User talk:Disavian/Userboxes/Not Censored

Pic

IMO, it doesn't make sense to use a censored pic for an anti-censorship message. Take a look at the version I created for my user page. --Tysto 23:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am 100% with Tysto on this: this userbox is oxymoronic. mgekelly 09:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

i agree too Bsmntbombdood 15:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I too agree with this. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I Changed the picture earlier today and was blocked for it by Curps. Bsmntbombdood 01:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like outrageous abuse of administrator power by User:Curps. I'm going to revert and see what happens. Bsmntbombdood's changes were made after due discussion, and even if they hadn't been cannot possibly warrant a block with no prior warning. If I am blocked could someone please complain on my behalf and help me get unblocked. mgekelly 01:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Curps has reverted your change Mgekelly. Bsmntbombdood 02:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Curps to come to this page and explain his/her actions. mgekelly 04:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Curps has reverted his reversion, it's back to the uncensored image. Bsmntbombdood 05:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, obviously a mistake here. This particular page obviously wasn't a candidate for reverting (unlike, say, Booby, which is a type of bird, and had a persistent vandal on it). -- Curps 05:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This kind of "in-your-face" provocation of a Userbox does nothing to help us write an encyclopedia. In fact, they are a distraction. This is not a site for anti-social types to get their jollies with anti-establishment messages. As for the message itself, it's true, but Wikipedia's lack of censorship isn't an excuse for purient displays for their own sake, but instead, it means all topics are acceptable for articles, even "adult" subjects, without censorship. Nhprman 13:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If you take the position that controversial userboxes are not helpful that's fine. However, there has been no definitive ruling against them and the Template space is still free of censorship. Take this to the village pump to get a policy put through, or cite me an existing policy. Otherwise, I'd say this is an attempt by you to impose your preferences on other editors. mgekelly 16:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were one of the ones who has reverted the picture. My above comment is meant for them, since I think their behaviour is atrocious, since they are reverting without discussion. You are discussing it, and haven't been reverting, so welcome! i disagree with your position though, since I believe that the unlimited diversity of userboxes is good for wikipedia. I dropped out of editing Wikipedia seriously for about a year because of run-ins with rude admins, but I came back a month or so ago after discovering userboxes, which have made the experience fun for me again. mgekelly 16:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem on the misunderstanding. It's hard to keep track of people and their edits sometimes! If you've just returned, the policy on what is and what isn't acceptable for userboxes is changing rather quickly. The consensus is growing that Userboxes that advocate a belief are divisive, inflammatory and counter to what we're here to do - i.e. edit articles in an encyclopedia. As I said, I agree that articles should be as uncensored as possible, and if I go to an article on Penis for instance, I expect I'll see some (and yes, you will.) But to be unnecessarily provocative, even in a kind of cute way like this template does, isn't really necessary. And all templates are subject to community discussion and reverts or even deletion. I haven't been involved in reverting, just discussion, but I feel the box is not necessary. Nhprman 18:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just think the picture you used is inappropriate than the one before, even though Wikipedia is not censored. You can revert it back if you want. - Nick C 17:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting it back. Bsmntbombdood 19:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nhprman on this one. The messge gets the point across, and I don't think such a picture is appropriate and should be displayed on a user page. Then again, it is your user page, and that being said I guess it is your discresion to add/remove content. However, we must remember our purpose here as afrorementioned, to write an encyclopedia and not jump down other's throats. In any case, do what you want with it, but it is now off my user page for the time being.--Pilot|guy 21:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. I do have to make the distinction that as long as it's a template, it's in what's called "template space" not "user space." The reason why Userboxes are being discussed so much is that they are Templates, not simply text on User pages. - Nhprman 22:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but why does it matter that they are templates not substed on userpages? The average Wikipedia reader doesn't come into the Template space (i.e. /wiki/Template:* pages), any more than they do to userpages. Since userbox templates only appear on userpages, I don't see why there should be any different standard for templates than for userpages. Clearly the image space has no such standard, hence the image that has been used here being on Wikipedia anyway.

