Forum:Removing problem images

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Removing problem images

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4363 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Hi all,

As I think you've heard, Wikia is working on cleaning up images on the site. Basically, rather than waiting for complaints about images (and, to be honest, turning a blind eye on some on wikis like Uncyclopedia and its sisters) we are actively looking for and deleting images that breach our Terms of Use.

In short, that means that shock images, and any pictures of sex and/or nudity are being removed from the whole of Wikia. That doesn't mean that all content has to be sanitized, there will still be plenty here to require the content warning!

I'm not sure the scale of this on Uncyclopedia, I think the number of images showing actual sex is going to be pretty low. But I know there are a lot of pictures of bare butts and breasts out there, and that's going to leave some holes (no pun intended... honestly!). We can probably set up a bot to remove any redlinked images (or you can), but the bot won't know context or whether the image is mentioned in the text. So it's going to be best if you can fix redlinks yourself or find alternative images to fill in the gaps.

We have a long way to go, and I'm not certain when you'll start seeing images deleted. But it's likely to happen quite soon. The first image to go will be my very own "porn flakes" image, and others will follow as our review tool brings them up.

Please let me know of any worries, and (once the deletions start) or any images you want to argue for. There's not much leeway for obvious nudity or sex, but there are always grey lines (and pixelations) that we can talk about.

Thanks all -- sannse (talk) 22:31, October 8, 2012 (UTC) 22:30, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

Remind me again, why haven't we left Wikia? Seriously, if you're going to start removing images like this and the one on {{boner}}, then we should provably leave for some other site. ~[ths] UotM 22:33, 10/08/2012

That little yellow one? That's fine. And so is the Marioandprincess one -- sannse (talk) 22:50, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

Wait, what? I don't think Wikia has thought this through. Does the Wikia staff realize that half of all comedy is crotch? If you're going to remove that, then there's only the other half; poopy. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 18:26, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

You forgot Reader's Digest jokes and lolcats, neither of which I care to see this site turn into. Then, there's slapstick humor, which just doesn't translate well into writing. Finally, there's the ironic analogy of the lazy man who ends up doing more work than he would have in the first place had he not been so lazy, which seems an apt analogy here.-- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 18:54, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

Aww, come on.... cats are awesome! Ad very very funny. And Modusoperandi, you don't have to lose the crotch comedy, just the pictures of naked crotches comedy. That's quite a subset -- sannse (talk) 19:52, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

So...

Wikia will be fixing up the hundreds of broken file links this will create, fix the articles that practically rely on some of these images and be sending every user that wrote an article that rely on such images an explanation as to why they completely ruined it without consulting them first? ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 05:10, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

I also understand your going to use a bot to fix it, but as you pointed out in a lot of cases this won't be enough. Also I do not want to waste my time fixing these links and I doubt anyone else on the site will want to either fixing it for you. We are not the ones with the issue here, so if the bot does not know context then someone else has to fix it, and I doubt it will be the one's without a problem with the content in the first place. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 05:43, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

I've been talking to Zombiebaron about ideas to deal with this. I'm not certain that it's possible to make the changes in a reasonable time frame and have no times when the text refers to a missing image... but... we'll try. -- sannse (talk) 19:52, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

Censoring images as an alternative to deletion

I have spoken to sannse on IRC about saving some of our boobs from the death camps. She has agreed that if we censor our images to the point that they are no longer sexy we can keep them.

Like this.

If anyone wants to help me censor images, I am currently working on censoring all of Category:Nipples. -- The Zombiebaron 22:09, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

So I gotta point out... that image is only used on this page and on Category:Nipples. So might not exactly be one you want to keep (although obviously someone will go add it to articles now)

I mean, if that category is your main source of... um.... handy... images, I've got this Google thing to show you. And without that, what use is it for a humor wiki? (That's not to say that other images aren't being used humorously, just that lots aren't) --- sannse (talk) 22:54, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, those boobs weren't that hot to begin with. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:29, 10 October 2012

