Talk:Ejaculation/Archive 1

message: Please sign your name by using 4 tildes (~) after your post it helps keep discusions clearer (See WP:SIG) Mike Beckham 13:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off Topic: Signing Signatures 

message: Pfffft, anyone got a kleenex? 81.179.124.89 20:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that would be better... but only as a link and not an image with a warning saying what it goes to--Acethebunny 15:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requires Cleanup 

message: Wasn't that just a tad bit preemptive? One revert and it's protected ... wow. The article needs a lot of work other than the image, and I don't think the dispute is all that heated right now. I'm not going to unprotect, but I'd appreciate if Alkivar would reconsider for the time being.AmiDaniel (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa, shouldn't be protected with that right on the top there. Let discussion go a while, and prtect after a while. Isn't protection punitive and not preventive? (I may be wrong, just asking) Chuck(척뉴넘) 04:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There are indeed likely to be kids reading this encyclopedia.  If we have a picture here they can see an ejaculation without surfing for porn.  I think that's actually a good example of the kind of thing an encyclopedia should be doing. --Tony Sidaway 04:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Utterly, utterly incorrect, in my view. An encyclopedia is here to educate, not titillate, and the article's initial aim (with the image present) is for the latter. Descriptions or even an inline link to those who wish to see the image will far better serve the purpose of education. RadioKirk talk to me 04:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me also add that the reaction to your assertion would be, "dude, we don't have to surf for porn, we'll just go to Wikipedia and claim 'research'!" RadioKirk talk to me 04:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guarantee that this image will ban more kids (by there parents) than it teaches. Chuck(척뉴넘) 04:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A picture says a thousand words, and can help illustrate something far better than words ever can. Besides, going to a page title "Ejaculation" will probably ban them regardless of the picture or lack thereof. The Ungovernable Force 04:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: (3rd edit conflict!) C'mon Tony you don't agree that there's possibly a better way to handle this? ('cuse the pun again :) Like giving the reader a choice or even (as TUF has suggested) even making the image so not-in-your-face-ish?? - Glen TC (Stollery) 04:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Did it, done it, read it (grin). However, "contains content you may find objectionable" is a far cry from "intentionally shoves it in your face". Also, please, please forgive me for finding your username unintentionally hilarious in context... :D RadioKirk talk to me 04:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, but the image and its presentation are two different things. And, it's bedtime, so I'll get off now... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 04:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, you're right, I can't... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 12:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors is just a disclaimer stating that we can't 100% control what gets posted here, and that minors should therefore browse Wikipedia under adult supervision.  The line drawings at List of sex positions are clinical in nature and set the right tone for what we do here.  A photograph would not be appropriate. Johntex\talk 15:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected? 

message: Protected? Give me a break; that image is pornography and is an example of someone abusing the system.  Put the damn image inline or link it, don't have it be the first thing you see when you come to the article; there are kids on this thing!!
--Julien Deveraux 04:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are indeed likely to be kids reading this encyclopedia.  If we have a picture here they can see an ejaculation without surfing for porn.  I think that's actually a good example of the kind of thing an encyclopedia should be doing. --Tony Sidaway 04:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Utterly, utterly incorrect, in my view. An encyclopedia is here to educate, not titillate, and the article's initial aim (with the image present) is for the latter. Descriptions or even an inline link to those who wish to see the image will far better serve the purpose of education. RadioKirk talk to me 04:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me also add that the reaction to your assertion would be, "dude, we don't have to surf for porn, we'll just go to Wikipedia and claim 'research'!" RadioKirk talk to me 04:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guarantee that this image will ban more kids (by there parents) than it teaches. Chuck(척뉴넘) 04:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A picture says a thousand words, and can help illustrate something far better than words ever can. Besides, going to a page title "Ejaculation" will probably ban them regardless of the picture or lack thereof. The Ungovernable Force 04:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: (3rd edit conflict!) C'mon Tony you don't agree that there's possibly a better way to handle this? ('cuse the pun again :) Like giving the reader a choice or even (as TUF has suggested) even making the image so not-in-your-face-ish?? - Glen TC (Stollery) 04:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Did it, done it, read it (grin). However, "contains content you may find objectionable" is a far cry from "intentionally shoves it in your face". Also, please, please forgive me for finding your username unintentionally hilarious in context... :D RadioKirk talk to me 04:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, but the image and its presentation are two different things. And, it's bedtime, so I'll get off now... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 04:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, you're right, I can't... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 12:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors is just a disclaimer stating that we can't 100% control what gets posted here, and that minors should therefore browse Wikipedia under adult supervision.  The line drawings at List of sex positions are clinical in nature and set the right tone for what we do here.  A photograph would not be appropriate. Johntex\talk 15:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further image discussion

