Misplaced Pages

Talk:Feces: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:10, 5 June 2005 editNohat (talk | contribs)Administrators11,044 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 00:11, 5 June 2005 edit undo70.177.90.39 (talk) →Remember the []Next edit →
Line 64: Line 64:


:Reverting vandalism does not count toward the 3RR. Modifying the article against current consensus constitutes vandalism. ] 00:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Reverting vandalism does not count toward the 3RR. Modifying the article against current consensus constitutes vandalism. ] 00:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::Nohat has a special rule for himself, apparently. I count 6 now.

Revision as of 00:11, 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)
Sigh... Is this really necessary? Is there any reason that you have taken a picture of your dung other than for shock value? I'm going to shrink this so it's a little less visually putrid. --Barfooz (talk) 05:54, 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)
Sometimes you have to step back, take a look at yourself, and realize that you are arguing about posting a picture of a turd. Fine, have your turd. I'm off to better-smelling areas of Misplaced Pages. --Barfooz (talk) 06:41, 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)

  1. 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:
  2. 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

  1. Reasonable compromise; the rabbit and pigeon feces do not gross me out Samboy 20:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Should the pix on anus be deleted too, just because they might gross someone out? 70.177.90.39 00:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    This isn't about anus—it's about feces. The same criteria do not apply. Nohat 00:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
Nohat has a special rule for himself, apparently. I count 6 now.