MediaWiki talk:Bad image list/Archive 2

message: I think it's somewhat ludicrous to say that the page should be kept under 10KB and still have about a paragraph explaining the page at the top. Admins should probably know what they're doing when they're editing that page and I think it could do the job just as well on the discussion page (or see discussion page for further explanation about this page). It adds more processing for the servers and needlessly. If there was something like <noinclude> for mediawiki namespace that'd be better as the server wouldn't process the text bit at the top first but AFAIK there isn't. Thanks, Yonatan (contribs/talk) 01:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cbrown1023 talk 22:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ludicrous 

message: This looks like a trolls dream. It has already been used: here.  22:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Thanks, BanyanTree 12:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:Vulva_18.jpg]]

message: Has recently been used to vandalize Wilford Brimley as well as someone's user page. —dgiestc 23:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, already exists on commons as :Image:Circumcised penis - Flacid and Erect - High Res2.jpg which is on the list. —dgiestc 23:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Circumsised penis flaccid erect.jpg]] 

message: A troll's dream... this is tagged for speedy deletion, that might be the better option here.  17:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlicensend image, now orphaned, speedy deleted. — xaosflux Talk 23:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:Eingangautosodomy.JPG]]

message: Is there a reason that there's no exception for the use of this image in the article Gonorrhea? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just that the person adding the preexisting exception used the Commonwealth spelling, Gonorrhoea, rather than the American spelling used in the article. Putting the image on a redirect doesn't sound very useful, so I changed the spelling so it can be used in the article. Cheers, BanyanTree 00:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:SOA-gonorroe-male.jpg]] 

message: Often used for vandalism in Islam related pages. I don't see use for it except of pig. Aminullah 09:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if that picture were added to the list, vandals would still have a huge number of images to work with.  Considering that we're trying to keep this list short and that an image of a pig has limited shock value even on Islam-related pages, I think we'll keep it off the list for now.  I hope that makes sense. Canderson7 (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:Sow with piglet.jpg]]

message: I'm thinking this pic, brand-new and all that it is, is going to be ripe for userpage vandalism and trolling. Maybe I'm being unnecessarily pre-emptive here, though. Comments? - Alison ☺ 23:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My only objection to the image is that it's not very encyclopaedic.  I'd question whether it's even a free image, since it looks somewhat pornographic.  Perhaps the uploader could clarify what the image was uploaded for, since I believe we already have images of erections in use.  Exploding Boy 00:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well ... David Shankbone is a pretty well-known and prolific image contributor; one of our best, IMO. I've absolutely no reason to doubt that he's the uploader/author here. I believe he's intending it for the Erection page & that it's a bit contentious. I've no issues with all that, per se, nor with the image itself (geez). It's just that when I saw it first, the first thing I thought was, "holy userpage vandals, Batman!" - Alison ☺ 00:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. I think it's a fine image (I'll reserve my opinions on the content :) ). However, the discussion here is about whether it's a "bad image" or not. Bad as in problematic, not bad as in quality (or whatever else). Is is going to be misused? - Alison ☺ 00:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What are the ramifications of something being labelled a "bad image"?--David Shankbone 00:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It means that people can't plaster the image all over the place (userpages, etc). It needs to be specified clearly exactly which articles this image is allowed in. We've had perennial problems with certain images being used to attack other editors and vandalise Wikipedia - Alison ☺ 00:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I think that's highly reasonable, and I encourage it.  I don't see a need for that image to be on another page (except maybe the penis page? Hadn't really thought about it).  But restrictions on it are fine with me.  --David Shankbone 00:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's also a good counter to the "oh, it'll be used in vandalism", deletion rationale - Alison ☺ 00:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd still like it in my gallery, though, as the photographer.  --David Shankbone 00:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course! Not a problem :) - Alison ☺ 01:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't get me wrong: I'm against the "bad image list" in general.  Exploding Boy 05:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Added. Thanks, BanyanTree 01:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Erection by David Shankbone.jpg]] 

message: This photo should only be used on Anus and User:DavidShankBone/BodyParts.  --David Shankbone 21:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. Thanks, BanyanTree 01:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:Anus of a model by David Shankbone.jpg]]