Jump to content

Talk:Anal bleaching

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Images - keep or delete?

[edit]
Resolved
 – deleted as copyright violations

There seems to be an edit war going on, deleting and adding the images in this article. There is a note that says "the current consensus is for this article to have images" but I don't see any discussion of the topic. Should we keep or delete these pictures? I'll start.

  • Keep We know that Wikipedia is not censored, so obscenity is clearly not a valid reason to delete. I don't object to the images - they obviously show what the article is talking about. I'm not positive they're really necessary, but I don't see any reason not to have them. Conical Johnson (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where do you see an edit war? I've removed it once, mostly because I doubted that the uploader owns copyright of the images, judging by thei professional look. He insists he does, and added them back.
    I have no problems displaying anuses (ani? (heh) on this page, but would prefer cropping the images to only show the relevant part. Amalthea 08:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I was going mostly on assumption that this had been argued before, because of the tag and the fact that this article had been nominated for deletion previously. I went back through the history and it's clear that there's no war, just a couple of reverts, as you said. I'll let you and Fred discuss this further, as intellectual property isn't my thing. Conical Johnson (talk) 05:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I'm by no means against explicit photos in Wikipedia articles, I doubt the usefulness or encyclopedicity of these two. To begin with, we have a full-body shot where one isn't necessary. The woman in the first photo is fully naked for no apparent reason. We appear to have photos of 2 different women purporting to show a before and after. The images seem to go out of their way to show the genitals when (and I don't believe I've ever typed these words before) the focus should be on the anus. And finally there is apparently some dispute about the copyright status of the images, which suggests they should be removed immediately until it can be ascertained. On a related note, this article is extremely poorly referenced. I'm about to remove some dubious and unsourced claims about Katie Holmes, but the whole article is dubious and unsourced and really needs some attention. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've removed them a second time now. I haven't heard back from Fred in a day, and I think we're in agreement that if we display any examples here then, as Exploding Boy put it, they should really focus on the anus.
I'll see if Fred gets back on this. If he can alleviate my copyright concerns I'll crop the anuses and put them back.
Amalthea 09:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now, I'm going to go ahead and call this an edit war. Some consensus needs to happen here. Those who keep adding the photos (Fred on another computer?), please explain your reasoning. Conical Johnson (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are constantly adding it / here! / Here also, until reverted. On the German Wiki / here, one different image used, but still the same main image. On Finnish Wiki [1], on Russian Wiki [2] on Welsh Wiki [3] and on Japanese Wiki [4]

Gone as copyvios. Amalthea 19:24, 26 May 2009 (

Before+after image

[edit]

We really need one. (I'm serious) 220.246.155.48 (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 220.246.155.48 that when such before and after photos of the same person become available, they would be more desirable than images of two different people. If they also happened to be more clinical in nature, all the better. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

