User talk:Avril1975

de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Avril1975

November 2012

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your image was inserted successfully into Going commando, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images and WP:GRATUITOUS

Avril1975, do be aware of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images and WP:GRATUITOUS. WP:NOTCENSORED is not the only thing that we go by when it comes to adding sexually explicit images to Wikipedia articles. You have a tendency to add sexually explicit images to Wikipedia sex articles; this is not a problem when not only is such an image treated in an encyclopedic manner, there is no available image that would be less offensive to our readers. Like the first guideline I linked to states, "Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article." Like both the first and the second guideline I linked to state, "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." A real-life image of the sex act is not needed to illustrate any of the content in an article about that act; people can quite clearly understand the act with drawings, and even without images. Our readers more readily state or shout "That's porn!" or something about the article not being encyclopedic or detracting from its encyclopedic value more so when it's a real-life sex image being shown instead of a drawn one. In other words, these images you added to the Fingering (sexual act) article are violations of the aforementioned guidelines, which editors such as Ohnoitsjamie and Zad68 would tell you. I won't remove the images you added to that article, however; I will leave that to someone else to do. Flyer22 (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you want to reply to me about this, there is no need to reply on my talk page. If you reply here, I will eventually see it because I will check back. Flyer22 (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I already answered on the intercourse talk page. Regarding photographs: if there are high quality photographs available, I see no reason why not using them. This is common practice in any other article, why should it be different for sexual topics.--Avril1975 (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I already stated why above. The aforementioned guidelines are ones we should follow and they are applied to other topics as well. Going back to the fingering images you added, though, since they don't show the actual penetration, there might not be frequent attempts by IPs or other editors to remove them. In fact, they might be considered more tame than the lead image (the drawing), which does show the actual penetration. Flyer22 (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so why should they be a problem? Since the "fingering" is not about penetration, there is no need to depict penetration. I agree. Still, when we talk about an article that explictly covers penetration issues - why not show penetration? There's always someone who finds something offensive.--Avril1975 (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm stating that those images (the fingering ones) may not be a problem after all. I was not stating that penetration should not be shown; if that were the case, I would object to the aforementioned drawn image. I'm explaining why the real-life fingering images you added may not be too offensive to readers; if penetration were shown with regard to the real-life images, then the imagery of penetration of the vulva, vagina or anus would come along with that (unless it's some side shot that doesn't show the genitals or anus, sort of like the images you added only show a hand on the vulva in the regard). Like I noted above, "Our readers more readily state or shout 'That's porn!' or something about the article not being encyclopedic or detracting from its encyclopedic value more so when it's a real-life sex image being shown instead of a drawn one." This means that when we have a drawn image of the same act, demonstrating the act just as well as any real-life image, then it is the "equally suitable alternative" that the aforementioned guidelines are speaking of; this is when we should use that image instead of the real-life sex image, since "controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article." More on this topic (of real-life sex images vs. drawn sex images) is noted on my user page. I have no problem with a real-life sex image when it's all we have. But when we have an alternative image that is less likely to be offensive to our readers, we should use that instead. Flyer22 (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nudity may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

|6=Naked man (at the [[World Naked Bike Ride]] in [[San Francisco]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]