BTW, the image of a woman's breasts is pretty unoffensive. In many cultures, e.g. most of continental Europe, this image is not considered offensive at all. In other parts of the world, such as Muslim countries, the existing image, showing a woman's exposed midriff, is pretty much just as offensive as an image of breasts. I have a picture of a woman's vulva on the userbox on my userpage, but I'm canny enough to realise that it's not a good idea to stick it on this template. mgekelly 05:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It matters that it's a template because some not-so-smart little person will create "Wikipedians against censorship" and use the "cateogry" function of the template to go around "recruiting" people into this new "club." That's not the reason why we're here. And BTW, you're right about breasts, somewhat, but that's also the line every pornographer and immature teenager uses. When used to titilate or piss in authority's eye, they're called "tits" or "jugs", not breasts. (And p.s., European women don't run around shirtless/braless in public, other than at a few designated beaches. Get a clue. Ask a European.) Titilation or making a point with Userboxes (or putting Vulva on userpages, frankly) aren't the point of Wikipedia. It's an ENCYCLOPEDIA. - Nhprman 06:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Women in Europe do not walk around bare-brested. However advertising billboards and television advertising viewable by children show bare breasts and this is not generally considered offensive. I am European.

2. Some of what you say touched on the general issue of non-Wikipedia related userboxes. Until the anti-userbox, anti-user affiliation categories sentiment is made policy, I don't think it's fair to argue this way against this one userbox.

3. This picture looks anatomical to me, not titilating. If people with internet access want to look at breasts, they're not going to come to this template. mgekelly 06:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, please use edit summaries. Your edits are less likely to be reverted that way. --Pilot|guy 21:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, I know that you all love to revert the image in this template that I created. But right now, the image of boobies is being used as a justification for deletion. So for the time being it would be better if everyone kept the line drawing image in the userbox.--God Ω War 03:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

A picture of breasts is not justification for deletion. --Bsmntbombdood 17:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello there. I like boobs, someone should make a userbox for that, what do you think? Like, {{userbox boobs-1}} for small breasts ... {{userbox boobs-4}} for large breasts . . . boobs-N for someone who loves giant breasts and so on VdSV9•♫

Straw Poll

Enough reverting. Everyone please choose the image you like best...

The Original

Wikipedia is not censored for minors.

1. I like this one best. I created this image just for this template. I believe my version draws attention to the censorship not to some random girl's breasts.--God Ω War 04:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
2. It shows what is not supposed to happen. Also, it makes me think of censorship. Boobies don't make me think of censorship. Kusma (討論) 23:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

   In that case, the censored woman overlaid a big red _Ø might be appropriate? Would it be comprehensible enough? — May. 23, '06 [03:49] <freak|talk>

   This image is best, but a _Ø is needed IMO - • The Giant Puffin • 12:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

   This idea would make the image a double negative - don't say no to the depiction of nudity! I think just showing the tits would get to the point more concisely. mgekelly 06:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

3. This image, because it highlights the point of the template rather than a pair of breasts on the template like there is now. Beno1000 13:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

   Actually this image makes a mockery of the template it occupies. — May. 23, '06 [14:53] <freak|talk>

   No it doesn't, the image calls attention to the issue at hand. Ever see free speech protestors with duct tape on their mouth's?--God Ω War 15:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

   An example....here--God Ω War 15:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

4. This one because of the irony between the image and the message. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zotdragon (talk • contribs) 16:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Keep this, but only because the breatsa aren't particularly nice in the other one --Falcon9x5 21:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

   You can change it to better boobs, if you want. --Bsmntbombdood 19:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

6. Use this one, with an overlaid no symbol. The one below has nothing to do with censorship; many countries in the world don't even have censorship issues with womens' breasts, so the below image is too biased for the default template. Plus this image is the original; why not just make a second template, like "Template:User not censored2", for the newer version, rather than merely assuming that everyone who's ever added this template to their page is fine with the random "boobies" image representing their anti-censorship message. -Silence 05:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
7. I agree to use this one. The other one could offend some females. Weirdy 06:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC).

   Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive --Bsmntbombdood 19:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

8. Use either this one or this one with a _Ø through it. As much as I don't like censorship, I think it's kinda stupid to just have random boobs. --Donbert 06:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
9. This image with _Ø through it. I don't see breasts as being the height of censorship, but this image with the _Ø conveys dislike at censorship, which is the whole point of this userbox isn't it? Maeve 10:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

   I agree with this - the picture should convey the full meaning of the text accompanying it, not just show an uncensored image which is unnecessary and distracting. - File:Icons-flag-scotland.png calum 14:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

10. I also prefer this image. It does draw more attention to the act of censorship. I wouldn't balk at a _Ø, but I don't see it as really required. treed 22:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
11. This one with _Ø. Maybe use the other picture for a "this user likes boobs" userbox. Stev0 02:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
12. I prefer this userbox, or the one with the _Ø. - Nick C (Review Me!) 16:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
13. Me too, this is the best of available. Please take away balck bars. So that we can see lips boobs and ****(word censored). Thanks. Lara_bran 10:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The booby version

Wikipedia is not censored for minors.