Does this article really need a photo? Sure, Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Does that mean that anything and everything can be published? Are there no guidelines for what constitutes appropriate encyclopedic material?Jihadcola (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shamelessly copied from an existing Wikipedia Template: "Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding objectionable content and options to not see an image." That all being said, I'm not quite sure what you were expecting when you went to an article about Anal bleaching. Antoshi ☏ ★ 21:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for the picture to be deleted. I mean, it can be very aggressive for some people. They might be interested in know about the procedure. It's like putting an image of a bleeding penis in a castration article, or a very graphic picture when you're looking about surgical procedures. I think there's no need of putting the picture of a gaping butthole in this article. Magegg (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No way, I've already jerked off three times to this article. That's what encyclopedias are for! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.33.208.179 (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. (a) That post-bleach picture looks like she's *really* enjoying herself. (b) An encyclopaedia doesn't need to show everything it conceivable could to avoid the horrors of self-censoring (i.e. there's weighting and the principle of least surprise (as shown here in a discussion on whether or not to show a pregnant 5 year old's picture)). (c) Societal norms are changing - you can now see explicit Brazilian waxings on YouTube (good news for 124.33.208.179!) (d) As has been noted in Before+after image above, there's little use in having two totally different people and skin types in the before and after shots; it makes absolutely no sense to go from a darker skin (before) to a lighter one (after) unless you're running a scam.
These points are separate from whether or not a correct portrayal of before and after should be shown. I'd tend to go with assuming that they should be, if the same model/lighting/etc. is used in both, displayed as low down on the page as possible (to try to move it off the first screen) and subject to severe cropping (i.e. just the, umm, target). It'd be interesting to see what happens to the pro-inclusion vote if a male model uploads the pictures. Bromley86 (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removed pictures. Happy to have better pictures added, just not those particular ones. Bromley86 (talk) 09:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored them. They adequately visually represent what anal bleaching is and add an encylopedic benefit for the reader as well. For your argument, As has been noted in Before+after image above, there's little use in having two totally different people and skin types in the before and after shots; it makes absolutely no sense to go from a darker skin (before) to a lighter one (after) unless you're running a scam., it demonstrates the difference. While two different people, the difference is absolutely and visually understood. I agree with the other changes you made, but not the removal of said photos under this reasoning. Also, your latter reasonings due conflict with WP:CENSORSHIP, trying to hide them off the screen. Tutelary (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing in WP:CENSORSHIP about not moving pictures down the page. I'd not encountered the "least surprise" principle before I saw it on that Talk page, and I doubt it's an official WP policy. However, Anthonyhcole appears to be an admin, although, of course, that doesn't mean there's no scope for him to be wrong about best practice. Additionally, what's your argument against the principle, WP policy or not? It seems eminently sensible to me in an article on roasting puppies, for example, that some may find offensive, if the pics of pups-on-a-stick are "below the fold".
I absolutely disagree with your reasoning about the difference being visually understood from the current images. If we're talking about understanding what "lighter" is compared to "darker", no image is necessary. The current images impart no meaningful information; in no way should WP be advancing the opinion that lighter is better than darker, which is the subtext behind the current pics (just reread that on preview and I want to make clear that I'm not playing a race card with this comment).
I referred earlier to the classic before-and-after shots that one can see on any website adverting a product, for example a diet product where the before shot shows someone slouching and pale and the after shows the same person after a 2 hour workout and time on a tanbed. The current situation on this page is worse than that, as we have a darker model, who I assume is a civilian, as the before, with the after model being both lighter and a porn star, albeit not a well-known one. If we have a genuine before and after shot of the same model, then I'd agree that that might be useful (although care would have to be taken that the image was representative of what one can expect from anal bleaching from a salon (as opposed to at-home creams)).