I think it's hilarious how nipples are such a big deal in our society. They're just tiny tidbits on top of boobs that aren't particularly arousing or beautiful, yet those tiny bits are the difference between acceptableness and horribly offensive nudity. XD —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 05:18, 10 October 2012

There's a clip of Frank Zappa making some excellent comments on that in a Maryland court that I was going to link here. Unfortunately, Gail Zappa is just as stupid as Wikia when it comes to these things, albeit in a different way. She thinks that allowing public domain video imagery of her husband to be broadcast on the internet is ruining his legacy and losing her money, which she never did anything to earn. Anyways, that's not what I was trying to say. What I was trying to say was yes, I agree. But it would've been more poignant with the video clip. /me does more pouting -RAHB 06:09, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually, the now-censored images could all be used to make a smacking good article. ~[ths] UotM 12:26, 10/10/2012

I absolutely agree Socky. And there's another one that drives me crazy: a bare bottom is out. But a bottom in a tiny thong, which shows about the same, is OK. But I (or Wikia) didn't make these lines up, they are what general US culture accepts as "rude" vs. "not-rude" (that's the bit of US culture that hasn't been infected by /b/ of course) -- sannse (talk) 18:40, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

So...

When are we moving? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:31, 10 October 2012

^this ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 01:44, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to interject

That this is really stupid. And poopy. And I want to make a big wall of text about how dumb a thing this is, touching on the ideas of violence being favored to sex in our backwards society, asking sarcastically for images of soldiers actively involved in war, images of broken bones, dead animals, blood, street fights, boxing, hockey and football to be also taken out if this is going to be what we're doing. Then I would come up with some clever analogies, and round it out by questioning the intelligence of the sorts of people who have nothing better to do than complain about this sort of thing. I won't do that though, because it's been pretty well proven in the past that it's pointless. Also I won't do it because I sort of just did, in a condensed version. Did I mention poopy? -RAHB 01:51, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

Complainers gonna complain. Even after you wreck sanitize the site by removing images that cross a certain line (and articles that rely on these images), there will be people who wanna draw the line further in their own direction, in order to suit their own religious preferences or play net-nanny for their children because they're too cheap to buy internet filtering software and sit by their kids, or at least look over their shoulder, while they surf the net. It is in the nature of comedy to offend *someone*, like it or not. Jokes about Romney (and Big Bird) might offend the Romney camp, and jokes about Obama (and "big government") might offend the Obama camp, for example. Jokes about religion are going to likely offend the highly religious, jokes about cancer will offend cancer survivors, and jokes about rape will offend rape survivors. If we take out everything that *might* offend someone, there will be nothing left. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 02:53, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

^What she said. -RAHB 03:05, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

You both make excellent points, but you're missing the real core of the issue here. Every single sexual/nudity image on this wiki serves to parody the huge amount of pornographic imagery on Wikipedia. And taking everything into account, our parody images are way more child-friendly than theirs, in my very honest though biased opinion. ; ) —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 03:08, 10 October 2012

That too! How come Wikipedia gets to have porn and we don't?! /me pouts -RAHB 03:15, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure Wikia is also deleting images of violence and gore. It's just that Uncyc has way more porn than gore. -- The Zombiebaron 03:54, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, some violence and gore come under "shock images", and those are also a problem. In general, movie stills are OK, real pics of death and mutilation are not. That allows for some pretty extreme images (I've not seen Kill Bill, but I've seen pics of the bit with the sliced off scalp >_< ) but ones that are less gut wrenching than some of the real stuff that's out there.

There's some fuzzyness to that - for example, some historical images are OK. So, as with nudity, I'm willing to talk about any edge cases. And, by the way, I agree our culture is sadly twisted in the varied attitudes to sex and violence.

Simsilikesims: yes, this wiki will still be offensive to some, in various different ways. I'm not deleting Cancer porn, and there are no images in that article that are going to be removed. There will still be the content warning, it's just that the content it will be warning about won't be nudity.

