Goatse on WP Options

[Somey]

We don't do drop down boxes in articles (an exception being navboxes) because printers don't handle them properly.

I would think the last thing you'd want to do with that image is print it!

How about a scrollbox? They do that for panoramics, like this one for Victoria Crater on Mars... You could add some whitespace to one side of the image, maybe with a disclaimer in it saying "don't scroll this thing if you have a weak consititution," and then put it in a scrollbox so that it maybe just showed one edge of the image (so that people would know there was something there).

[Apathetic]

We don't do drop down boxes in articles (an exception being navboxes) because printers don't handle them properly.

I would think the last thing you'd want to do with that image is print it!

How about a scrollbox? They do that for panoramics, like this one for Victoria Crater on Mars... You could add some whitespace to one side of the image, maybe with a disclaimer in it saying "don't scroll this thing if you have a weak consititution," and then put it in a scrollbox so that it maybe just showed one edge of the image (so that people would know there was something there).

heh =]

Not sure about the scrollbox idea - it's innovative and clever, but you know how people take to disclaimers in articles. (or if you don't, I'll just say that they're generally always against it).

Moving it "below the fold" is probably something that might stick - but I'm not sure the article can be stretched enough for those of us with bigger monitors.

This whole thing gives me rorschach deja vu.

This post has been edited by Apathetic: Wed 10th February 2010, 7:54pm

[Tarc]

Having an article about an offensive image without actually showing what the image is is simply nonsensical. You're retreading your tired "think of the children" shtick. Again.

Just because it's tired doesn't make it non-valid or irrelevant...

That's kinda the essence of the "beating a dead horse" saying.

but I'm not sure the article can be stretched enough

Agreed; it's stretched enough as it is.

[Somey]

That's kinda the essence of the "beating a dead horse" saying.

Right, but I was serious about the bad-dreams aspect of it. Another thing you have to consider is that small children might look at that and think, "is my butthole supposed to look like that?" And they might then try to make their buttholes look like that, which could result in severe injuries, costly medical bills, inability to sit down, things of that nature.

So, dead horse or no, I believe it has to be stated, if only "for the record."

Agreed; it's stretched enough as it is.

You guys collaborated on that joke, didn't you? I smell setup...

[Apathetic]

Agreed; it's stretched enough as it is.

You guys collaborated on that joke, didn't you? I smell setup...

no collabs but it was an intentional pun that I put out there =p

This post has been edited by Apathetic: Wed 10th February 2010, 8:53pm

[GlassBeadGame]

Old disputes never die, they just get reborn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Med...01-12/Goatse.cx

More from the Toyota of Encyclopedias (gas petal sticks and breaks don't work). Another round of wack-a-mole with the WP:Notcensored folks. Voluntary restraint, taste and discretion is impossible with atomized content creation and open licensing. Add a pinch of internet meme obsession and the immature nerds are good to go.

Having an article about an offensive image without actually showing what the image is is simply nonsensical. You're retreading your tired "think of the children" shtick. Again.

Oh? Are you going to delete the article or fill it up with "relevant" pics? Clueless as ever.

[Sceptre]

Old disputes never die, they just get reborn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Med...01-12/Goatse.cx

More from the Toyota of Encyclopedias (gas petal sticks and breaks don't work). Another round of wack-a-mole with the WP:Notcensored folks. Voluntary restraint, taste and discretion is impossible with atomized content creation and open licensing. Add a pinch of internet meme obsession and the immature nerds are good to go.

Having an article about an offensive image without actually showing what the image is is simply nonsensical. You're retreading your tired "think of the children" shtick. Again.

Oh? Are you going to delete the article or fill it up with "relevant" pics? Clueless as ever.

Child pornography is illegal. I doubt Goatse is; whether it's illegal under obscenity laws is probably related to whether (adult) pornography is, and I don't think that much normal pornography (for sufficiently flexible values of "normal) is.