1. I like this one best. A censored image is contradictory to the message - Bsmntbombdood 05:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Definitely a better choice. It doesn't have to be this particular image, (or even a photo at all — an .svg might suffice) but the other one is ridiculous. — May. 23, '06 [03:45] <freak|talk>
3. Concur with freakofnurture. —Nightstallion (?) 08:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
4. I'm not so much voting for this one than against the other one. It really doesn't make much sense for black bars to be over the naughty bits on a template that opposes censorship. Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 14:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
5. This one. The other contradicts the image. Superior1 02:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
6. I vote for this. I substed the box on my userpage, and have added a more offensive image. I think these unaattractive tits are the least dangerous image which indicates that Wikipedia is not censored imaginable, great for inclusion on userpages.mgekelly 06:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
7. This one, because it underlines the point we are trying to make. The first one does the exact opposite: it uses a censored photo to support an anti-censorship message, a clear no-no. How can we claim to oppose censorship if our own message is censored? --Tjss (Talk) 23:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
8. This one makes much more sense than the alternative. It will aid in comprehension.
9. I prefer this one, makes more of a statment. DemonWeb 18:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
10. The picture in this template can't be censored without the template seeming a tad hypocritical... even (/) out the censoring is dubious - Mr. Cat 03:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
11. I really like this one. It really expresses the meaning of the userbox. --Disavian 21:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
12. I love this userbox. Picture has a terrific impact indeed. It stands for free speech, philistinism,... OMG am getting emotional. Anwar 05:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Neither

1. Delete the userbox. Although Wikipedia is not censored, the tradition has not been to put these pictures of, say, breasts on pages which are not about breasts. Cheers, --unforgettableid | talk to me 22:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Having a censored picture is an odd contradiction, but I can only the see the boobs being divisive... "cleaving" editors into pro-boob and anti-boob camps, if you will. In other words, it's not an image necessary to get the point across. Surely there's a more creative alternative available. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 23:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

   If you provide an alternative then we can vote for it. What we can't have is no image at all.--God Ω War 23:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

   I'm not much of a graphic designer, but I'll take a shot and check back in a few days. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 01:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

3. We need a version of the template where the user can pick either, I.E. {{user notcensored|boobs}}. --digital_me_{(Talk)(Contribs)} 14:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• oh I can do that easily. just pick a default image--God Ω War 14:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

1. giving the user a choice is better imo, just do it sometime soon and stop screwing around with the f#$@!ing image Lady 3Jane 17:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

2. Isn't this a compromise? --The ikiroid (talk)^{(Help Me Improve)} 21:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

   That is great, man! mgekelly 04:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

1. I think the orginal should be kept, but with an X across it. Raichu 23:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Choice is good! VdSV9•♫ 11:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Why not just use Image:PPlaquecloseup.png? I like breasts as much as the next guy, but this image would make a mature statement about human nature and its depiction on Wikipedia. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 13:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

   This is the best suggestion yet! I love the way the guy is waving! mgekelly 15:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

2. I retract my last vote. I really like Anetode's suggestion. --Donbert 04:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
3. I love the image from anetode. Indeed very mature and still not censored. Gets my vote. Lgriot 14:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion

Since their is no preferred version I am going to edit this box with a pipe link so anyone can stick in whatever image they choose.--God Ω War 22:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Now it is easy to pick what you want.--God Ω War 22:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Great work God of War --Bsmntbombdood 04:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Bugged?