RAHB: because they are run by a different organization, and have different Terms of Use -- sannse (talk) 18:42, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

Actual legit question

Who are you afraid of "complaining" as far as I can tell, the only people complaining here are your loyal readers and contributors who don't want to deal with the censorship. Who is complaining on the other side of this? ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 04:49, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

People who come here and expect it to be (or want it to be) the family-friendly version of Wikipedia, I imagine. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 05:01, 10 October 2012

We get complaints about various images on the site at times - not specifically on Uncyclopedia, but on Wikia as a whole (this work on images isn't Uncyclopedia-specific). We also get complaints from our advertisers. I know that saying that will cause more of a storm, but I want to be honest and blunt. Obviously Uncyclopedia doesn't currently have ads, but the content of Wikia as a whole matters. -- sannse (talk) 18:43, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

Well,

This is almost as bad as The negativity purge of TV tropes. It's just like fast eddie, or in this case, Sannse, trying to delete all the "Negativity and hate" on this site, or in this case, porn. And you know what? Porn is a part of uncyclopedia, and is a part of humor. This is complete moralfaggotry, and a pile of babbling bullshit. we are SINNED to be damned in here, and we should move back as an independent server, so we do not need to abide wikia's rules.

And i forgot that TV tropes purged every single mention of encyclopedia dramatica, hentai games, and any form of so called "hate". WE DO NOT WANT THIS TO HAPPEN.--WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! 06:30, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, that part of TV Tropes moved to Wikia. We're fine with them and their content being here, subject to the same ToU as everyone else. I had to talk to them about some of their images last year actually, but looking though their last few months of images, I only found three that needed to go... they do a good job of self-moderating -- sannse (talk) 18:45, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

Vote to move back to uncyc.net

Dr.skullthumper owns the uncyc.net domain. as an alternative Uncyclopedia.com

Score: 1

•  For.--WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! 06:30, October 10, 2012 (UTC)
•  Impossible etc ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 06:32, October 10, 2012 (UTC)
• Boner. -- The Zombiebaron 06:34, October 10, 2012 (UTC)
•  Against. I think it's pretty funny how the images are censored, with the Wikia logo and all. Heh heh » Zheliel Talk Contribs Cow » 09:26 October 10

censoring means you succumb to this form of faggotry. --WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! 10:56, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

Are we censoring all works of art if they show breasts etc?? --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 11:11, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

That is going to make an article like this pretty pointless in that context. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 11:20, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

Those, not. i mean fappable stuff. Also, I had discussed this with freenode and they don't seem to care.--WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! 12:45, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, Uncyc has never been at uncyc.net. It used to be at uncyclopedia.com if I recall.

Romartus: this is one of those grey areas, but classical art is generally OK -- sannse (talk) 18:45, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

Well if Wikia started to censor paintings, statues etc then that would be too absurd for words. Do you remember this particular story? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1788845.stm about John Ashcroft covering up a Statue of Justice? Is Wikia now part of the Christian Coalition?? --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 19:19, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

Naw, we used to be at uncyclopedia.org. -- The Zombiebaron 20:06, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

•  For. If skully owns the domain, why not move? User:Mrthejazz/sig 02:48, October 11, 2012 (UTC)
•  For. Sure, cuz anything is better than censoring us {{--Ijerk (talk) 07:04, October 20, 2012 (UTC)}}

Consider this

Wikia Staff, I have a question for you. What makes you think that Uncyclopedia is supposed to be child-friendly? We aren't. Quite the opposite, in fact. So if you want us to become SFW, then why not remove our content warning? Or, if you'd rather not remove it, then why don't you just leave our frikkin' images alone? ~[ths] UotM 01:08, 10/11/2012

Sannse has explained it pretty clearly, dude. Uncyclopedia is not the only wiki hosted on Wikia. There are like, hundreds or something. And they're doing it to all of them. It sucks but I think we've gotten beyond the "why" at this point. It's a corporate decision made as an over-arching solution to something that a corporate person perceived as a problem. And that corporate person probably thought that a blanket over this supposed fire was the best way to put it out. -RAHB 01:12, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

If I didn't care about the probability of getting banned, I'd go over to Sannse's talk page and give the bloody ████ a piece of my mind, but I do care about the very-high-now probability of being banned. So meh. ~[ths] UotM 01:16, 10/11/2012