message: I think we may need some input from the more experienced editors on this one. My view: while Wikipedia is not censored, neither is it shove-it-in-your-face hardcore porn. If the picture isn't gratuitous, its location certainly is. RadioKirk talk to me 03:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst not an admin (so perhaps not appropriate I voice my opinion here) I am by no stretch of the imagination prudish in any way; However, to suddenly find that image whilst browsing an encyclopedia? Personally I find it offensive and completely inappropriate. The simple question should be "does this add anything to the actual content from an informational aspect? The answer is a resounding NO. I believe some guy is probably "getting off" ('cuse the pun) at the fact his penis is splashed all over the 15th most popular website in the world. Get rid of it. Please. - Glen TC (Stollery) 04:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as I've suggested on the talk page, I think the image is descriptive and could be a helpful guide for someone completely unfamiliar with ejaculation, few as they may be. However, I certainly agree that the image should not be *right there* and am a proponent of displaying it inline, either forced through technical means or by choice. Anyway, please comment there, as right now it's just me against God O War. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have done so, and in fact I have also removed the picture. I am a 31 year old male, (who happens to enjoy pornography BTW) and suffice to say if I find the pic offensive then God help most of the population in general when they see it. Can we RfC this or something? - Glen TC (Stollery) 04:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Whilst I am here may I point out how ludicrious the Wikipedia is not censored for minors argument is. I completely agree with the sentiment, however why don't we have some graphic pictures of anal sex, the Dirty sanchez, Donkey punch and even pedophilia while we are at it? Its crazy to say just because we're not censored we should have graphic images throughout. - Glen TC (Stollery) 04:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, there are those of us who think we ought to have pictures, even "graphic" ones, in each of those articles as well (provided that they truly have an illustrative effect and are otherwise encyclopedic).  Joe 04:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I just deleted that image from it's nomination on WP:CSD as a copyw unknown image over a month, but may have done so in error.  If anyone still has the image and reuploads it with a valid copywrite status, I will not delete again. — Xaosflux 04:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! May I ask for some feedback as to how appropriate it was for an admin to revert an image that is obviously so controversial back into the article and then completely protect the article from editing by anyone other than sysops? Surely whilst there is no consensus an image that some find offensive should be removed until further discussion has taken place? And why the heck would full protection be placed after one' change has been made??? Anyone help me here? - Stollery 04:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Which sysop reverted the image into the article and then protected it?  --Tony Sidaway 04:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not taking sides, but to clarify what happened. One admin reverted it back, and then a different one protected it two minutes later. | (Chuck) 04:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes correct, my bad. Still the question remains, why the hell protect it with the controversial image included whilst discussion is still taking place? - Stollery 05:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The standard operating procedure in the case of a dispute is to protect the article. --Tony Sidaway 05:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When there is edit-warring over the article yes. I found the protection all to preemptive and have unprotected after long awaiting and not receiving a response from Alkivar. Consensus seems to be for unprotection. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I don't have a problem with your unprotection; the situation had moved on.  I think Alkivar did the right thing by protecting early (I asked on the admin channel).  I think once you get into removing and replacing images it's a pretty volatile situation (editors have been sanctions for removing images) and so protection is a useful tool in such cases because it focuses attention on discussion rather than the outrage that was being expressed to various degrees  prior to protection.. --Tony Sidaway 05:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion from [[WP:AN]] 

message: The caption needs to be changed, but the page is protected. Can an admin do it please? The Ungovernable Force 04:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Image

