Because beack when it was first made I was going to use the image page as the page that is now at Wikipedia:Fromowner.Genisock211:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the last line should be: "If so, please click here." Geni, would you mind changing that and re-uploading the image with the comma inserted? Many thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I think these gender stereotype images look terrible. It's much better to have gender neutral images as people of different sexes all have different hairstyles and we shouldn't imply that to be either sex you should have a certain build or appearance. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel20:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This neuter version is getting ripped down everywhere because it really is downright ugly. Why couldn't we have left it as the original (now male) version and simply added the female version? Frankly I thought the one now labeled as male could just as easily be seen as female with a short haircut or her hair tied/bunned etc. —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 03:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this completely featureless image male? Is it just because male is the default whereas female must be specifically indicated? - ∅ (∅), 22:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, look at those neck muscles. :D Well, it could still be a female bodybuilder!
I agree with Humpelschmumpel though, we shouldn't need gender specific (stereotyped) images. And anyhow, I don't think these filler images are a good idea; they make the page and by extension Wikipedia look ridiculous. Better use no image and look professional than stick what are basically under construction signs everywhere like we're nothing but a bunch of Geocities users in 1996. :-p - ∅ (∅), 23:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is under construction. It would be misleading to imply otherwise. Why do you think people get pissed and threaten to sue when they find inaccuracies? — Omegatron04:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No the name appears in various bits of documentation and the upload forms. Are you volunteering to edit every article this image appears in?Genisock214:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, this image had gotten "stuck" in the old category even though the template with the actual category tag had already been updated. I made a dummy edit to the image page and that seems to have fixed it. Must've been a glitch in MediaWiki. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{Editprotected}}
I keep encountering this thing in articles; not all editors are aware of the Centralized Discussion that nixed, by WP community-wide consensus, the use of this and similar images on article pages, and some are thus still deploying it. The status of this image as deprecated is very clear and needs to be made clearer (but it should not be deleted; the centralized and pre-centralized debates about it are of great precedential value, but would be rendered rather inexplicable if the image disappeared, as it is used numerous times in the course of the debate).
Please place the following at the top of the image page: {{Warning|1=Do not add this image to article pages. The proposal to add such images to articles [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders|has been rejected]]. The image is preserved for historical reasons, as it is frequently cited in the proposal debates.}}
Please also remove the HTML comment and transclusion, or at least comment-out the latter (and collapse the pointless blank lines in such a case). The transclusion in particular still strongly suggests that these placeholder images are accepted and directly encourages their use.
Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Not done: It's already got a 
![[1]](https://no.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bilde:Erstatt_dette_bildet.svg&redirect=no){kind=link}