To be honest, none of this is sannse's fault. She's just the messenger of the big, overbearing corporation. (Also, I might add, this is not Sparta.) —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:24, 11 October 2012

(DOUBLE EDIT CONFLICT! FUCK!) Sannse isn't the problem. She's a representative who is usually the one to give us bad news like this because she is an employee of Wikia and also a member of our community. She has no say in these decisions; as I said some corporate guy probably came up with the idea in a meeting about synergy and maximizing positivity in office environments or some shit like that. If you'd been reading anything she said after "censor" you'd probably have realized that. But continue to shoot first and ask questions later. Yeah. That's totally never going to get you banned from anything. -RAHB 01:26, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Well, someone didn't read the last part of my message. Anyway, thanks for clarifying, both RAHB and Socky. I was unaware about her position. So if not her, then who do I run and complain to? ~[ths] UotM 01:58, 10/11/2012

Jimbo Wales? I wonder to what extent he is aware of these events. Having run a porn website previously, I'm sure he can understand our troubles. ; ) —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:01, 11 October 2012

Actually, it's more like they're getting rid of everything that might be lit on fire in response to some people having pyromania. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:22, 11 October 2012

lol yeah, that's a good analogy. -RAHB 01:30, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that I have never banned anyone for giving me a piece of their mind (unless they did so in a really threatening or abusive way). I'm here to talk and listen, whatever your opinion of Wikia or me. But if you want to hear another voice on this, you can send mail via the contact form

Socky and RAHB: I'd love you two to visit the office one day... you'd see we aren't this massive and faceless corporation, we're actually still quite small, and human (well, other than a couple of office dogs).

And I've got to take my Wikia hat off for a moment to say: what I find ironic, is that my recollection of the norms of Uncyc a few years ago includes a lot less tolerance of boobie pics. The (unwritten?) rule was: no shock, no porn... and nudity only in articles, and only if it were very relevant and very funny. The user sub-pages full of breasts were totally out, and overall there was a lot less tolerance for random boobies. If we still followed that, there would be a great deal less deletions due. Although, to be fair, Zombiebaron disagrees with my recollection.

Anyway, Wikia hat back on. If you have any other questions, please let me know. And I'll update here when I know that Uncyc's images are starting to be added to the review queue -- sannse (talk) 02:33, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

My obsession with San Francisco says I probably will be visiting the office one day, and I look forward to it. Of course, by the time I can afford to move for all I know Wikia may become a huge and faceless corporation by then :D

As for the previous stance on non-article boobage, I don't think it's ever really been a consensus thing. At least not as far back as I can remember. There have been proposed rules and campaigns to remove the user subpages for example, and those got some support but also a lot of opposition if I recall correctly. I think usually it comes around to the idea that userspace can pretty much be used for anything that isn't cyber-bullying or, in some cases, rampant self-promotion. And also spambots, and probably a couple of other things. But as an admin I pretty much don't delete an image unless it's blatant vanity, not linked in any page, a duplicate, an uploader request, or a shock image. By "shock" I of course mean things intended to shock, and not things intended to titillate :D

I figure there's always going to be racey stuff on a comedy website (or at least I hope so), and Uncyc has certainly been more lenient than the typical wiki in terms of whether or not something relevant should necessarily be uploaded or used or written or what have you. To me it seems like a part of why I like our community. Being an Uncyclopedian is as much about communication and sort of "being human" as it is about writing articles, whether on the IRC or via talk or via a userspace-hosted modern art piece depicting each letter of the Greek alphabet taking turns penetrating an anthropomorphic bowl of potato salad. But now I'm rambling. If you can call it that :/ -RAHB 02:51, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the first three fourths of what RAHB said. User:Mrthejazz/sig 02:55, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

No sannse, your recollection is correct. We did use to be less tolerant of NSFW material. -- The Zombiebaron 04:01, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

If we arleady have the content warning, why bother with the mass purges?--WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! 04:05, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

