Talk:Lolicon/Archive 3

message: Are there no lolicon covers that don't have a half-naked girl holding a dildo bear on the cover? Another cover is also a reasonable solution to the argument.--Prosfilaes 21:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this cover is bad for a lolicon representation, considering loli's all about erotic depictions of girls; anything else wouldn't be very illuminating. At least it's not based in sadism. // paroxysm (n) 22:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What about this? // paroxysm (n) 01:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmm... nice find paroxysm, 'tis a lot better (tho methinks it is still illegal... well at least in SA). Mikkerpikker ... 02:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No dildo, but it has frontal nudity... and partners... who look like twins... incest?  Still, I support the idea, anyway.  Finding a better cover is a tough job, in my estimation. EthanL 03:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the frontal nudity would be a source of conflict, although IMHO it's better than what we have now. In a week or so I might try to find another replacement. Ashibaka tock 06:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I searched on the same site that Paroxysm found, and came across several covers which have no obvious nudity. For example this one, , which is even called the "Lolita Complex Anthology". -Will Beback 19:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a description, not the title, by the way. DreamGuy 03:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If there's no objection, I'll go ahead and swap the images. -Will Beback 03:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can certainly ADD an image, but I am opposed to removing the one currently here just to satisfy some people who are easily offended. They don't have enough votes for a consensus anyway, best to ignore them instead of violating the policy on censorship. Besides, Jimbo is top dog here and we know HE's not opposed to pornography. DreamGuy 03:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no consensus to show the current image. If you want to get Jimbo's opinion on the exisintg Lolicon image please do so. I doubt he'd be as supportivce as you expect. -Will Beback 04:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not how consensus works. If a clear consensus (typically 2/3s or more of votes) cannot be established, then it defaults to the status quo: the way the article has been up to this point, which clearly DID have consensus up until the point new editors came to the article. I am confident that Jimbo would fully support this image, but if you disagree, by all means ask him. I'm not going to bother him over something so trivial. DreamGuy 05:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a rather bizarre interpretation of "consensus". Basically, you're saying "As long as 1/3 of the voters agree with me, I'm right." Ashibaka tock 05:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not bizarre, that's how things work. more than 1/3 now supporting something 2/3 or more in the past supported keeps it, just liks AfDs, etc.DreamGuy 05:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that the considerable discussion going back many months, here and elsewhere,indicates consensus in support of the image. On the contrary, it indicates ongoing dissatisfaction with the image by a variety of editors, with a smaller number of more committed editors supporting the image. -Will Beback 06:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some editors refer to the "consensus image" but there has been no consensus for any image. Is there a reason that the image with the bare-butt is better than the one without? Is the newer image insufficiently dirty? -Will Beback 23:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This one is good!  http://danbooru.donmai.us/post/view/22036 JabberMonkey 06:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good or not, it isn't a book cover, so we wouldn't have a clear fair-use justification. -Will Beback 06:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace the image 

message: I just realized that google is censoring this article.
* Go to Google Preferences 
* Choose Filter both explicit text and explicit images (that option is turned on by default in some countries)
* Then try this google search: site:en.wikipedia.org lolicon  -- preceding unsigned comment by الفلسطيني
You are trying to censor images.  JabberMonkey 22:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google labeling this article as explicit 