Nice, now does anyone have a clue as to why the ubx doesn't appear as it should in my userpage? At least to me its showing up like this VdSV9•♫ 18:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

 ╔═══════════╗ 
 ║IMA               ║
 ║GE                ║
 ║                  ║
 ║text text text txt║
 ╚═══════════╝

Picture

I propose a default picture which is not gender specific. Best regards Rhanyeia 11:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'll try to change it a bit later. :) However, I guess the non-gender specific picture would need some work first to be like the current default picture. Best regards Rhanyeia 12:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about this the less sense the userbox makes. Kids see naked people often, and people tend to hide their bodies from the adults of the opposite sex, not children. I think this could be tried with a newspaper image. Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 17:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The newspaper doesn't make sense at all. Nudity is often censored on television and in magazines, but as it's not censored on Wikipedia, a picture of breasts or a naked person makes more sense. People have the choice to use any picture they want with this template, so forcing everyone to have a newspaper image is a bad idea. ^anemoneI_projectors 17:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Nudity is censored because that's part of the adult culture. But female bodies are censored from children only if they are presented as sex objects. And I guess it doesn't help much to change there a picture with both male and female after all because I don't think male nakedness is any more censored from children than female nakedness. Newspapers are often censored from children as containing things not thought to be good for them. Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 17:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Anyway, the guideline WP:NOTCENSORED says Wikipedia isn't censored, it doesn't specify children. Therefore I suggest removing "for children" from this userbox and thus making the discussion on what's censored for children irrelevant. The picture should be of something you might expect to be censored, such as a naked human. That makes a million times more sense than a picture of a newspaper. But at least give people the choice of what picture they want, as it was before you made changes, and as it is now. ^anemoneI_projectors 18:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I took that choice away because I felt this presents females as sex objects. Your idea of removing "for minors" might work. But I think it has to be with a picture of both man and women because there's so long history of presenting females as sex objects and then censoring that, it's the first thing that comes to mind. Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 18:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There is an option to use Image:PPlaquecloseup.png, however, I don't think it really works at that size. The top half of a person is easier to see, but a topless man wouldn't be censored, where a topless woman might. I agree that an image of both a male and a female would be a good idea. I didn't see it as a female presented as a sex object, I saw it as a naked human. (I just realised the default image is of the torso of a woman, not the top half of a woman, so perhaps there's something that can be worked out.) ^anemoneI_projectors 20:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

However, anyone can still choose what image they want. I am guessing you want to change the default image and maybe give more examples? ^anemoneI_projectors 20:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to remove the parameter option. I think Image:PPlaquecloseup.png looks good, but I can edit the picture if it doesn't work though. Do you think you could let me edit, if you don't mind there being both a man and a women, and let someone else complain if he disagrees? Can you try with that image for one day and if you think it doesn't show up well enough I'll edit it? Topless man isn't good, but enough can be left. Personally I think it looks better with whole figures. The point is the idea isn't it, and userbox images are often a bit fuzzy because they are so small. Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 21:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion on what picture to use is above. As no consensus could be reached, we were given the option. I use the "booby version" and I like it that way because I'd rather have a photo, and other photos didn't work. I see nothing wrong with giving people a choice. ^anemoneI_projectors 22:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The parameter is staying, given the discussion above. If you want to have a newspaper on it when you use it, go ahead and place {{User:Disavian/Userboxes/Not Censored|image=Newspaper.svg}} on your userpage/wherever you want it. Alternatively, you can make your own userbox by copying the code for this one to a user subpage in your own userspace and modifying it however you like. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If you talk about that I can choose what picture I like you are missing what I say, I'm not using this userbox, I don't even think it's very necessary with any picture. It simply states one policy, what is a userbox needed for that. That text combined with the picture of a naked or half naked women makes females to be presented as sex objects because of the culture we (?) live in. There's still one thing I'd be ready to try (so that there wouldn't be a deletion conversation). That the parameter option is kept, the default picture to equalitarian, the text as AnemoneProjectors suggested, and the list of other pictures not presented on the userbox page. We could try this for two months, and maybe I don't care anymore after that, or maybe you don't care anymore, anything could happen during such a long time. :) The past discussions do not address my points so pointing to them doesn't help much here. Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 08:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Pic of original version

I would like to have pic of same image or "the original" version, but without black bars(bars with text censored and XXX). So that in image we can see both lips, boobs and genitals. Same image remove black horizontal bars. This will need manual editing but worth it. Great userbox! Thanks. Lara_bran 10:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You can even make it(new image) another version, maybe "Lara bran version"? :) Lara_bran 10:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Done! added as "uncensored version". Thanks. Lara_bran 15:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Though a colored background would be appreciated. like some yellow color in background, i have no tool other than microsoft paint :D Lara_bran 15:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

restored documentation

I undid an edit to restore documentation. Thanks. Appliedneck242 (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to undo your edit which I think was unnecessary and there could be more discussion before doing such edit on it. Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 18:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)