MediaWiki talk:Bad image list/Archive 1

message: In the interests of keeping the list short, as requested at the top of the page, I have removed the following images that have been deleted.
*Image:Autofree.png - 14:39, 9 September 2005 TheCoffee deleted "Image:Autofree.png" (On WP:IFD since Aug 26) (IFD reason: UE OR. I fail to see how this could possibly be used. Wikipedia isn't an experiment in free speech. dbenbenn | talk 12:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thryduulf 18:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted images removed from the list

message: Can some pages be exempted from checking this list? For example, Penis? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When I found out about this I had the exact same thought, some pages should be made exempt. I'd say if this measure is to be done properly we  really need some pages to be made exempt. Perhaps rather than not checking this page they could instead refer to a "secret" image that gets fetched. That way it would get displayed properly. Or is this measure of having the actual text different from the editable text also equally difficult? Mathmo 22:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Nope, at least not with extra work on mediawiki as far as I'm aware. This is a cute bandaid against vandals using existing images, but they can always upload new stuff so I'm not sure it's worth the effort of making this more complex. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 17:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If the only value-add of this list is keeping vandals from putting giant penises on user pages, and the cost is that the penis article is less good, I think user pages might just have to suffer. Perhaps the craplady can stay on it, but the penises should go. I expect that the Penis article is read more per hour than every user page that has ever been penised is in a year. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's consensus for adding a picture inline to a certain article I'd be happy to remove the image from the list here immediately; this isn't supposed to hamper normal wikipedia editing. The last time I was around penis I think the plan was to make a separate, smaller image to inline in the article, right? --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 23:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what I did, and people seem to be supportive - see Talk:Penis#Image:Flaccid and erect human penis.jpg too big. ~~ N (t/c) 23:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also its wrong to think that these images are mainly being used on user pages. They most often seem to appear in template messages that are used in thousands of different articles. - SimonP 23:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This page was created because one certain image was being used all the time on user talk page vandalism. --cesarb 00:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Per-page exemption 

message: Okay, sorry I didn't explain this move.  It's an image with little encyclopedic value, that's currently on the commons.  It isn't used in any articles, including ejaculation.  In fact, its only use I know of to date has been to place it on a number of high-profile pages such as WP:HEP.  To prevent such a move in the future, I have placed it on this list.  If anyone feels I did so wrongly, they can take it off.  Ingoolemo talk 00:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I feel that you did the right thing. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Ejaculation.jpg]] 

message: Perhaps I'm missing something. If an image fits the criteria at the top of the page, would it not be better just to delete it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Khendon (talk • contribs) 07:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because this way pages can still link to it. Superm401 | Talk 02:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion?

message: Allow me to clarify: if an image is used in articles, that's no reason to remove it from the list. If an image is on the list that isn't used in articles, then by all means delete! Placing images on this list allows you to click the link to view them, but you can't view them in namespaces other than the Image space. Though it could just be you can't view them in the mainspace... Let's test! thumb|testing, 1-2-3.
The point of this is so shock vandals can't raid innocent pages with nasty images no one wants to see, but there's some collateral damage in making people click the link when on an appropriate article, but this page is, IMO, a net gain. Redwolf24 (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: But no female genitalia. What's so bad about dicks?--SarekOfVulcan 08:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: People don't usually throw vagina pictures into random articles. -Branddobbe 03:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here's a penis, there's a penis, and another little penis... 

message: could some one add this image Dggst.jpg, its on FPC and should be treated that same as Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg IMO
Thanks in advanced —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.74.59 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This list is only for images commonly used for vandalism. --cesarb 15:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  anon 

message: This feature does not work with Gallery tags. If you place one of the listed images here within a gallery tag they will show up as they would normally. Norm 17:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably not a problem, since the gallery tags use very small thumbnails, and at least one of the images on the list has a smaller version which is used inline on the article (and thus not on the list). --cesarb 20:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Vandals get less satisfaction out of small images, and the target is less shocked and placed at much less risk of people thinking s/he is looking at porn. (It should be noted that someone once vandalized my userpage with an Autofellatio gallery. It was bad, but hardly as bad as one big Autofellatio image.) ~~ N (t/c) 17:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, so then in all the proper articles the temporary measure they should use it the gallery tag? Mathmo 22:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The list has worked with gallery tags since 17 May 2006, when Rob Church fixed it.  The rendering could be  better, though — I have a patch that improves it (and does some other fancy things too) at bugzilla:5985.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List does 
not
 work with gallery tags. 