I've not reverted, but I'll be trying to get this addressed. Comments by anyone monitoring the Talk page would be appreciated, as would further input by yourself. Bromley86 (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Censorship can take many forms. You're deliberately limiting exposure to the images in the article, and given that they visually express something that not many people take kindly to--Seeing a butthole isn't on my high list of priorities either, but in an article about anal bleaching; when there are free images to visually demonstrate anal bleaching, it is adequate to put an image to visually demonstrate to the reader. It's not about the skin tone, and I didn't even notice the skin tone until you brought it up. The difference in tone of the photos is coincidental and is not related to whether the images should be removed or not. The main argument I'm trying to say is that the difference between an unbleached anus and one that is bleached. That's what those two images visually display. That is adequate for an article about anal bleaching. The current situation on this page is worse than that, as we have a darker model, who I assume is a civilian, as the before, with the after model being both lighter and a porn star, albeit not a well-known one. If we have a genuine before and after shot of the same model, then I'd agree that that might be useful (although care would have to be taken that the image was representative of what one can expect from anal bleaching from a salon (as opposed to at-home creams)). Why would this be a good reason to remove the images? Why do we need to get into the 'civilian vs pornstar' or the 'race tone' thing? Ultimately, Wikipedia is designed to be an encyclopedia, and give information to its readers. Displaying an unbleached and bleached anus demonstrates the difference to the reader of what exactly 'anal bleaching' is. Given Commons allows explicit photos, you could perhaps find a better photo to display the unbleached anus, but that's besides the point. Also, please do not 'ping' other editors here, because that could be a violation of Wikipedia's canvassing policy and attempting to get more people to support your side. Small additional side note: Anthony is not an administrator. Tutelary (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the pinging; my bad. I'd initially added his name in brackets, but thought that might be rude, so "usered" him.
I, like the rest of the world, am not a believer in absolute free speech. If I go to the article on Female genital mutilation, I cannot see a before and after shot there. Absolute free speech would dictate that I should, so the article should at least include this pic. But it doesn't (actually, in that particular case, I can see a decent argument for this diagram being far more useful than any series of pics could ever be). Incidentally, if they were to include photos of the various types in that article, I hope you can see the "least surprise" point about nesting them down where the diagram I linked to is, rather than at the top of the page where the billboard is.
If you're going to make a point about the difference between a bleached anus and an unbleached one, in an encyclopaedia, then it has to be scientific. Assuming for the moment that the before photo is unbleached (I am assuming that the porn model with the shiny pink ring is bleached, but that might be an unfair assumption - certainly, the original file makes no mention of it[5]), it's still not a scientific display of before and after and, as I said, if all you're trying to do is convey that one is lighter than the other, then words can just as easily do that (actually "word", as "lightening" does it). To ignore the fact that the two pictures are entirely different skin colour is just odd. I very much doubt that the anus of the before model would have ever changed to the colour of the after model, just as the after model was almost certainly a wonderful pink before any alleged bleaching. And, of course, we don't know that she's not sporting a temporary cosmetic, such as [insert 1-2 day duration cosmetic product I saw when editing the article but can't find now]. Try this in an advert and see how long it takes for the regulatory agencies to jump on you. Bromley86 (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the female genital mutilation articles, other stuff exists, and may not be fully relevant. For example, I could bring up an example of a well known shooting case when attempting to argue for notability on one that hasn't been reported by many newspapers. They're both shootings, but they're not equal shootings when it comes to notability. For here, attempting to argue that FGM should be present via images on the article will not aid in attempting to discuss on whether the anal bleaching images here should be on the article. For this, I would like to ask for a compromise from you and Anthony. Would you two be fine with just removing the first image? I understand what you're getting at, different skin tones makes it kind of confusing, but the second image is just spot on with what bleaching is. Making the anus the color of their skin. I think that would be a better solution than removing both images outright. Tutelary (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldn't agree to that. The second image tells us nothing about anal bleaching. It shows us a skin tone that is similar around the sphincter to that on the buttocks, which I suppose is the aim of the procedure. But who says that is the result of anal bleaching? Is that the typical result? This is misleading. I've emailed a local beauty technician and asked if they'd be willing to donate an actual before and after image. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My position would be that removing the current before image would be better than retaining it, but that removing both would be significantly better (as there is no evidence that the current after photo is representative of a post-bleached anus). Mind you, AFAIK I've not personally seen one, so I can't even say whether I think it's representative in my opinion.
One thing I did try last night was to find before and after pics out on the web: not necessarily scientific ones, or ones that we could use, but just any examples on websites offering the creams/treatment. It was surprisingly hard to track down and I couldn't find a single example that I'd consider suitable, even if it were creative commons licensed. Bromley86 (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got pinged about this discussion. I support the inclusion of good before and after photos - but that means good quality photos of the same person before and after. These are neither good quality nor of the same person. Per Bromley's suggestion, we typically put NSFW images low down, below the fold, where doing so won't unreasonably disadvantage the reader. While we don't have an easy one- or two-click global image filter for our readers, we need to be sensitive and inclusive about how we handle such images.

