Talk:Penis/Archive 3

message: I wasn't too surprised to find the discussion of phimosis a teensy bit doom-laden.    It can be a serious condition.  However I've never once been able to retract my foreskin, and have a perfectly healthy penis.  The condition is not painful, indeed the foreskin is quite sensitive but is amply elastic and provides enough freedom for masturbation and sexual intercourse. --Minority Report 00:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phimosis 

message: I can't understand why Jakew removed a quote about the legal concerns of Australian medical authorities about routine infant circumcision. Perhaps he could explain why. Michael Glass 04:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Right or wrong, the viewpoint exists.  The article should reflect that view without judging it as incorrect.  Making a judgement in neither direction is perfectly neutral.  DanP 19:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal concerns

message: Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images: “This is a proposal to regulate the policy on graphic images that could be potentially disturbing to Wikipedia users. The policy shall be discussed for a period of two weeks, also giving users a chance to draft their own policy proposals, and the voting will start on December 15 and last for one week.” For anyone who is disturbed by penis, clitoris, or any other body parts (including fingernails covered with certain shades of nail polish), that discussion and a subsequent voting seems to be a good place to voice your opinion in a way more reasonable than vandalism and edit wars like the one that is taking place on Clitoris. Rafał Pocztarski 06:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Images of penis' are neither graphic nor disturbing. They are anatomical, scientific, correct and appropriate. Roughly half of the population has a penis, hence sees daily. --Oldak Quill 20:31, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: A refresher in logic.  It is always important to quantify statements. It does not follow from the fact that some people are or do X that all people are or do X.  Peanuts may be deadly to some people, but we do not put them beyond the reach of all people for that reason. 金 (Kim) 05:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disturbing images

message: I am interested to hear from anyone who can make head or tail out of the pathetic excuse for a depiction of the raphe. But I suppose it's inclusion will be defended to the death. Really sad for Wikipedia. - Robert the Bruce 07:16, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 	The raphe pic - a new low for Wikipedia	

message: I deleted the entire section Penis size myths & legends, which was a duplicate of info in the penis size article. That article has been edited to improve the discussion. -Willmcw 01:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right to remove this 'mysterious air' business. It seems rather nutty to me. - Jakew 00:45, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Penis size myths & legends

message: Please could someone explain why the following paragraph (as edited by myself) is under "Fears and Reassurances"? It isn't remotely associated with either. Unless someone can justify its inclusion in that section, it should either be moved to a different section or removed altogether.
:In childhood, according to the study Paediatric penile trauma, male circumcision is the most common form of genital trauma; it occurred in two-thirds of the physical traumas examined (El-Bahnasawy 2002) [3]
- Jakew 12:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: El-Bahnsawy

message: Is there any official term for when the penis gets cutoff (not circumcission, but cut from ballsack)? --SuperDude 13:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  cutoff penises 

message: I've removed this text:
::This article cover the male organ penis. For the town in Uruguay, see Penis, Uruguay
... because there is currently no article about the town. In fact, Google didn't find anything about the town, so I am not sure it exists. If anyone thinks it does exist and needs a link from here, please write a stub article at Penis, Uruguay before putting the link back. Thanks.  FreplySpang (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed link to [[Penis, Uruguay]] 

message: A list of (slang and other) names for the human penis has twice been rejected for this article.  However, List of names for the human penis has twice been nominated for deletion and twice it has been suggested during the discussion that it be merged here.  There are both an article and a thesaurus entry for penis at Wiktionary (WikiSaurus:penis and penis).  I propose the same solution here as was long since adopted by cannabis (drug) to keep the long list of slang words out of that article, namely links to the Wiktionary article and Wikisaurus entry.  Please come to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of names for the human penis (2nd nomination) and discuss. Uncle G 12:13:41, 2005-08-02 (UTC)
why is this done?  I personal feel that this is information that might be needed but thats just my say!  68.49.59.129
:Lists of names are now in Body parts slang. -Willmcw 21:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of names for the human penis 