message: Could this page be renamed. There's nothing intrinsically 'bad' about these images. 'Unsuitable image list' would be an improvement. Dmn € Դմն 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like all the other pages on the MediaWiki namespace, it's called by name by the software, so renaming it would make it stop working. If you want to see its name changed, file a request for the developers on bugzilla. --cesarb 20:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very much agree with this sentiment. I'll have to look at contacting the developers.  05:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If renamed we sould look for it to be a neutral name, such as 'Blocked images list'. — xaosflux Talk 12:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or "Restricted images list" - BanyanTree 13:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Restricted" sounds like the best so far.  14:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Has this been, or can this be, implemented on other projects? Can it be implemented on Commons and work  for all WM projects?? pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently the answers are yes, and no. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  on other projects/on the Commons? 

message: First, where was the discussion on the creation of this feature?  Since when is Wikipedia censored?  Where's the discussion on blocking images by this method?  Who asked for this page?  What the hell is going on here?  
Second, who decides what images go on this list?  What are the criteria?  The Prince Albert piercing image, for example, was added to this list by an unknown user against the current consensus on the article's talk page, and without bothering to tell any of us, so that we've all been trying to figure out what the fuck is wrong with the image for a few weeks.  I am vehemently opposed to this system, and would like most of the images currently listed/blocked here delisted.   Exploding Boy 00:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited to add: since there was no discussion or agreement on the blocking of the PA image in this manner, and since the same and similar images are currently in use on other-language Wikipedias, I'm removing it from the list.  Exploding Boy 00:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What???

message: From the autofellatio talk page:
: A more elegant technical solution to the vandal problem would be to make a special category of images that can only be used in specified articles, requiring an admin (or a user in good standing, not in the newest 2% and with over 200 edits) to add to the list of articles allowed to use the image. This could be done with minimal server load increase by using a special image template with the check builtin instead of complicating the standard image template. // Nnp 22:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly support this solution.  It's far better than this arbitrary list.  Exploding Boy 00:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Some users are using copies of images already listed here in articles. Example:
*:Image:Penis reduced.jpg: a smaller copy of already listed :Image:Flaccid and erect human penis.jpg
*:Image:Penis corrected.jpg: same as above
*:Image:Circumsised penis - Flacid and Erect - High Res.jpg: a larger copy of already listed :Image:Circumsised penis - Flacid and Erect.jpg
The following images is a little shocking and may be used to vandalize articles. Consider inclusion:
*:Image:SOA-Herpes-genitalis-male.jpg
☆ CieloEstrellado 09:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scaled down images are not put on the bad list when they are used in articles. We do not comprimise encyclopedia articles for anti-vandalism purposes, so we do not remove images from articles or not display them when they are used to make a well balanced article. --Clawed 09:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images to be added

message: I've written a MediaWiki patch, bugzilla:5985, to extend the syntax of this list.  The patch allows images on this list to be optionally allowed in specific articles, where they are deemed appropriate, while still preventing their use in vandalism to other pages.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does it work?  Or rather, how do we use it?  Exploding Boy 17:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This feature sounds very good, as long as images are only placed on the list under the current criteria proposed on this page. If you are changing the code would you please consider that when an image cannot be displayed, an apropriate error message is displayed instead so wikipedia editors know the reasons why images won't display in certain articles? --Clawed 02:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patch to allow exceptions to this list 

message: This was created as a vandalism template and nominated for deletion, as well as causing the departure of several Christian editors due to its offensive portrayal of the Christian crucifix. However, it is now hosted on the Wikimedia Commons so is still displayable on Wikipedia. Please add this image to the list. Brisvegas 11:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the required level, then? That image has been used as vandalism. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No need to add it now, it has finally been deleted. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 20:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  please add [[:Image:Small crucifix anim.gif]] 

message: Is is just a coincidence that all of these images display a form of nudity? --GeorgeMoney T·C 05:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No coincidence. Penises are about as shocking as Wikipedia images get, so they're a natural choice for the discriminating vandal. Zetawoof(ζ) 11:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, how does MediaWiki know what is in the image to put it on this list? --GeorgeMoney T·C 14:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't. The list is maintained by Wiki admins. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, couldn't the vandal upload the image with a different name? --GeorgeMoney T·C 00:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. All this list does is make life a little bit harder for vandals. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coincidence? 