message: Can we stop it already and decide on an image on the talk page? I'm sure we ALL have better things to do than rv-ing... Mikkerpikker ... 05:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already finished this debate. We have a compromise that displays a picture inline at the top of the page. We don't need two pictures in this article, and adding the other one for "censorship" reasons is WP:POINT. Ashibaka tock 06:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Debate is far from over, you may notice!  Three editors with a personal dislike of a picture do not make a consensus!  As for WP:POINT, it doesn't apply.  That has to do with disruption of an article to prove the rules don't work.  This discussion has nothing to do with the rules or policies of Wikipedia, and I put the picture up because it has a consensus, and because it fits the section where I put it - the one about Lolicon being controversial. EthanL 12:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: "Illustrated and fictional lolicon is frequently accused of being similar to or a form of paedophilia." Note, the picture illustrates what the article says right next to it. EthanL 12:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a lousy reason to have a picture, because the idea of having the picture is controversial. The whole idea of coming up with a less explicit picture was compromise, not to see if we could annoy people by having both. --Prosfilaes 12:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I don't even like the stuff!  I'm just trying to keep the censorship out.  Question is, is Wikipedia capable of handling controversial subjects, even rising above the moral panics of the day? EthanL 13:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT an experiment in anarchy, or democracy, or whatever you're talking about. We already found a replacement image so that the arguing about this could end. Now you are bringing the image back for the expressed purpose of continuing the argument about it. How is this helping anything? Ashibaka tock 15:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There's a difference between censorship and editorial discretion. One picture was fine for a long time, and I don't see why we need two. Of the two, the Kotori one is prefered by the majority of editors. --Prosfilaes 17:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the new picture sux.  It does not demonstrate the subject matter clearly.  Hooo33ter 17:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's missing? Anime, check. child, check. sexual implications, check. As I said, it looks the cover of a porno magazine, with just enough concealed to let it be put on the shelves. I fail to see what is gained by going hardcore here.--Prosfilaes 17:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DreamGuy, you never explained what you thought was wrong with this picture. Ashibaka tock 04:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sigh, more edit warring

message: Is there a reputable source that says that the US legal issues discussed (specifically, the PROTECT act) apply to drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults? Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you go to , which is linked in the PROTECT Act article, you can read it yourself. Scroll down to the "OBSCENE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY" section. Ashibaka tock 23:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Found it at  You'll have to scroll down a bit. As far as reputable, this is a link to the U.S. House of Representatives website. Reproduced here:
Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 71, Sec. 1466A, Para C.
"c) Nonrequired Element of Offense. - It is not a required
    element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted
    actually exist."--Jack Schitt 08:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you want to quote the law, that's perfectly acceptable. If you want to engage in analysis of what it does, that's a violation of WP:NOR. You have to find someone who said the law did something, and then quote them in the article. By the by, and this here can't go in the article because it's OR by the wikimedia lawyers, wikipedia is completly isolated from any sort of liability under that setction - the standard is "taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Wikipedia does not lack such. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't talking about Florida, I was talking about all sorts of other countries, all listed in the article, where the new image is probably legal and the old image is probably illegal. Ashibaka tock 23:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia:General_disclaimer - "Publication of information found in Wikipedia may be in violation of the laws of the country or jurisdiction from where you are viewing this information." Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So what? Just because we have to have a general cover our ass disclaimer doesn't mean that we shouldn't think twice before posting an image that may be illegal in large parts of the world.--Prosfilaes 04:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, especially since there is no compelling reason to include an illegal image... Mikkerpikker ... 13:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Images of the Noble Prophet Muhammad are illegal in large parts of the world. Wikimedia Commons host a slew of such images. Should we delete them? No. Instead of obeying everybody's law, let's just obey the law where the servers are hosted, 'nkay? Babajobu 13:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This analogy actually works in favor of the new image. You'll note kindly that there is no image at Muhammad. Ashibaka tock 14:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I kindly note that there is indeed an image of Muhammad in the Muhammad article. It's under Muslim veneration of Muhammad. Babajobu 14:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *Awaiting a single argument put forward by the New Image nazis that is yet to be utterly, insurmountably pwned* --195.10.125.168 03:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status in the US 

message: What about this: we keep 2 images but have the contentious one linkimaged? This addresses concerns about "censorship" but does not force ppl to commit crime & is not gratuitously offensive... (can we please keep it like this for a while and see what ppl think?) Mikkerpikker ... 13:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I truly believe the solution that Jimbo mandated at Autofelatio is abnormal and unencyclopedic. However, if you can convince the maintainers of the no-inline list to add the picture in question, this is a workable solution. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I refer to the bad image list. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New compromise

message: ...work it out here please. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Please don't put any positioning here. Put your real arguments and what you really believe. Please sign anything acceptable to you.
=== 2 inline butt-bottom ===
For the currently protected:
# Standard Wikipedia practice on mature-themed articles is to convey information without intent to cause offense, but also without dancing around trying to remove all content that someone might find objectionable. Let's not go down a slippery slope — this is not autofellatio, which was an abberation.
# Disclaimer pages—particularly Wikipedia:NOT and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer—cover these issues.
# More images = more informative, so long as all pictures are relevant and article is not overstuffed with images.
# Order is irrelevent
::#Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: # I endorse this summary Babajobu 18:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ashibaka tock 18:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Prosfilaes 05:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Will Beback 06:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Information gathering

