings".Better you find new facts or start new articles and all will be glad. Look at the red names and let´s talk about redesigning in some years , when all these women have their own article.
btw: only for these one-phrase-girls ( + measurements + pic) like Tiffany_Fallon (:kiss:) that huge - in my opinion too huge - infobox might make any sense. Greetings MutterErde 23:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Uhh, his redesign made it more coherent... and not just an amalgam of porn pictures (it gave purpose to the full frontal thing)... Although, it's a bad idea that her main picture is nude.... errh or maybe that's her identity ~_~... I think a box like they have for presidents is fine and you should make his that size if you think it was too large. gren 01:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Brianna Banks is a similiar case. Why people should change the standard configuration ? Just to enjoy Indication´s art work for one moment ?
- And after enjoying back to 800 X 600 ? :-)
- Revision as of 22:08, 10 Jun 2005
- Indication (Talk | contribs)
- optimized for 1024 * x
- Greetings MutterErde 09:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Bandwidth
is free, and whitespace is ugly. The version with photos is better than the version with whitespace. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- The article isn't encyclopedic, the images act as advertising and having this garbage makes Misplaced Pages become nothing more than a porn emporium.--MONGO 04:38, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- So you think a more dated picture is better than a more recent picture because the more recent picture has breasts? Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'm less concerned about breasts than I am about peddling pornography in Misplaced Pages. Box covers of pornographic videos come close to violating WP:POINT anyway.--MONGO 04:47, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- The edits trying to put every stupid looking box cover that has any nudity at all on it in this article says more about the editor than the subject of this article. The edits are unnecessary unencyclopedic and teenagerish. --Noitall 04:53, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm less concerned about breasts than I am about peddling pornography in Misplaced Pages. Box covers of pornographic videos come close to violating WP:POINT anyway.--MONGO 04:47, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- So you think a more dated picture is better than a more recent picture because the more recent picture has breasts? Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Look Hipocrite. I love boobies, MONGO and Noitall, I am sure, love boobies too. Everyone loves boobies. But Misplaced Pages shouldn't have boobies unless they add to the article. Why? Because Misplaced Pages, unlike your local bar, is not a boobie repository. It's an encyclopedia. The boobies you keep adding make it look like a store. We don't need three fregging box covers. Heck, we don't even need one. More appropriate are media stills released for information. Not for sales. Agriculture 05:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)