message: Image:Sarahvulva.jpg needs to be removed from the bad list. It is currently used in at least one article (Vagina). I appreciate the need to fight vandalism but it cannot compromise the integrity of the encyclopaedia. Please read the criteria above before adding images to the bad list. --Clawed 23:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same goes for :Image:Mrbelvedere.jpg. It's used inline in two articles. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed :Image:Mrbelvedere.jpg as this was not used particularly frequently, nor is it really offensive. The vagina image is going to have to stay for now though I'm afraid--come nag me tomorrow if it's still up, and I'll remove it from the list. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image removal required

message: This whole thing is a rather silly affront to Wikipedia's dedication to uncensored content. Penis vandalism is just about the most obvious fucking disruption there is and gets reversed well nigh instantly. Ergo this list does more harm than good. I know these concerns have been raised but since this list still exists I felt the need to raise them again. --Tothebarricades 15:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I still agree with this.  It seems totally unnecessary to me, and has vast potential for misuse, which ironically means that the problems ultimately remain the same.  It would be far better to let people use the images for vandalism and then block them; at least then we'd know who the most problem users are (and problem users will find other ways to disrupt Wikipedia if they can't resort to "penis vandalism").  Exploding Boy 16:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:Bad image list. The answers given there for these concerns as still as valid as they were at that time. --cesarb 16:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I protest. 

message: thumb|right
Can an admin add :Image:Ceiling_cat_00.jpg to the list, at least temporarily? It's not encyclopedic, and perhaps adding it might help the ceiling cat vandal to move along. KWH 13:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've added it.  I don't know if it'll help, but I'm willing to give it a try.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the change for now. When an image is on the blacklist, its description page doesn't seem to list certain pages that have the image. This actually makes it harder to fight vandalism. --Ixfd64 19:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Ceiling_cat_00.jpg]] 

message: If the purpose of the list is limiting vandalism, and the vandals actually stop, get bored, and go away after the image they use is included on the list, then it seems rather natural to have some sort of a time limit how long an image stays here.
When was the last time any of the images on the list were used by vandals ?
Or do you think they're watching the list waiting for the bans to be removed ?
And this method is rather silly anyway for vandalism prevention. If that's our point,
we should use list all articles in which the images may be included with every "bad image" instead of making it a blanet ban, so it doesn't interfere with normal articles. Taw 19:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, imposing a time limit sounds like a good idea because it is very, very unlikely that vandals would watch the list waiting for the bans to be removed. I propose a two-month time limit as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I will support a general time limit as well, but there have been some instances where images have been put on the list where they are still used in articles, which I still think needs to be addressed also.--Clawed 06:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion time limits 

message: Recently, vandals had been hitting the Featured article by inserting the following images that are on the commons into templates on the featured article. One of these templates was also transcluded onto the main page, which led to the image being included on the main page at full size. The images are as follows:
*:Image:Penis .jpg
*:Image:Flaccid and erect human penis.jpg
*:Image:Erectpeniswhilemasturbating.jpg (This one got transcluded on the main page, as complained about here)
*:Image:Ano.jpg (this one is used by vandals for other purposes, and did not get included into the FA to the best of my knowledge, but is used by another vandal just to be an asshole)
*:Image:Closeup of female breast.jpg Adding this one, as it too is used for vandalism. There are probably some pictures of scrotums, but I can't remember them at this time. Ryūlóng 08:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stongly agree with this implementation. It is just shocking that some vandals would go far just to discredit the Featured articles. If this carries on, first-time users to Wikipedia (who natuarally visit the Main Page first), whould be put-off by visiting this project further. This is indeed a serious form of vandalism. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for several images to be added to prevent vandalism through their inclusion. 