message: For the currently protected:
# Standard Wikipedia practice on mature-themed articles is to convey information without intent to cause offense, but also without dancing around trying to remove all content that someone might find objectionable. Let's not go down a slippery slope — this is not autofellatio, which was an abberation.
# Disclaimer pages—particularly Wikipedia:NOT and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer—cover these issues.
# More images = more informative, so long as all pictures are relevant and article is not overstuffed with images.
# Order is irrelevent
::#Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: # I endorse this summary Babajobu 18:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 inline butt-bottom 

message: # The original argument was about whether to show the old image inline. This was hotly contested.
# Since there were so many people on either side, the only feasible option was to choose a replacement image.
# Now that a replacement image has been found, the current debate is about whether it's necessary to include the old one as well.
# The only way to end the argument about the old image, complaints about censorship and legal responsibility aside, is to not display it on the page.
# Since we have found a new image which does not make people so upset, and which provides the same purpose, it only makes sense to use this instead.
(Per Hipocrite, please debate this under a separate heading, below.)
::Ashibaka tock 18:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prosfilaes 05:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will Beback 06:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single new image 

message: The image in debate it NOT lolicon, it's toddlerkon. Those (most) in debate over  this are not fans of the genre, those who are would agree that that picture does not belong in this article. And that toddlerkon is NOT a subgenre of loli, but a genre on it's own. Saying toddlerkon it a subgenre of loli is like saying loli is a subgenre of the "18 and legal" genre.  Request to create seperate page for Toddlekon and remove the section and image from this page.
:That's definitely not toddlerkon, she looks at least 7. A // paroxysm (n) 03:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seperate Toddlerkon page 

message: I propose changing this:
Under the 'Controversy' heading, change the phrase 'crime against children in Japan' to 'reported crime against children' in Japan.
I suggest this in the spirit of accuracy. No crime is reported 100% and some are reported at low rates, such as rape in the US: 39% according to Wikipedia.
All these arguments are only in favor of adding the word "reported" to the article, once. Thank you for your consideration. Please offer reasoned comments/critcism.
(Maybe I don't understand how to suggest changes to a locked article?)
--Zaorish 17:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk to the admin who locked it. It shouldn't stay locked long, just until whatever squall is afoot blows over. --DanielCD 22:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Since only reported crimes can constitute "evidence" in the context of a sociological study (such as the one cited), the sentence is true regardless of whether you use the word "reported" or not. The sentence is talking about the statistical analysis of evidence, not the actual number of incidents (which is, of course, unknown). As long as the sentence specifies that it is talking about the evidence of criminal activity, using the word "reported" is redundant. If the sentence instead said "There has been no increase in violent crimes against children and teens" we would need to add "reported". Kaldari 00:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor edit

message: Some stuff for a "see also" (perhaps): Gothic Lolita and Lolita fashion. Didn't see either linked in the article, but didn't look hard for 'em either. Just FYI. --DanielCD 22:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: If indeed as the article states, the PROTECT act covers simulated child pornography and it is illegal to possess- we need to ask if we are putting out American readers at risk for prosecution ot at least liabilty for viewing the pictures posted, (as we all know we "download" every picture we view on the net in order to view it). Beyond the question of decency is that of *responsibility*. No one here wants to break the law and so I advocate removing the pictures completely. I would have advocated it completely before but now there is a more practical reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angrynight (talk • contribs) .
:No, we're not. Even if the PROTECT act is valid -- which it isn't -- it doesn't outlaw the lolicovers we have here. None of them depict "sexually explicit contact" or any "lascivious depictions of the genitalia or pubic area." // paroxysm (n) 16:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I happen to work for a lawyer's office, and I know for fact that Lolicon images are legal. How? We've done federal cases recently based on people being prosecuted for downloading lolicon, and the courts have said by the decision in the COPA case, lolicon is legal.69.250.243.197 06:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember that we have other legal systems to consider besides the US legal system (I'm assuming that 69.250.243.197 is from the US by their IP address).  I think it was stated earlier (correct me if I'm wrong) that the picture was considered illegal in South Africa and possibly others (Canada?).  I admit I haven't read the entire discussion (it's so repetitive) here but I think the issue seems to be that the butt picture may be offensive to some and possibly illegal in some countries.  I personally have no opinion about it, though.  I'll just be happy when a decision is finally made and the article is unlocked (I have a couple unrelated minor edits to make). -kotra 13:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with trying to play hopscotch with all the different legal systems in the world is that everything is illegal SOMEWHERE.  For example, there are muslim countries that forbid the display of women's faces, or depictions of the human body.  Likewise, in China, it's illegal to display information/talk abot Falun Gong.  Trying to alter our content to be legal everywhere is an exercise in futility that will benefit only the Encyclopedia Britanica, as they'll not have to worry about Wikipedia anymore. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That point has been made before, but not so many pictures are illegal in major English-speaking countries such as South Africa whence many visitors will come to Wikipedia. In fact, this is probably the only such picture. Ashibaka tock 00:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Any representation of the human form is forbidden according to many (usually Salafist) Muslims. I don't know what the national legal codes are for drawings of women are in Saudi Arabia, but there are certainly places in Dar al-Islam where viewing such images could get someone in very deep trouble. Would you want to get caught looking at Wikipedia's more risque pics in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan? I wouldn't. Babajobu 01:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't want to break the law 