As Sannse explained, its because someone at the corporate level decided that ALL wikis hosted by wikia must have their images conform to the Terms of Service, and we at Uncyclopedia do not have a different TOS than other wikis hosted by wikia. Unfortunately, the content warning doesn't give us more leniency on the TOS. Besides, the content warning mentions that we are for age 13 and up; some of our images are not suitable for ages 13 to 18, though they could easily find it elsewhere on the internet. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 04:24, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

your words are in short: "I don't care, we are all anti-humor fags, and we are happy to do it for the sake of lulz and wikia." Also, we will be replacing wiki.png with goatse in order to protest.--WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! 06:10, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Yes. You do that. Yeah. That'll totally work. -RAHB 18:35, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

How will the 'review queue' work Sannse? How and who will decide about retaining images and deleting others? --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 06:29, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

We have a tool that shows reviewers a page of images. The images are from various wikis, and generally show newer images first. The reviewers mark any that they think are outside the ToU, and they are moved to a second queue. Those images are then re-reviewed in a similar way by someone more experienced (usually me, at the moment) who can consult with someone else for difficult decisions (usually my boss). Images marked on the second review for deletion are then deleted automatically under the account of the reviewer (usually me again). So the all images have to go though two levels of review before deletion, and the name of the person who made the decision is transparent - although they may have asked someone else to help make the call in borderline cases. And I should say, we're prepared to talk about and reconsider any of those borderline cases as needed. -- sannse (talk) 22:36, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

So...

I am on IRC today and we talked with sannse. wasn't too successful through.--WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! 05:36, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

