Talk:Feces/Archive 1

message: The prevailing opinion seems to be to include the photograph of human feces (even if you remove the alleged voting irregularities.) However, those who opposed the image in the past are now placing  the image at the bottom of the page and reducing the size to a thumbnail. Two new issues arise: (1) SIZE of photo and (2) PLACEMENT of photo. NOTE: The following poll is NOT to debate inclusion of the photo. For that debate, SCROLL DOWN. If you do not believe the photo should be included on the page at all, DO NOT VOTE IN THIS POLL. -- LittleRedRidingHood 00:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prevailing opinion 

message: ==== Normal size (200px) ====
# LittleRedRidingHood 00:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VOTE HERE ON SIZE. The photo size should be:

message: # LittleRedRidingHood 00:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Normal size (200px) 

message: ==== Top ====
# LittleRedRidingHood 00:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VOTE HERE ON PLACEMENT. The photo should be at or near the:

message: # LittleRedRidingHood 00:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top 

message: Why is there no picture of fresh feces? I understand there are problems with obtaining legal pictures on other Wikipedia 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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 Wikipedia. --Barfooz (talk) 06:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: out of context? where might the proper context be? Eyeon 23:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: No, it is not. Nothing in Wikipedia is really necessary. Least of all necessary is your question, which you could have avoided asking, if you had actually read the debate. Eyeon 16:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured I'd get the "if you actually read the debate" response.  I was, as you can clearly see, too lazy to read all of it. --Der Sporkmeister 16:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Or any of it. Why are you here? Eyeon 16:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He's here because it's a free encyclopedia. --DanielCD 17:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One point for DanielCD. --Der Sporkmeister 17:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shall there be photos of feces?

message: : This poll smells bad. --cesarb 21:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: This vote was changed from its original context. See  for the real vote. Nowhere I said my vote was against the poll itself, and I object to it being included here. --cesarb 12:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how my edit changed the meaning of your vote. If you think it did, then  what WAS your meaning? Eyeon 14:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a "joke vote". Joke votes do not have any meaning. It was not a vote against the poll itself. Your change added meaning where previously there was none. --cesarb 00:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes against the poll itself

message: #What is this poll about again?--Clawed 13:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncategorised votes

message: Where's the steaming pile of horse manure picture? BlankVerse ∅ 11:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now posted under manure. Eyeon 15:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good to see the large pile of steaming horse manure added to the manure article, but I was thinking more on the lines of the individual horse plops that I remembered maneuvering around (and occasionally stepping in) during parades when I was in the school marching band. It would be nice to find a good picture of that, plus an appropriate picture to add to the cow pie article. (and now if I could only remember where I saw the picture of the dolphin pooping in a dolphinarium...) BlankVerse ∅  10:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a contribution would be welcome. Don't forget to vote in the poll above. 70.177.90.39 10:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Shall we expand upon the photos?

message: "re: Coprophagia is the extremely hazardous practice of eating feces." If the person who wrote that had read the Coprophagia article, they would have found out that,  for example, "Rabbits, cavies and related species have a digestive system adapted for coprophagia." The line needs to be qualified, or deleted. BlankVerse ∅ 12:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When the page is unprotected, that line could be qualified as follows: Coprophagia is the practice of eating feces; however, some animals with a high-fiber/low-protein diet (such as rabbits) eat their own feces as a normal part of metabolism. Plant matter the animal consumes is digested in two passes, with the product of the first pass re-ingested directly from the anus. After the material is re-digested, the actual waste that remains is excreted and left alone. Jeeves 21:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have unprotected it, go on with that edit. --cesarb 22:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Coprophagia, or Why Eating Poop Is Not Always Bad

message: I've blocked Eyeon and his sockpuppet for a 3RR violation, but I've also protected the page in case more sockpuppets arrive. If any regular editor wants to edit, drop me a note on my talk page, and I'll unprotect. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:04, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Bold text
:I have no sockpuppets. I asked you to run an IP check and investigate but you refused. I expect niglet and fecologist are going to be hugely pissed off that you disabled their accounts. I had to get another admin to look into it and un-block me. Furthermore, it is outrageous that you would abuse your adminship to lock up and control the content of the article. I am an editor in good standing. I would like to edit. I am formally requesting you unprotect the page so I may contribute. Eyeon 23:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: People, please read WP:AN/3RR#User:Eyeon_and_User:70.177.90.39 Samboy 01:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: That is my IP address. When I forget to log in, my edits get stamped with that. When I go back to sign with my Eyeon ID, I get accused of vote fraud. Eyeon 02:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: No, I was unblocked and editing before the original 24 hour block expired. Check it out. Eyeon 23:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Blocking edits to control content is an unconscionable abuse of position as an admin. SlimVirgin is using her adminship to censor a contribution to the article that she doesn't like. She won't let others edit, and she zapped two newbies. Admins are not supposed to use their authority to interfere in content disputes. This behavior is a hell of a lot more offensive than any photo. Eyeon 00:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are encouraged to file an RfC on her; there is a special place on WP:RfC for complaints about administrator abuse. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, once User:Eyeon tries filing a RFC, I am sure a number of editors will come to his defence.  Any such attempt will just make User:Eyeon look worse. Samboy 01:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not afraid of looking bad. I'm gathering evidence and will file an RfC. Eyeon 01:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest walking down the street with a big sign saying "Kick me" would probably be less time-consuming and will gain you the same satisfaction. Grace Note 04:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protected

message: User:Eyeon has been kicking up a fuss elsewhere about this page being protected. Can the editors on this page, other than Eyeon, let me know whether there's a consensus to start editing again? Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 21:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
:The important point here is that there is not a consensus to keep the image out of the article. Therefore, I would appreciate if you could be kind enough to unprotect the article and/or reinstate the disputed image. Thank you. Eric B. and Rakim 21:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin has already received a request to unprotect from User:SPUI and she has ignored it, despite her earlier promise to unprotect it when any 'regular' editor asked. Eyeon 21:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus query

message: Another admin has removed the page protection. Eyeon 22:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No query nece ssary

message: How about this instead. Eyeon 01:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it might be a little less disturbing to some people. --Der Sporkmeister 01:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Kinda silly. LittleRedRidingHood 20:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: This is rediculous. If the pic shouldn't be shown, it shouldn't be shown. Showing a crappier version of the crap is definitely unencyclopedic. --Phroziac (talk) 20:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate image 

message: How about a neat little text box. Eyeon 04:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why hide poo? LittleRedRidingHood 20:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacing with text box