message: Is this ready to be unprotected? It's been locked for a good bit now. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. I don't see any agreement, and it appears that the image-removal proponents have left to greener pastures. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see any agreement. Hipocrite offered a compromise, but then refused to honor it. There's still no consensus on what to do with the images. Perhaps we should just remove them all. -Will Beback 22:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an absolutely terrible "compromise" and it bespeaks an agenda.  --Cyde Weys 23:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So why was it offered? What compromise do you suggest? -Will Beback 23:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Cyde and Katefan. Unprotect. ⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 23:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Why was what offered?  Your suggestion to delete all of the images?  I don't know, you're the one who offered it, you might be able to answer me that.  And I have a simple suggestion in mind: it's called freedom of speech or "Wikipedia is not censored".  --Cyde Weys 23:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: #Can we agree to 2 images, but argue about inlining? was a suggestion that we place the old image as an link. Regarding Wikipedia, removing information is not censorship. We delete infor and images all of the time. It's all about editing choices. A significant portion of the editors of this article do not agree to have the old image in the article, meaning there is no consensus.  -Will Beback 23:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The title of that is clear that it was never offered as a compromise. It was offered as a base point about what we were going to argue. Hipocrite - «Talk» 02:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what kind of compromise can we discuss that folks would actually be willing to implement? -Will Beback 04:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Moving the image down the page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That'd be acceptable to me. I had tried that before, but it was immediately reverted by 63.238.214.110, who called it " picture tampering". But if it gets a consensus then I'm all for it. -Will Beback 04:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then we're in violent agreement.  Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: // paroxysm (n) 22:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does "//" mean? If you are expressing disagreement please give a reason. -Will Beback 23:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see how just moving the pictures down will make any difference.  The only way it would make a difference is if the readers knew what was coming.  So, I feel that this would be ok only if there was a disclaimer before the actual pictures, perhaps at the top of the page as a template if one exists for this purpose (I couldn't find one).  Actually, just before the butt picture would be ok, because it seems to be the only one people find objectionable.  I still feel that the inline suggestion is the best compromise, though, and the least awkward for presentation. -kotra 09:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected? 

message: This link was given to me from the 3rd opinion wikipedia page. WP:3O
My opinion is that there should be no image censorship on wikipedia, whatever the case, so long as it violates no laws in the land of the server's location (in this case, I believe, Hillsborough county, FL, USA . Or pinellas county, I'm not sure, but it was Tampa/st. pete area I think).  Should you want any further clarification on my statement, please ask me on my talk page. Now removing 3d opinion entry as per rules. Thanks for flying delta. ⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 07:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd opinion 

message: For those of you not aware of this, Wikipedia is running the images of Muhammad at Muhammad cartoons, although these pictures are controversial and illegal and apparently also violence-inspiring in much of the world. But they're not illegal under Florida law, and they're notable and informative, so we run them. QED. Babajobu 08:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Final argument about legality

message: I'm thinking that since the image in question is a magazine cover, and it's being used in an article which isn't about that magazine, it's not fair use? Alphax τεχ 04:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: To my knowledge, the captions under the thumbnails would enable us to legally exhibit them on this page. // paroxysm (n) 00:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not fair use 