message: I have protected this page due to constant vandalism.  Please notice that: 1)Protection is not endorsement of the current version; 2)This is a temporary measure, and the article will not remain protected forever.  Regards, Redux 20:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?? Yesterday there were just two, minor, completely separate incidents of vandalism. There's no revert war going on. If we block pages which are, by their very nature, targets of vandalism, when would they ever be unblocked? There were far more incidents of vandalism on George W. Bush in that same period. — Asbestos | Talk  (RFC) 11:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then maybe request that article for page protection? — CuaHL 12:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my point is the opposite: there is no reason to protect George W. Bush, and no reason to protect Penis. The vandalisms will never stop, so once the page is unprotected they will merely start up again at the same rate. Protection is supposed to enforce a cooling-off period between warring parties, and encourage talk-page usage. Somehow I doubt that this will cause the 13-year-olds to post talk-page messages saying "But I really think the article ought to include "Penis is for sex 1111 oneone fff lol rofl on your face"" (one recent vandalism). — Asbestos | Talk  (RFC) 12:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, anyway, I've made a comment at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Protection for targets of vandalism?. — Asbestos | Talk  (RFC) 12:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said in the discussion started by Asbestos, this protection does seem to serve a purpose.  Please visit the indicated page for more details.  On this particular instance: would you guys prefer I unprotect the page now, or keep it protected over the weekend?  For a first time, a 24-hour protection (which has already been exceeded) is the standard, but it's always best to check with the people who have been dealing with the problem the longest.  Regards, Redux 00:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: I reomved some explict images I saw in tha article.
:I put them back.  There has been extensive discussion about the images in the article.  Please read this page and discuss changes before removing the pictures.  Joyous  (talk) 20:40, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
I think the explicit image of an erect and flaccid penis should be removed...why does the article need images of the actual organ when there's a diagram? Even if that argument doesn't work, why show the erect penis? What educational purpose does that serve?
:Because a diagram is not the actual organ. There is absolutely nothing wrong with showing a natural part of the human body in an encyclopedic and non-prurient manner. FCYTravis 08:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  All of this raises the question of what those who are offended by the photos expect to see when they come to an article entitled "Penis".  A picture of a pony?  This has been hashed out ad-infinitum.  Pictures of the penis are absolutely appropriate as long as (1) they illustrate some point in the article well, (2) they are technically good pictures, and (3) the article is better and more useful with them than without them.  The existing pictures, I think, meet all of those criteria.  "Explicit" is not sufficient criteria to remove images, because Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Nandesuka 13:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  images 

message: can somebody please fix this as I don't know how. It is not displaying correctly in the article (at least on my web browser)
 ===Altering the male genitalia===
 
 
 
 A circumcised penis pictured right
 
 
--Clawed 05:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  wiki markup - need help 

message: This image was recently used for vandalism at Hurricane Katrina. While I support its inlining in this article, I don't think an image of this size should be provided to vandals so easily - note that :Image:Circpn.jpg and :Image:Uncircpn.jpg are already on MediaWiki:Bad image list. So, I think that this should be put on the bad image list, a smaller version (the size of the thumbnail in the article) uploaded and inlined in the article, and the large version linked to from the caption. Comments? ~~ N (t/c) 17:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: from  "temporary addition of :Image:Circpn.jpg to block a persistent vandal" "add :Image:Uncircpn.jpg as well"--Clawed 22:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Sure they would, but 100 tiny penises has nowhere near the impact on the viewer (and anyone else in the room) as 1 huge one. Oh, and now that circpn and uncircpn are off the bad image list, I propose the same thing for them. ~~ N (t/c) 00:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't hurt to give it try I suppose. Theresa Knott  (a tenth stroke) 05:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just didit. It now looks colder, less pornographic and it is only 25% the original size (half resolution, that is). I also removed the "red light" ambience which only added to the image's bad reputation :-) --Shadi nija 22:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care for the new image.  The pic on the left, especially, looks blurred and cartoonish.  Joyous  (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

text: How about you try it again with only scaling, no filtering? (And scale it in a good program, like Photoshop or GIMP, if you can - not Paint). ~~ N (t/c) 03:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did scale in Photoshop CS2, but I also applied some extreme graduation curves... I'll try again right now. --Shadi nija 08:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Flaccid and erect human penis.jpg]] too big