Talk:Clitoris/Archive 4

message: #Theresa Knott  (The torn steak) 05:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: Moved to Talk:Clitoris/discussion related to Nov 14 vote as the sheer volume of non-voting discussion on this vote had made the page unwieldy and difficult to add a vote to. --MR 02:27, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: #I believe that having a general disclaimer is sufficient.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 18:28, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
#No warning is required as ther is nothing dangerous in the article.--Jirate 18:30, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)
#There is no need for a warning; a clitoris is nothing offensive. -- Schnee 18:32, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose:

message: (Crosspost to talk:clitoris, talk:penis, talk:vagina) - Ok, the disclaimer idea has been roundly rejected. I have unprotected all 3 articles (Penis, vagina, and clitoris). Let's try to keep it civilized now. →Raul654 00:03, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
:Please reprotect as Cantus is vanalising.--Jirate 02:13, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)
:: Could we just let the "disclaimer" sit there for a while until someone else can take care of it? maybe slow down the pace a little?--so that this is not just a turf battle between two men?  Actually on my screen, the disclaimer is a beautiful blue that frames the picture quite nicely. :)  I say that and I strongly disapprove of the "disclaimer" being put there contrary to the poll vote. :((  ---Rednblu | Talk 02:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Please re-protect because there's a flame war between me and Irate.--198 00:49, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you keep replacing the disclaimer despite the consensus' being for there not to be one. You've reverted more than three times. Please don't carry on with this.Dr Zen 00:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I TRIED to compromise--198 00:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, fair enough, 198, but you know that the way to "compromise" is not to keep reverting edits. There was a vote, fairly conducted, and a strong consensus not to have a warning. Perhaps you could step away for a couple of days and see whether you still feel as strongly then, rather than risk the opprobrium of the community for your behaviour?Dr Zen 00:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I asked 198 to stop this on his talk page; let's hope it works. -- Schnee 22:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I did take a small rest. However, I still find that disgusting picture offensive. I will to death to keep at least a disclaimer.--198 05:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fight all you like. You will lose. You have lost. The community has spoken, you have to accept that. I've blocked you for 24 hours. I've also blocked Cantus for 24 hours. Use the time to think on things. You cannot bully us. We work by community consensus around here. Respect that consensus or leave. Theresa Knott  (Not the skater) 06:09, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: (I'm rather afraid the pun was unavoidable). I've removed the protection from this page, but I'm giving fair warning to all participants - those who remove the real life image multiple times will receive a 72 24 hour block: the community has spoken on this one, and I suggest you all abide by it. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this one, and am watching the page; I intend to enforce your decision very quickly, especially during the evenings US Eastern Time.  Pakaran (ark a pan) 16:04, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too, Hopefully it wont be necessary though. I'm sure that those who don't like the image will realise by now, that the community has made a decision and that their best bet is simply not to look at the page if they find the image offensive.  Theresa Knott  (Tart, knees hot) 16:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: While I don't like threats myself it has been convincingly agreed that the image should stay yet people have still removed it (not recently I note).  Having a warning might be appropriate. violet/riga (t) 23:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Imagine a policeman who shot dead bad guys and claimed "so what? Do you imagine that a court would have done anything different?" The arbitration committee at least involves a process, Theresa.Dr Zen 23:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: True but the AC is snowed under with difficult cases at the moment. I'm not willing to add to thier workload. This is pretty cut an dried, and a temp block is certainly nothing like being shot! Theresa Knott  (Tart, knees hot) 23:56, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: This seems much better. We know there are a couple of editors who will never be happy with the image and they probably need a day or two in the sin bin to think it over, but this is much more friendly to those editors who stumble over this page and think, hello, better get rid of that image. I think three days is too much though. 24 hours would be more than enough. If you want longer you should really seek the mandate of the community. I'm not sure you shouldn't even for the shorter ban but it's at least in keeping with the new 3RR policy that is currently being voted on.Dr Zen 23:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a good point. Also a temp block, even of three days is no real hardship. it's mostly symbolic, to tell the user "We dissaprove of your disruptive behaviour" 24 hours serves that purpose just as well as 72 IMO. Also the autoblocker blocks IP's for 24 hours. A longer block would therefore just encourage the use of sockpuppets. So yes I agree blocks should be 24 hours Theresa Knott  (Tart, knees hot) 23:56, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Theresa. I think the process you've outlined gives the, erm, bad boys/girls plenty of chance. I simply urge whoever gives the warning to remember to be kind. We're all (hopefully) working with the same aim, even if we have different ideas of what the endpoint looks like.Dr Zen 00:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Raul654 has just reinserted a much gentler warning. I'm happy with that one. Theresa Knott  (Tart, knees hot) 23:38, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection removed