[GlassBeadGame]

Old disputes never die, they just get reborn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Med...01-12/Goatse.cx

More from the Toyota of Encyclopedias (gas petal sticks and breaks don't work). Another round of wack-a-mole with the WP:Notcensored folks. Voluntary restraint, taste and discretion is impossible with atomized content creation and open licensing. Add a pinch of internet meme obsession and the immature nerds are good to go.

Having an article about an offensive image without actually showing what the image is is simply nonsensical. You're retreading your tired "think of the children" shtick. Again.

Oh? Are you going to delete the article or fill it up with "relevant" pics? Clueless as ever.

Child pornography is illegal. I doubt Goatse is; whether it's illegal under obscenity laws is probably related to whether (adult) pornography is, and I don't think that much normal pornography (for sufficiently flexible values of "normal) is.

You have no idea how non-responsive that is to the argument of the post, do you? Under "Tarc's claim an article about images "without actually showing the image" is "nonsensical." Child pornography cannot legally be displayed. Therefore, following his reasoning, there should be no article on child pornography.

[Tarc]

Old disputes never die, they just get reborn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Med...01-12/Goatse.cx

More from the Toyota of Encyclopedias (gas petal sticks and breaks don't work). Another round of wack-a-mole with the WP:Notcensored folks. Voluntary restraint, taste and discretion is impossible with atomized content creation and open licensing. Add a pinch of internet meme obsession and the immature nerds are good to go.

Having an article about an offensive image without actually showing what the image is is simply nonsensical. You're retreading your tired "think of the children" shtick. Again.

Oh? Are you going to delete the article or fill it up with "relevant" pics? Clueless as ever.

Child pornography is illegal. I doubt Goatse is; whether it's illegal under obscenity laws is probably related to whether (adult) pornography is, and I don't think that much normal pornography (for sufficiently flexible values of "normal) is.

You have no idea how non-responsive that is to the argument of the post, do you? Under "Tarc's claim an article about images "without actually showing the image" is "nonsensical." Child pornography cannot legally be displayed. Therefore, following his reasoning, there should be no article on child pornography.

"Goatse" is the name of a specific image. "Child pornography" is a general term for explicitly illegal sexual images of minors.

Do I need to poke your Analogy Balloon a bit further, or is it sufficiently deflated?

[GlassBeadGame]

"Goatse" is the name of a specific image. "Child pornography" is a general term for explicitly illegal sexual images of minors.

Do I need to poke your Analogy Balloon a bit further, or is it sufficiently deflated?

Weak.

[Tarc]

"Goatse" is the name of a specific image. "Child pornography" is a general term for explicitly illegal sexual images of minors.

Do I need to poke your Analogy Balloon a bit further, or is it sufficiently deflated?

Weak.

Nice dodge, but one really has nothing to do with the other. If someone goes to the goatse article, they should expect to see what the fuss is all about. But child porn? No, I don't believe an image is necessary there any more than an actual dead body in the article for Murder (T-H-L-K-D) to understand the concept.

[taiwopanfob]

"Goatse" is the name of a specific image. "Child pornography" is a general term for explicitly illegal sexual images of minors.

Do I need to poke your Analogy Balloon a bit further, or is it sufficiently deflated?

Weak.

Nice dodge, but one really has nothing to do with the other. If someone goes to the goatse article, they should expect to see what the fuss is all about. But child porn? No, I don't believe an image is necessary there any more than an actual dead body in the article for Murder (T-H-L-K-D) to understand the concept.

I'll add to GBG's "weak", with "completely irrelevant". Stick to the point, perhaps?

Such as it is, at least: yours is an indefensible position. The Project has a number of articles about famous libel cases that manage to communicate what "the fuss is all about", without actually presenting the video (Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto), or a scan of a newspaper article (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan) containing the actual libels.

Note how this sort of thing works for Child Pornography. And most other subjects, be they specific or general.