message: The old cum.JPG was deleted and I accidentally added a new picture with the same name. The new picture should be :Image:Ejaculation.gif. Please make it that and unprotect, since this should solve edit warring. Chuck(척뉴넘) 04:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Edit warring"?! One change was made! - Glen TC (Stollery) 05:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I should have said potential edit warring, see my comment above that I thought it wasn't warranted. Chuck(척뉴넘) 05:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WOW a movie!  Cool!  However, I'm a little disappointed that the moving blue line doesn't explode out of the penis whale-blow-hole-like at the end.  Also, why is the penis flaccid?  It's not very common for ejaculation to occur when the penis is not erect...  Exploding Boy 04:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Haha, "Exploding Boy" wants it to explode (no insult, just comical:) ) I think this is better than before, can someone please change the picture and the caption. Thanks. Chuck(척뉴넘) 04:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: LOL @ Exploding Boy as well. That was really comical... :D -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Eah, sometimes strange things happen. Regardless, this picture illustrates pretty good the "process", aside form the erectlessness. However, I didn't create the picture, and wouldn't know how to change a gif. In any case, the picture should be that itty bitty thing that I acidentally upload to cum.JPG. Chuck(척뉴넘) 05:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "itty bitty thing" - I thought you were referring to the old pic and I was cracking up lol :) How does one accidently load a pic under the wrong name? - Glen TC (Stollery) 05:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I clicked on the red image link and it took me to the upload a file page. I uploaded the new file and didn't realize that it kept the Cum.JPG in the filename field (normally it changes it to the filename from your computer). Chuck(척뉴넘) 05:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see said the blind man :) Thanks for the reply - Glen TC (Stollery) 05:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree a better diagram is needed, and I also don't fell like looking, however, I feel that this is a good stop-gap measure until someone can find one. Chuck(척뉴넘) 05:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Picture 

message: What do you think of this [Edit: unfree, oops], or a cleaned up version of it?  Seems to have all the information the current diagram has, with fewer flaws. LizardWizard @ 07:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that better I think. I'm not a big fan of animated gifs in articles honestly; I find them distracting. This one I could support. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Is it free? --Rory096 07:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this is better. Chcknwnm (Chuck) 07:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's free. --Rory096 07:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I forgot to check that whole freedom thing.  Whoopsies.  I'll look into it, but I doubt it. LWizard @ 07:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the slowest server in the world just coughed up their copyright notice.  Sorry. LizardWizard @ 07:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Remember that a specific copyright notice is not necessary to make a picture non-free.  All pictures on the net and elsewhere must be presumed to be non-free unless a statement of authorship and a release for general publication under GFDL-compatible terms can be located. --Tony Sidaway 14:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right, but once I find a copyright notice I stop looking for the statement of authorship and release. LWizard @ 19:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And, I could even make the "blue worms" red green black white even :) Just a thought anyway - Glen TC (Stollery) 20:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You probably shouldn't put too much effort into it until the copyright status of the source image is resolved. FreplySpang 23:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you want a free image of penis to start with (and then modify), I suggest this one from the NIH. LWizard @ 02:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the new one supposed to be animated? If not the caption reading "shoing the path of semen" is misleading, as it only shows the anatomy of the male area. Chuck(contrib) 07:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An alternative image

message: I could make this (first slide) into the same animated image exactly same size and amination as the image on the page now, but with the penis more "at attention" - what are your thoughts? Again, not ideal but at least a tad more realistic? - Glen TC (Stollery) 20:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, I could even make the "blue worms" red green black white even :) Just a thought anyway - Glen TC (Stollery) 20:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You probably shouldn't put too much effort into it until the copyright status of the source image is resolved. FreplySpang 23:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you want a free image of penis to start with (and then modify), I suggest this one from the NIH. LWizard @ 02:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the new one supposed to be animated? If not the caption reading "shoing the path of semen" is misleading, as it only shows the anatomy of the male area. Chuck(contrib) 07:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another possible alternative image

message: This article really needs some work. For example, am I the only one who thinks the statement  is ridiculous? Isn't that what we told girls in our teens? (right along with the pain associated with being aroused without orgas, lol). Serously, I know from personal experience that this is a load of rubbish, but after my last edit was reverted in under 60 seconds I aint touching this one! Thoughts? - [[User:Stollery|] 20:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An enormous amount of tripe is talked about ejaculation.   Delete the nonsense.  Of course when you start ejaculation you feel as if it's the most important thing in the world, but in the course of a long lifetime with a hit rate of somewhat more than 1.0 I've had enough (intriguing hiatus inserted for dramatic effect) interrupted ejaculations to establish that the worst one can expect to happen is an abnormal interest in programming computers. --Tony Sidaway 03:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, that is abnormal! Yeah, the painful thing is stupid. The Ungovernable Force 07:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Or when you do, how it comes out in two directions? --Disavian 03:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving away from the pic for a moment...