| Revision as of 04:42, 2 September 2005 editHipocrite (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,615 edits →Bandwidth← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:47, 2 September 2005 edit undoMONGO (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers76,644 edits →BandwidthNext edit → | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| :The article isn't encyclopedic, the images act as advertising and having this garbage makes Misplaced Pages become nothing more than a porn emporium.--] 04:38, September 2, 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.--] 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? ] - ] 04:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC) | ::So you think a more dated picture is better than a more recent picture because the more recent picture has breasts? ] - ] 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 ] anyway.--] 04:47, September 2, 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:47, 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)