message: Per bugzilla:6164, transcluding templates on this page (the MediaWiki page, not this talk page) causes pages that have a <gallery> between the last <ref> tag and the  tag to break. Thryduulf 08:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No transcluded templates 

message: I added an exception so :Image:Autofellatio_2.jpg can be displayed in Autofellatio article. The list is supposed to be to prevent usertalk vandalism only, and the image is not particularly offensive or anything.
By the way, if something doesn't have any exceptions, it's probably not used, and it should probably become a candidate for deletion. Taw 13:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the images are on Commons. —Centrx→talk • 05:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autofellatio 

message: This image was used in vandalism here, and I suspect elsewhere as well. I figured it would probably be best to head off the potential of future abuse. --Slowking Man 19:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Human Fetus2.jpg]] 

message: I recently added :Image:Vulva11.jpg to the list.  However, an anon at  states that it appeared on the Solid Snake article four hours later.  Several anons on the talk there have similar posts.  Any thoughts on how the image showed up when it was on this list? - BanyanTree 04:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I overlooked something, but I can't find an edit in the history with that image on that page... --HappyCamper 15:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've also gone through the templates, on the assumption that it is the recent template vandal, and still couldn't find it.  I'm totally stumped, but mostly by how it could have appeared when listed here. - BanyanTree 15:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's really odd. I tried adding it to the sandbox and it doesn't work, at least in preview mode. --HappyCamper 17:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe because of this?  --HappyCamper 03:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems way too early - 19:58, 8 December 2006 versus the about 20:00, 10 December time of the reports.  My listing of the image was at  18:46, 10 December 2006.  However, I'm willing to leave it be until it repeats. Thanks for your help, BanyanTree 04:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, anytime. --HappyCamper 04:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  list working? 

message: Is it just me, or is anyone else concerned that this list has seen [enourmous growth http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3ABad_image_list&diff=94664509&oldid=91216712] (>100 items, >600%) growth in the last 2 weeks? Surely this is not the best way to deal with these images, if they really are so useless, bring them to IFD. — xaosflux Talk 17:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed that many of these are images from Commons, so our IFD would not have jurisdiction, but surely maintaining a list of file names from commons that we are assuming would be useless here on en: is a bit much? — xaosflux Talk 17:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly don't assume that they are useless.   The recent expansion was a response to massive template vandalism.  (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive155#Penis images.)  At least some of the images are obviously very useful in relevant articles.  This page allows images that seem to lure vandals to remain on the wiki, while ensuring that someone reading about the supernovas doesn't get an extreme closeup of genitalia.  It seems like a win-win to me. - BanyanTree 17:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I honestly can't see anything offensive in :Image:23jahrigeSchwangere kurz vor derGeburt.jpg. How far are we going in this anti-vandal spree? The main page vandal simply uploads his own images and shows them, so the blacklist is kinda useless against him. --Conti|✉ 15:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed :Image:23jahrigeSchwangere kurz vor derGeburt.jpg from the list.  I'm pretty sure I added it originally in the rush to get ahead of the vandal, but all admin actions are reviewable.  ContiE, the main page vandal used to use images already on the wiki.  If he is now forced to upload his own images, I feel comfortable stating that this list has played a decisive role in giving RC patrollers an extra chance to catch him. - BanyanTree 16:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List size explosion 

message: :Image:CowPie-JeffVanuga.JPG was recently used to vandalize at the current featured article Torchic. Surely, this image really only needs to be used at cow dung and only on that article.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe others have a different opinion on this, but I tend to limit my additions to images that I feel would cause a reader to choke or spit up their drink if they came across it in an unrelated article.  My first reaction to this image is "What is that?", so it fails the "drink spit" test for me.  Of course, if it becomes the target of repeated vandalism like Squidward, then the argument is moot.  Anyone else have thoughts on this? - BanyanTree 14:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It looks like it could be a pile of mud. —Centrx→talk • 23:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible addition? 

message: Noting concerns about the length of the list, I note that the following images have now been deleted and are not present here or on Commons:
*:Image:Andy_erotic_012.jpg
*:Image:Asian Penis side view.JPG
*:Image:HumanTesticles.jpg
*:Image:Hypospadias erect sideview.jpg
*:Image:Penis10.jpg
*:Image:Sexe_male_penis.jpg
*:Image:Shaved pubic hair male.JPG
*:Image:Testicle.jpg
*:Image:Testicles2.jpg
*:Image:Testicles3.jpg
*:Image:Testicles close-up.jpg
*:Image:Testicle epididymis.jpg
*:Image:Testicles frontal view.jpg
*:Image:Testicles upper view.jpg
Presumably they can be removed (as new images could be uploaded to any file title). WJBscribe (WJB talk) 04:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - the redlinked images are gone.  FYI, should the need ever arise, admins have the ability to upload an image (locally) over top of a Commons image.  So should this list ever grow beyond a manageable size, we could use it only for the ones that need to be enabled on some articles and use image blocking for the ones that should be totally blocked. --BigDT 04:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Length of list