I'd suggest we all pop into a local beauty parlor and ask the operator if they'd be interested in producing something for us. If enough of us ask, we'll eventually get something good. Frankly, anything involving the same subject in the same pose, same setting, same lighting would do. Meanwhile, I support removal - they are an embarrassment, not because they are anal sphincters but because they are crap. (I mostly edit medical articles where we deal with "offensive" body parts all the time.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support removing the images, then looking for medical images, of men or women, which should be placed lower on the page. The current situation is uninformative, because they are not before-and-after images. If no free medical images can be found, they could be linked to using the external media template. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What would a "medical image" be exactly? And why better? This isn't a medical procedure. Ideally we'd have the same person before and after, but until then these are certainly informative. Of course images of males might take some of the heat away, if they could be found (male before and female after doesn't work I think). Johnbod (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I rather doubt an actual surgeon would be doing this; a nurse at best, I suspect. Cosmetic surgery outfits may do many things that aren't thereby turned into medical procedures, especially when they are more often done by beauticians. Johnbod (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: I didn't mean to imply that it was a medical procedure. When I say "medical image," I was thinking of one on a physician's website, where we can be reasonably sure that it's a real before-and-after, if that's what people want. Even with those, though, you have to be careful. We had a situation on another article about women's genitals where supposedly genuine before-and-after shots obviously showed different women. The broader point is that women will come here for information. They ought not to be hit by pornography, or men making sexual comments on the talk page, or inaccurate material that makes them feel that the natural state of women's bodies is a bad thing. Choice of image therefore matters, and as BoboMeowCat has argued, the image can be cropped to focus more on the body part. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure your trust in cosmetic surgery outfits is well-placed, frankly! The entire subject, and business, rather rests on a concern that "the natural state of women's bodies is a bad thing", & I don't think the photos introduce this. As you say, women and even men come here for information, and we should give it to them. Is there male anal bleaching? The article doesn't say, but logically there might be as the anus plays a considerable role in male gay sexuality. No-one can be surprized to see a couple of anus photos when they do come here, though many will rightly be surprized if they don't. If you think clear photos of this are inherently pornographic, that's your issue frankly. Cropping is fine, and to remove some doubts the caption on "after" might be changed to say something like "anal bleaching aims at an appearance like this". Essentially this is straight censorship, of images that merely clearly show parts of the anatomy in a highly relevant context. Johnbod (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, per SlimVirgin. Lightbreather (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove The current images. There's no encyclopedic benefit to showing two different models (one dark skinned and the other light skinned) to supposedly illustrate the "effects of anal bleaching". I would perhaps support images of the same model if lower down on the page. There are NSFW issues here. If someone tracks down images of the same model before and after we could probably make them more suitable by cropping to the point that someone not reading the article or looking closely would know what the image was. It seems the encyclopedic benefit of showing such lightening of skin does not require showing entire butt and/or seductively arched entire butt, although that might disappoint 124.33.208.179. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. The two images are incredible WP:OR because they suggest that anal bleaching applied to the "normal" woman would give the "after" result. If these images were displayed by a practitioner we would instantly recognize the scam—the two woman have totally different skin tones, and showing them on the same page is misleading. Further, there is no confirmation that the "after" image is the result of anal bleaching—the only justification is that the anus apparently belongs to a porn star, and we all know that porn stars have bleached anuses, and editors can verify this is a bleached anus. That line of reasoning is not part of WP:V. The "after" image could equally be used to illustrate hand bleaching because it is obvious the woman has bleached hands—just compare them with the normal hands shown in the other image. The images should be removed until a before-and-after set of photographs is available from a single source showing the same person under the same lighting conditions; that would be encyclopedic information. Johnuniq (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, is nobody going to comment on the compromise I proposed? Only show the after photo, as an example of the effects of anal bleaching. It's exactly what the definition is, making the anus the same color as their usual skin tone. I can very much understand the arguments against showing both images, because you could equally do the same thing with weight loss, do two different skin tones (IE: People) and not get the same effect. But leaving the article imageless is unhelpful to the reader in my honest opinion. Getting away from both images, why do people have a problem with the article having an image? Tutelary (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence is there that the "after" photo shows a representative view of the procedure? Is there any evidence that the photo is legitimate without image manipulation? Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These are pointy demands not normally made of photos here. Johnbod (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Surely such demands are always made? If we have an article on serial killers, and if most serial killers are men, there will be issues with me adding a photo from the commons bank that shows a man when there's no evidence that he's also a serial killer. As there, so here. She does indeed have a pink anus, and anal bleaching is meant to do that, but there's no evidence associated with the original file upload that she has had the treatment (semi-intelligibly tagged:While in a domesticated, Jenni Blaze naked in public. She hold and covers her butt and shows herself her human anus.)[6]. She might be one of those blessed with a naturally pink anus. I'd also point out that the person who cropped and originally added the image here appears to have a certain interest in adding explicit images. No problem, we all need a hobby, but it does call into question their fact-checking. Finally, I've web-searched Jenni Blaze and anal bleaching. No hits, other than from WP. Bromley86 (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tutelary. "Getting away from both images, why do people have a problem with the article having an image?" - That's slightly misrepresenting the position of most of the removes. Every recent response has indicated that they'd be happy with photos, just not these photos. Bromley86 (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It shows a rather young boy I suspect, introducing further problems, & meaning bleaching is unlikely. At least the other one has a name attached, that of a porn star who is I supposed likely to have been bleached. Johnbod (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod:, would you take this as the compromise in this? I dearly think that this article is just not right without an image to visually demonstrate what bleaching actually does. The image above satisfies that requirement. Tutelary (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is Wikipedia really unable to get find an editor who can get hold of the following: some hair, a bit of animal skin, a petri dish, a drop of bleach and a camera? There's your before and after shot of what bleaching actually does, minus the voyeurism. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - considering the greatly different skin tones, the pictures don't help demonstrate the difference. As for Tutelary's "compromise", just having an "after" photo isn't of any use unless we have a "before"; and, as mentioned above, we can't even be sure that this is an "after". Nothing in principle against having photos, just not these photos. --GRuban (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove First: disclaimer I heard about this on the gender gap task force but I agree with The Vintage Feminist that this is a legitimate topic for the group and doesn't violate canvasing. I think the guideline for Wikipedia:Pornography is relevant here. So the picture " should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available" I think we all know what an anus looks like and a description of a bleached one serves just as good as a picture. If this were say pictures of prisoners at Abu Ghraib I would say by all means include it. Those pictures definitely add to the informative value. This does not and is likely to turn off a lot of users for no good reason. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note