message: Can someone please add  to this page. Thanks, Gerard Foley 00:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiktionary 

message: It wouldn't have been my choice to unprotect the article yet, since consensus is still forming, but someone requested it be unprotected so they could make some changes, so I've done so.  Please continue to work on coming to a consensus and avoid edit warring. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why can't we block uses who edit war instead of protecting the page? Gerard Foley 20:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: While it's a laudable attempt at resolving the issue, changing one's CSS file to self-censor the images is not a realistic solution.  The reader doesn't know they can censor these particular images until they view this talk page (who reads the talk page before the article itself?).  And even if the notice template was put at the top of the Lolicon article itself (god forbid), many viewers will still not understand the process needed to change their CSS file. -kotra 06:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the word 'monobook' might throw you off.  I'm not sure what it means either, but it doesn't really matter.  First go to your User:yourUserName/monobook.css page, which in your case is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlwaysNever/monobook.css.  Then you go to edit the page, adding in #lolicon{display: none;} and then saving.  Then to bypass your cache you: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), IE: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5.  hope that helps!  -kotra 10:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Kotra! Got it first time-you're a good teacher *grins*  <3 AlwaysNever 06:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSS self-censoring of images 

message: Will do research on New Zealand. According to Wiki Child pornography any depiction seen to promote pedophilia is banned. That includes cartoons. It may be out of date, not sure on that count. Will follow up. AlwaysNever 07:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal Status: New Zealand 

message: Please move all discussion about the linking, hiding or censorship of the images to Wikipedia talk:Censorship. Thank you Gerard Foley 16:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? We are not talking about censorship, we're talking about the editorial decision of which images to use to illustrate this article. Please do not depict that process as censorship. -Will Beback 20:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: People are talking about linking, hiding or censorship of the images. I'm asking people to move that to Wikipedia talk:Censorship. The discussion of which images to use to illustrate this article does belong here. Gerard Foley 21:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes.  Censorship is only one of the issues discussed in those threads.  Linking the images, moving them down the page, relevance of proposed images, etc are not related to censorship.  The discussions would not belong on Wikipedia talk:Censorship unless they were exclusively (or even mostly) about censorship, which is definately not the case.  -kotra 08:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Linking the images is an editorial decision, which is entirely appropriate to discuss here.  If we decide the best way to treat this issue is to link to the images, that is what we should do. Johntex\talk 01:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This has already been gone over numerous times, and the conclusion was there was no consensus to remove or link the images. We can go over it, AGAIN, if you must, but I will have to insist that if my time is wasted AGAIN going over it, those who vote to remove the edit be forced to make 5 helpful contributions to the encyclopedia that are not reverted for every person that is forced to AGAIN come to this talk page and AGAIN reach an obvious no-consensus default decision to keep the images as images on the page. Given that giving an inch on moving one of the two images down the page has resulted in the taking of a mile, if we are forced to go over this decision AGAIN, I will have to reneg on the prior agreement to move the "more offensive" image down the page and will swap image locations. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry you feel it is a waste of your time.  I wasn't aware of this page when there was a previous discussion, so I'm sorry I wasn't able to participate in it.  As far as helpful contributions to the encyclopedia, I have over 4,000 edits here (including over 2,000 to the article space) you can pick through them yourself and pick your sets of five. I hope you will find five there you consider helpful. Johntex\talk 18:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think he was talking about you Johntex, but about AlwaysNever, whose only contributions to Wikipedia was to complain about the images. Gerard Foley 21:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Please refrain from making pointless threats, Hipocrite.  And while we don't have consensus (largely because of you), that is no reason to demand more contributions from people who are only trying to improve Wikipedia.  If you are getting frustrated that the discussion keeps returning to this issue, perhaps you might consider the possibility that the majority would like to see change, instead of being obstinate.  I myself (along with several others) would like to see the image removed completely (my reasons being that it is unnecessary now, and stirs up gratuitous controversy), but in the interests of compromise, I'm willing to give up a lot for inlining.  But a compromise doesn't work unless both sides are willing to give.  Remember that in a good compromise, everybody is equally unsatisfied with the result.   -kotra 23:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures discussion