message: User:Froth posted a question on Wikipedia:Help desk requesting that :Image:AUTOAMPUTATE1.JPG be added to this list. It seems to be a worthy candidate. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 19:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this page needs to be kept short for technical reasons and there appears (?) to have been little or no use of this image for vandalism and it is less "obscene" than most, adding it here would probably not be appropriate. —Centrx→talk • 23:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if it's just because of the size, let's remove some rather tame pictures (:Image:Abu Ghraib 70.jpg, :Image:Penis Anatomy2.gif, :Image:Penis Anatomy.gif, :Image:Elephant penis.jpg come to mind) so we can include that one. I'm much more offended by :Image:AUTOAMPUTATE1.JPG than by any of those pictures I just mentioned. --Conti|✉ 23:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is supposed to be kept short, and I just removed those 4 images. — xaosflux Talk 01:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: For the record, this image was used to vandalise the day's featured article on 30/1/07, diff.  Mr Stephen 14:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it, though some might disagree.  Anyone else think the image was selected because the vandal found it on this talk page? - BanyanTree 16:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible addition to this list 

message: :Image:Ampallang Piercing.jpg. Pic of a penile piercing that was just used for vandalism recently. Leave it viewable on the Penis article, though.--70.135.89.240 05:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added.  Thanks, BanyanTree 05:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about an exception for the Ampallang article?  Come on guys, if you insist on keeping this stupid page, please excercise due dilligence when adding a picture here. Qvdm 15:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. The image wasn't on the Ampallang article at the time it was added here. - BanyanTree 16:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another one 

message: :Image:Mamintb.PNG. Mammary intercourse pic. Leave viewable on that article and Outercourse. RJASE1  Talk  23:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added.  Thanks, BanyanTree 00:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested add 

message: :Image:Titty.jpg. Being used for vandalism. RJASE1  Talk  00:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks again. - BanyanTree 00:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry, another one. 

message: :Image:Male human buttocks.jpg - exceptions for Buttocks and Gluteal cleft. Being used for vandalism. RJASE1  Talk  07:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added.  Thanks, BanyanTree 22:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a rather tame image, I don't think it should be on this list. --Conti|✉ 18:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not too bad - at the time I nominated it, some vandals were using it for some rather juvenile image vandalism. I wouldn't be upset if it were removed from the list, we could always add the image name to the vandal filter. RJASE1  Talk  18:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably worth repeating that the only reason that I feel comfortable adding images so freely is that I assume that other users feel comfortable removing them as easily.  I would like to avoid having heart-wrenching discussions about every addition, so, please, if you really feel an addition is inappropriate, just take it off.  Thanks, BanyanTree 22:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm usually a discuss first, act later type of guy and I didn't knew about your approach, so I commented here. I've removed the image now.  --Conti|✉ 23:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition 

message: :Image:Naked yoga.jpg - exceptions for Naked yoga and Nude recreation. Apparently vandals find the depilatory choices amusing. RJASE1  Talk  23:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks, BanyanTree 02:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition 

message: Request the following add: :Image:Pubic hair afric am.jpg - exception for Pubic hair. RJASE1  Talk  17:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. — xaosflux Talk 03:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions 

message: Was used in an attack on WP:AN/I should probably be on this list. Needs to be allowed on Anencephaly. Same may apply to :Image:Anencephaly side.jpg.Geni 15:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, though it's not THAT bad, and should be removed in a week or so. — xaosflux Talk 23:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:Anencephaly front.jpg]]

message: Add to the list, was used to vandalize Hans Blix Yonatan (contribs/talk) 17:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Circumsised_penis_flaccid_erect.jpg]] 

message: I found about three or four pages this was used to vandalize, should probably be removed from the userbox first. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 17:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't look very offensive to me. --Conti|✉ 17:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind it either but if people are repeatedly using this image to vandalize pages (removing the image used on that page and adding this one instead) then it should probably be protected. If there was a possibility for protection to only be added for a certain namespace then it should only be added to the article namespace but afaik there isn't. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 19:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Weibliche-brust.jpg]] 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Linkimage}}