Comments |
- How '*do* you disable a piccie pic in a link? I've been struggling with it, and the only way I've managed to pull it off is by inserting the entire URL and making a link out of it. O_o -- DameViktoria - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 20:37, 11 Nov
- You can instruct a wikilink not to resolve into a picture or category, etc., by putting a colon in front of it, like Category:My sojourn or File:Mohammedlickingcock.jpg. Or is that not what you meant? pillow talk 20:41, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
- I think that's what I meant. O_o Why did you vote keep? I've seen drawings of monks fucking nuns be deleted on sight, why not other religious figures? -- DameViktoria - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 20:47, 11 Nov
- They were deleted cos those nuns were ugly. Real mingers. MrN Fork you! 20:52, Nov 11
- If I want to watch a hairy faced monster, I just open a window with EugeneKay's stalker cam on. Don't need to look at hairy faced guys licking cocks. -- DameViktoria - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 20:55, 11 Nov
- I basically voted keep because I feel like we've already had this vote - and just a couple months ago, at that. I know that Ape passionately wants this kept and that Dexter, MrN, Socky, and Bonner also voted keep. And there's no evidence anything's changed. So this is a pointless nomination unless the point is to try to slip it past them, and I wouldn't support that... pillow talk 21:11, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't know there was a vote on the matter, and I strongly feel that it's good if it's voted on, even if it is "again". If someone opposes that, they can just hit the ban-button next to my name if they have one... -- DameViktoria - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 21:18, 11 Nov
- See also: User_talk:Mordillo/archive16#Offensive_images_on_Uncyclopedia - recent discussion on this very issue. pillow talk 20:42, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
- I'd be in favor of taking this off of an article, but not from the site altogether. If a user wants it on his talkpage, it's his right. Where the Wild Colins Are - LET THE WILD RUMPUS START! 21:08, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
- POSSIBLE POLICY VIOLATION. It appears to me this image specifically violates Wiki policy in regard to sites that have googleads (which this site does). According to Wikia:Prohibited content, "All Wikia which are supported by the use of advertisements from Google must adhere to Google's AdSense policy, which means that certain content is prohibited." These include "Pornography, adult or mature content" and "Content related to racial intolerance or advocacy against any individual, group or organisation." Regardless of our feelings on freedom of speech, freedom of religions, respect for the individual, etc., if this violates a single policy of our host site, it needs to be removed. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 21:15, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
- Quiet you! (Also, a lot of our images are validated because of a "fair use" claim.) —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:18, 11 November 2009
- By my understanding, "fair use" has nothing to do with whether or not an image is considered pornographic. We can argue about interpretations all we want, but if the people who are giving the money to keep this site up believe we're violating their policies.... WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 21:20, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
- There's no google ads on Uncyclopedia. ~ 21:21, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
- There are on my computer; there's three at the bottom of this page. But perhaps those are added by my current browser; I'll try another browser and see if they still come up. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 21:27, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
- Chrome whore? I don't have them. I've got wikia ads in my browser, nothing more... -- DameViktoria - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 21:47, 11 Nov
- If you're going to take this down because of this policy (which as pointed out above might not even apply to this site) then you're going to have a lot of work on your hands getting an admin to remove every single image on Uncyclopedia that might potentially offend someone somewhere. Let's ask ourselves: Is that really the direction we want the wiki to go? --Andorin Kato 22:09, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
- Abstain. While the image quite irritates me, I'd rather respect the wishes of the people that choose to use it in their userpage. I do believe the partially censored version is a lot funnier. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:15, 11 November 2009
- Even better, remove the Arabic. The archive of Mordillo's talk page contains a photo that declares its intention to offend Muslims--without actually doing so. Spıke Ѧ 21:27 11-Nov-09
- Actually, I'm pretty sure there are Muslims who would cut my fucking head off for making that picture. pillow talk 22:18, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't find it funnier and find it just as offensive. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 21:39, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
- POSSIBLE POLICY VIOLATION NUMBER TWO. Wiki terms of use, which I assume we are required to follow, says we may not "Post, upload, transmit, share, or store content which is unlawful, defamatory, infringing, obscene, or invasive of another's right to privacy or publicity". While Muhammed is not a living person, "defamatory" can, in certain cases, be extended to the living, especially in regard to people who are identified as Muhammmed or who are followers of him. That, admittedly, is stretching a point. But there is the matter of copyright. While Uncyclopedia claims faire use for satirical purposes, the use of this picture doesn't seem to be a matter of satirizing the image. In fact, it's presenting the image itself. For example, if I post an image of Monty Python's sketch on the Silly Party and claim it's an accurate representation of current politics in Britain, that could possibly be regarded as satire. But if I just post the image on my user page, that is not satire, and is likely not protected. Do we know who owns the copyright to this image? WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 21:55, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
- If you're going to get into discussing copyright, I have this to add: If whoever owns the copyright on the image (assuming there's an original and that it is copyrighted) comes to Uncyclopedia and complains about copyright infringement, then we can examine the possibility of taking it down. Until then (and possibly even then), we get to claim fair use all we want. This is a parody website, and parody is an example of fair use. It is that simple. --Andorin Kato 22:01, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
- Also, as I said above... would you use the ToU as a precedent to remove every potentially offensive image from Uncyclopedia, or are you going to selectively use the non-obscene/defamatory clause to remove this one image that you just don't happen to like? From the beginning Uncyclopedia has been about parody and not caring about people being offended by it. Remember Anonymous Slashy, anyone? Nobody took down the Asperger's Syndrome article when he complained about it being offensive. Why should we do so here, considering that have a wiki full of offensive content because that's exactly what we are? --Andorin Kato 22:14, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
- Is this a website for How To Be Offensive And Not Just Stupid? I thought the point here was to be funny. Personally, I don't find an image of one man orally pleasuring another to be offensive or funny--depending on the context. But I fail to see how the context of posting this on a user page is designed to be funny. I understand that this site has had a drop in productive editors. Potentally offending a huge percentage of possible future editors without humour doesn't seem to be me a wise idea. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 22:26, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
- Sannse huffed this because it violates Wikia's terms of use, as I thought. Please forgive me while I gloat. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 22:32, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
- OK, this is getting far too personal and petty now, yes you were right, but there's no reason to try and annoy everyone else by posting that here, the image is gone, fair enough, now let us return to the whole writing thing that we all hang around this place for. --ChiefjusticeDS 22:35, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, Chiefster, for the slap, which I deserved. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 22:51, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
You're all a bunch of faggots with nothing better to do
than start drama to make yourselves feel more important. This picture is funny as fuck to me and it's only in two users' pages. Your claims of being "offended" are thinner than the paper I wipe my ass with. Whatever, do what you will. Cry to sannse, claim the moral highground, whatever to help you sleep at night. Just know that you're not fooling me. -OptyC Sucks! CUN22:45, 11 Nov
- I see you were cheered up by that... -- DameViktoria - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 23:02, 11 Nov
- Go fuck yourself... -OptyC Sucks! CUN22:57, 11 Nov
- Hop onto IRC, join the cheery conversation! Where the Wild Colins Are - LET THE WILD RUMPUS START! 22:52, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
- (Reposting my apparently accidentally deleted comment of half an hour ago): I don't even know how to get to IRC. Is that located near Guildford? WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 23:13, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
- They're fooling me. It should be said, though, that I am easily fooled. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 22:54, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
- LOL I CAN TAKE AWAY PEOPLE'S MESSAGES BECUZ I HAZ ADDITUDE AND THINK SHE'S IMMATURE Where the Wild Colins Are - LET THE WILD RUMPUS START! 22:58, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
- Seriously, enough of this, it isn't getting anyone anywhere. --ChiefjusticeDS 22:59, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
- Are people purposely deleting other people's comments, or is that an accident? WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 23:00, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like an accident. Happens sometimes. Also, get on IRC. --Pleb SYNDROME CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!) 23:02, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
- Whoa. I pressed refresh and there were like, four new messages. Dude! • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Wednesday, 23:02, Nov 11 2009
- My guess is that the edits via the quick edit application mess things up, as it doesn't refresh the page being edited, just edits the page and saves. -- DameViktoria - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 23:04, 11 Nov
- Good; I was hoping it was an accident or some computer glitch. The wonders of modern technology. Also I made a comment about IRC that seems to be missing; I'll look for it and try to repost. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 23:10, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the "faggots" portion, but you're correct about us having nothing better to do.
That thing that I said in the header. (Oh, and Keep for that drawing that got deleted) Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 23:15, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
|