[edit]

The Gender Gap Task Force was notified of this article, and the notifier did this not 10 minutes before voting on the images. Tutelary (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of GGTF complies fully with WP:CANVASS – Appropriate notification: An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: ... A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline discussions. GGTF was set up to increase the number of female editors, which in turn should and will have a wider impact on Wikipedia. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 06:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anal bleaching. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anal bleaching. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

[edit]

What was the consensus? Someone removed the image I added, shouldn’t we have an image depicting the result of Anal Bleaching? Sprucecopse (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a picture which a reliable source has verified shows the results of anal bleaching? Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus seems to be that images need to show the result otherwise it's just pornographic with no value. WP:VERIFY does not apply to images unless they also contain research matter or diagrams and illustrations conveying such so I'll welcome anyone that can upload a picture and reasonably state it's before and after. Biofase flame| stalk  13:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions

[edit]

A user keeps on reverting these changing the reason for doing so. First it was that mentions are not encyclopedic or notable. Then it changed into the sources not being adequate when it appears they mostly are. There seems to be a consensus they should stay though. Biofase flame| stalk  01:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The text was (diff) "It was mentioned in Brüno (2009) and Bridesmaids (2011), Impractical Jokers (2021), Cunk on Earth (2022) and in women-focused magazines such as Marie Claire." with a few website refs. That is trivial content from primary sources and facebook. Readers can use Google to find where something is mentioned—that is not encyclopedic content. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing this frankly. Johnbod (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're referring to with not seeing it. Biofase flame| stalk  02:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been any further responses to this. Biofase flame| stalk  19:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anal_bleaching&oldid=1198659386"