| Revision as of 00:05, 5 June 2005 editNohat (talk | contribs)Administrators11,044 edits →Remember the []← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:06, 5 June 2005 edit undo70.177.90.39 (talk) →Shall we have an explicit photo?Next edit → | ||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
| <!-- Place your vote for two inline images here with # ] 20:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) --> | <!-- Place your vote for two inline images here with # ] 20:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) --> | ||
| # Reasonable compromise; the rabbit and pigeon feces do not gross me out ] 20:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) | # Reasonable compromise; the rabbit and pigeon feces do not gross me out ] 20:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) | ||
| #:Should the pix on be deleted too, just because they might gross someone out? ] 00:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| # This is fine for now. However, images of fresh feces from other large mammals, like dogs, horses, or elephants, should probably also be put on a separate page. The criteria should be if it ''looks'' like it's very smelly, then it probably will invoke a disgust response in most people and should be on a separate page. The image page should remain prominently linked in the article so that those who are interested in such images will be able to easily find them. ] 20:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) | # This is fine for now. However, images of fresh feces from other large mammals, like dogs, horses, or elephants, should probably also be put on a separate page. The criteria should be if it ''looks'' like it's very smelly, then it probably will invoke a disgust response in most people and should be on a separate page. The image page should remain prominently linked in the article so that those who are interested in such images will be able to easily find them. ] 20:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) | ||
| #:Are you proposing a new rule on Misplaced Pages: that which looks stink-ridden, should be well hidden? ] 22:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) | #:Are you proposing a new rule on Misplaced Pages: that which looks stink-ridden, should be well hidden? ] 22:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 00:06, 5 June 2005
Shall we have an explicit photo?
Why is there no picture of fresh feces? I understand there are problems with obtaining legal pictures on other Misplaced Pages pages but obtaining a picture of fresh feces is probably one of the easiest things.
- The old photo before was small, petrified, and not characteristic of human feces. I have added a new photo which is more representative of a typical stool. Eyeon 05:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This is an article on feces. There is no shock value when one looks up 'feces' and finds... gasp... feces. I have also included pigeon and rabbit feces. Eyeon 06:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages policy supports not including shocking images in articles. Images of feces evoke a universal disgust response and these images are only being included here for their shock value. The images will be available on a separate page. Nohat
- I agree that the image should be linked, not included in the article itself as an inline image. Samboy 20:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- There are three images. Should all be censored? Eyeon 20:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If they were censored they would have been removed from Misplaced Pages. They were not. They were just moved to a different page. That is not censorship. Nohat 20:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Let's make this a poll.
- In general, anonymous votes do not count in Misplaced Pages polls. Nohat 00:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Do you wish to have, on this page:
All three images inline (on the page)
- Those who do not wish to see feces, should not search for it. 70.177.90.39 22:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for your deep observation, anon, however did you consider that someone might not know what the word "feces" means? Such a person might want to learn what the word means without having to look at a picture that they might find repulsive. Nohat 22:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Is this a poll or a debate? If a poll, then:
- Thank you for your deep observation, anon, however did you consider that someone might not know what the word "feces" means? Such a person might want to learn what the word means without having to look at a picture that they might find repulsive. Nohat 22:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The log of poo is A-OK. Eyeon 22:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for voting in the poll; hopefully more people will contribute to the poll Samboy 23:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
All images except the human feces inline; human feces linked
- Reasonable compromise; the rabbit and pigeon feces do not gross me out Samboy 20:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Should the pix on be deleted too, just because they might gross someone out? 70.177.90.39 00:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This is fine for now. However, images of fresh feces from other large mammals, like dogs, horses, or elephants, should probably also be put on a separate page. The criteria should be if it looks like it's very smelly, then it probably will invoke a disgust response in most people and should be on a separate page. The image page should remain prominently linked in the article so that those who are interested in such images will be able to easily find them. Nohat 20:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Are you proposing a new rule on Misplaced Pages: that which looks stink-ridden, should be well hidden? Eyeon 22:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This verson seems fine to me. Are we going to illustrate Everybody Poops? RickK 23:34, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
All three images linked
Remember the 3rr
I see some 3rr violations:
User:Eyeon: 1 2 3 4
User:Nohat: 1 2 3 4
I'm asking both parties to not revert this page again; otherwise I'll have to ask for both of you to have a mandated 24-hour cooling-off period. Samboy 00:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Reverting vandalism does not count toward the 3RR. Modifying the article against current consensus constitutes vandalism. Nohat 00:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)