Talk:Anal bleaching

message: There seems to be an edit war going on, deleting and adding the images in this article. There is a note that says "the current consensus is for this article to have images" but I don't see any discussion of the topic. Should we keep or delete these pictures? I'll start.
*Keep We know that Wikipedia is not censored, so obscenity is clearly not a valid reason to delete. I don't object to the images - they obviously show what the article is talking about. I'm not positive they're really necessary, but I don't see any reason not to have them. Conical Johnson (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I was going mostly on assumption that this had been argued before, because of the tag and the fact that this article had been nominated for deletion previously. I went back through the history and it's clear that there's no war, just a couple of reverts, as you said. I'll let you and Fred discuss this further, as intellectual property isn't my thing. Conical Johnson (talk) 05:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, now, I'm going to go ahead and call this an edit war. Some consensus needs to happen here. Those who keep adding the photos (Fred on another computer?), please explain your reasoning. Conical Johnson (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images - keep or delete? 

message: We really need one. (I'm serious) 220.246.155.48 (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with 220.246.155.48 that when such before and after photos of the same person become available, they would be more desirable than images of two different people. If they also happened to be more clinical in nature, all the better. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before+after image 

message: The Gender Gap Task Force was notified of this article, and the notifier did this not 10 minutes before voting on the images. Tutelary (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Notification of GGTF complies fully with WP:CANVASS – Appropriate notification: An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: ... A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline discussions. GGTF was set up to increase the number of female editors, which in turn should and will have a wider impact on Wikipedia. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 06:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anal bleaching. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150123171201/http://safecosmetics.org/article.php?id=289 to http://safecosmetics.org/article.php?id=289
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Anal bleaching. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150123161258/http://www.nextmagazine.com/content/once-you-go-white to http://www.nextmagazine.com/content/once-you-go-white
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150123180529/http://www.thefactsabout.org.uk/content.asp?menuid=32&submenuid=136&pageid=136&menuname=Skin+lightening+products&menu=sub to http://www.thefactsabout.org.uk/content.asp?menuid=32&submenuid=136&pageid=136&menuname=Skin+lightening+products&menu=sub
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What was the consensus? Someone removed the image I added, shouldn’t we have an image depicting the result of Anal Bleaching? 
Sprucecopse (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a picture which a reliable source has verified shows the results of anal bleaching? Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus seems to be that images need to show the result otherwise it's just pornographic with no value. WP:VERIFY does not apply to images unless they also contain research matter or diagrams and illustrations conveying such so I'll welcome anyone that can upload a picture and reasonably state it's before and after. Biofase flame| stalk  13:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: A user keeps on reverting these changing the reason for doing so. First it was that mentions are not encyclopedic or notable. Then it changed into the sources not being adequate when it appears they mostly are. There seems to be a consensus they should stay though. Biofase flame| stalk  01:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The text was (diff) "" with a few website refs. That is trivial content from primary sources and facebook. Readers can use Google to find where something is mentioned—that is not encyclopedic content. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing this frankly. Johnbod (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you're referring to with not seeing it. Biofase flame| stalk  02:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentions