| Revision as of 08:47, 18 August 2005 editZoe (talk | contribs)35,376 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:08, 18 August 2005 edit undoNoitall (talk | contribs)3,112 edits →Something which may interest editors of this pageNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| ::::SHE IS NOT FULLY CLOTHED. She clearly has on an immodest bikini top that shows off her breasts in their practical entirety. With breasts that large she should cover up quite a bit so as not to titillate or offend, a good appropriate modest dress would be some heavy sweaters or jackets that covered her obscene figure. -] 23:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC) | ::::SHE IS NOT FULLY CLOTHED. She clearly has on an immodest bikini top that shows off her breasts in their practical entirety. With breasts that large she should cover up quite a bit so as not to titillate or offend, a good appropriate modest dress would be some heavy sweaters or jackets that covered her obscene figure. -] 23:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :::::This is the problem with your "project". You are attempting to push your view of obscene on the rest of Misplaced Pages which violates ] and ]. She could walk down the street in that getup totally legally and without any recourse from the authorities. If you find it offense, then tough, its your opinion and your opinion means squat.] 23:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC) | :::::This is the problem with your "project". You are attempting to push your view of obscene on the rest of Misplaced Pages which violates ] and ]. She could walk down the street in that getup totally legally and without any recourse from the authorities. If you find it offense, then tough, its your opinion and your opinion means squat.] 23:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::It has been mentioned that your debater is a sockpuppet yahoo attempting to stir up trouble and intentionally not represent what any of this is about. Even if he is real, he does not represent anyone's views but his own -- and I think it is a solitary view. --] 14:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:08, 18 August 2005
Something which may interest editors of this page
Any help which could be provided would be greatly appreciated. -Godfearing Parent.
- I'm failing to see how this violates any sense of decency? It's an article about a notable porn star and there are no "obscene" or "pornographic" pictures on the article page. If no one responds in 5 days I'll delete this POV tag. Gateman1997 22:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not a fan of this so-called Decency project, but I do think it would be better to have a picture of Pandora Peaks that doesn't have her hand down her pants.--Prosfilaes 22:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Frankly I don't see how it matters. (I agree there might be better shots of her out there, but that's beside the point). This tag is used to identify obscene articles. This article is neither obscene nor offensive unless your a raging right winger with a "Jesus Saves" bumpersticker. (Please note that she is fully clothed in the pic.)Gateman1997 22:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- SHE IS NOT FULLY CLOTHED. She clearly has on an immodest bikini top that shows off her breasts in their practical entirety. With breasts that large she should cover up quite a bit so as not to titillate or offend, a good appropriate modest dress would be some heavy sweaters or jackets that covered her obscene figure. -DavidsCrusader 23:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- This is the problem with your "project". You are attempting to push your view of obscene on the rest of Misplaced Pages which violates WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. She could walk down the street in that getup totally legally and without any recourse from the authorities. If you find it offense, then tough, its your opinion and your opinion means squat.Gateman1997 23:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- It has been mentioned that your debater is a sockpuppet yahoo attempting to stir up trouble and intentionally not represent what any of this is about. Even if he is real, he does not represent anyone's views but his own -- and I think it is a solitary view. --Noitall 14:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
- This is the problem with your "project". You are attempting to push your view of obscene on the rest of Misplaced Pages which violates WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. She could walk down the street in that getup totally legally and without any recourse from the authorities. If you find it offense, then tough, its your opinion and your opinion means squat.Gateman1997 23:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- SHE IS NOT FULLY CLOTHED. She clearly has on an immodest bikini top that shows off her breasts in their practical entirety. With breasts that large she should cover up quite a bit so as not to titillate or offend, a good appropriate modest dress would be some heavy sweaters or jackets that covered her obscene figure. -DavidsCrusader 23:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Frankly I don't see how it matters. (I agree there might be better shots of her out there, but that's beside the point). This tag is used to identify obscene articles. This article is neither obscene nor offensive unless your a raging right winger with a "Jesus Saves" bumpersticker. (Please note that she is fully clothed in the pic.)Gateman1997 22:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not a fan of this so-called Decency project, but I do think it would be better to have a picture of Pandora Peaks that doesn't have her hand down her pants.--Prosfilaes 22:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)