The only difference here is that videos of a lawyer speaking to a bunch of journalists, or some yellowing newspaper copy aren't going to upset old laides in Iowa, are they? Once again, the fucktards at the project would rather shock readers ... "because we can!" It's the drama! More and more of it!

[Tarc]

"Goatse" is the name of a specific image. "Child pornography" is a general term for explicitly illegal sexual images of minors.

Do I need to poke your Analogy Balloon a bit further, or is it sufficiently deflated?

Weak.

Nice dodge, but one really has nothing to do with the other. If someone goes to the goatse article, they should expect to see what the fuss is all about. But child porn? No, I don't believe an image is necessary there any more than an actual dead body in the article for Murder (T-H-L-K-D) to understand the concept.

I'll add to GBG's "weak", with "completely irrelevant". Stick to the point, perhaps?

I am quite on point, chief. It is you and the other "OMG we me must think of the children!" halfwit bringing up false analogies to kiddie porn.

It's dumb to have an article on a shock image and not show the...wait for it...image. When you can address that point directly, do get back to me.

[Sceptre]

It's been deleted again, and sent to DRV. Odds are that the deletion will be endorsed for a reason unrelated to the deletion at all, because people just don't like it. Sheesh, there are rules for a reason.

[Somey]

Sheesh, there are rules for a reason.

Right, because if they supplied the users with real cudgels, they still wouldn't be able to beat people over the head with them if they should foolishly believe in trying not to offend others. We've been over that.

It's dumb to have an article on a shock image and not show the...wait for it...image. When you can address that point directly, do get back to me.

Is it "addressing that point directly" to remind you that the "it's dumb" part is entirely a matter of opinion, and you haven't told us what your own opinion is based on, other than disdain for people who "think of the children"?

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

More from the Toyota of Encyclopedias (gas petal sticks and breaks don't work). Another round of wack-a-mole ...

I missed this one on first reading. Its very funny.

It appears the problem with Toyotas arose from the users applying their foot to BOTH the gas pedal and brakes at the same time. The analogy still continues to work for the Porno-pedia though.

Was it not in the 19th C when lunatic asylums used to be open for the public to view the inmate for the sake of entertainment ... I guess it became tiresome too after a while but the owners did make a few Francs out of it whilst it was fashionable.

I am increasing grateful to realize which side of the spectacle I am engaging in.

[Tarc]

Is it "addressing that point directly" to remind you that the "it's dumb" part is entirely a matter of opinion, and you haven't told us what your own opinion is based on, other than disdain for people who "think of the children"?

My opinion is based on the old 2600 ideal of "information wants to be free".

[Apathetic]

even as the 'overturns' lead by a gaping wide margin, ze God King has spoken

Endorse - copyvio, non-encyclopedic, and - well - please --Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The NFCC claim has been a popular herring among the endorses, though their votes really ought be "keep deleted - but change the reason".

I myself can't stand to but glance at the image for a few milliseconds, but if we're going to have an article on the world's most notable anus, we very-well ought to show it!

This post has been edited by Apathetic: Tue 23rd March 2010, 12:26am

[Eva Destruction]

Endorse - copyvio, non-encyclopedic, and - well - please --Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Trans: "An enormous asshole on Wikipedia? This guy's trying to steal my job!"

[Newyorkbrad]

even as the 'overturns' lead by a gaping wide margin, ze God King has spoken

Endorse - copyvio, non-encyclopedic, and - well - please --Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The NFCC claim has been a popular herring among the endorses, though their votes really ought be "keep deleted - but change the reason".

I myself can't stand to but glance at the image for a few milliseconds, but if we're going to have an article on the world's most notable anus, we very-well ought to show it!

I find myself forced to withhold my opinion on-wiki in disputes like this because of the possibility that they some aspect of them may come to arbitration. I refer to this occasionally as the Miltopia Effect, after the former WR contributor who predicted that exactly this would happen.