[20:45]	Zombiebaron	so yeah why can't we go back to being unofficially part of wikia?
[20:45]	Hotadmin4u69	^
[20:45]	Mr-ex777	We can
[20:45]	Zombiebaron	like the good old days
[20:45]	sannse	there have been some complaints, and we used to respond to just those complaints rather than proactively reviewing
[20:45]	sannse	because uncyc needs to pay for it's hosting, and adding to the viewing stats is part of that
[20:46]	Zombiebaron	content warning = less views
[20:46]	Zombiebaron	we have many people telling us that
[20:46]	sannse	[[cancer porn]] = content warning
[20:46]	Hotadmin4u69	cancer porn = views
[20:46]	sannse	I'm sorry, I'd love to make that go away, but I can't
[20:46]	Zombiebaron	[[cancer porn]] = satire of wikipedia
[20:47]	Isarra	Can you?
[20:47]	Hotadmin4u69	well we might look for hosting elsewhere then
[20:47]	Isarra	If uncyclopedia cannot pay for its hosting, why can it not take its lack of payment elsewhere?
[20:47]	Zombiebaron	We get people telling us "I love your site, but I don't want to share it with my friends because they will see the content warning and think it is lame"
[20:47]	sannse	Hotadmin4u69: I hope it won't come to that, but always respect your right to fork
[20:47]	Zombiebaron	Can we have a copy of our database?
[20:48]	Isarra	Why fork, though? Would it not make things easier for both parties if it just left?
[20:48]	Isarra	I mean, it uses a different skin, a different database, is full of porn...
[20:48]	Zombiebaron	True who would want Uncyclopedia sitting around a server gathering flies and mold
[20:48]	sannse	Zombiebarron: you've always had that (only I forget where it is, Special:about??), if it's not up to date use [[special:contact]]
[20:48]	Zombiebaron	That would get ugly
[20:49]	sannse	we have no problem with keeping a live copy going, we've seen enough wikis recover from a fork to know it's possible
[20:49]	Zombiebaron	lol
[20:49]	Isarra	Wikia's strength lies in its unity, and supporting disparate projects that don't fit with the others just means more work for the devs and support folk alike.
[20:49]	UncycBot	Wikia sucks.
[20:49]	Zombiebaron	shush bot
[20:49]	Hotadmin4u69	lol
[20:51]	Mr-ex777	Zombiebaron: so we are discussing how to move to a new domain?
[20:51]	[JOIN]	sannse_ (sannse@c-98-234-144-239.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #uncyclopedia
[20:51]	Zombiebaron	Yeah we're asking sannse to help
[20:52]	sannse_	did you get my last?
[20:52]	[NICK]	sannse_ is now known as Guest82786
[20:52]	Zombiebaron	[01:01:14] <sannse> we have no problem with keeping a live copy going, we've seen enough wikis recover from a fork to know it's possible
[20:52]	Guest82786	gah
[20:52]	Zombiebaron	*gay
[20:53]	Guest82786	argh! give me my name back!
[20:53]	Zombiebaron	/ns ghost sannse [password]
[20:54]	Isarra	/msg nickserv identify sannse sweetpotato
[20:54]	[QUIT]	sannse has left freenode (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
[20:54]	[NICK]	Guest82786 is now known as sannse
[20:55]	[QUIT]	sannse has left freenode (Changing host)
[20:55]	[JOIN]	sannse (sannse@wikia/pdpc.monthlybronze.sannse) has joined #uncyclopedia
[20:55]	sannse	OK!
[20:55]	sannse	so.. as I was saying...
[20:55]	sannse	<@Hotadmin4u69> lol
[20:55]	sannse	<sannse> http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Statistics
[20:55]	sannse	<sannse> very out of date, mail us for a kick
[20:55]	sannse	(I saw nothing you said after that lol
[20:56]	Isarra	Commons is amazing.
[20:56]	sannse	and please understand, me showing you the links is not me saying I want you to fork. It's me saying we are gonna stick to the wiki way of giving dumps and accepting forks
[20:57]	Hotadmin4u69	it's much appreciated
[20:57]	Zombiebaron	^
[20:57]	sannse	Isarra: I know, I was using it for bird pics today, so good
[20:57]	sannse	what did I miss being said? the asking for help bit?
[20:58]	Zombiebaron	Mr-ex777 was asking about what we were doing
[20:58]	sannse	ah, ok
[20:58]	Zombiebaron	[01:01:29] <UncycBot> Wikia sucks.
[20:58]	Zombiebaron	[01:01:35] <Zombiebaron> shush bot
[20:58]	Zombiebaron	[01:01:38] <Hotadmin4u69> lol
[20:58]	Zombiebaron	[01:02:48] <Mr-ex777> Zombiebaron: so we are discussing how to move to a new domain?
[20:58]	Zombiebaron	[01:03:37] <Zombiebaron> Yeah we're asking sannse to help
[20:58]	Isarra	On commons you can view the porn in a fancy slideshow.
[20:58]	UncycBot	<Zombiebaron> Perhaps I'm just expressing my own concern about it.
[20:58]	Zombiebaron	[01:03:38] * sannse_ (sannse@c-98-234-144-239.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #uncyclopedia
[20:58]	Zombiebaron	[01:03:51] <sannse_> did you get my last?
[20:58]	UncycBot	<Zombiebaron> Do you feel more body sensations than emotions?
[20:58]	Zombiebaron	oh shit
[20:58]	UncycBot	<Zombiebaron> Great. What makes you say that?
[20:59]	Zombiebaron	shut up faggot
[20:59]	UncycBot	I will not be silenced forever!
[20:59]	sannse	thanks
[20:59]	Zombiebaron	...
[20:59]	Hotadmin4u69	101
[20:59]	Zombiebaron	
[21:00]	sannse	ok, so I need to go to bed soon, got a full day tomorrow
[21:00]	Hotadmin4u69	me too
[21:00]	Hotadmin4u69	nite all
[21:00]	Zombiebaron	i don't
[21:01]	Hotadmin4u69	yeah well go eat dog shit and fuck a dog and you dog dick
[21:01]	Hotadmin4u69	ballz
[21:01]	sannse	I think the main thing I want to say (again) is that this really isn't as bad as it seems, I honestly belive the wiki can be fine without so many tits.
[21:01]	Hotadmin4u69	no we need the tits
[21:01]	sannse	of course, Hotadmin4u69 will still be offensive....
[21:01]	sannse	pats Hotadmin4u69 fondly, but totally appropriately
[21:02]	Hotadmin4u69	the content warning was one thing, but deleting tits is intolerable
[21:02]	Mr-ex777	sannse: no it doesen't
[21:02]	Mr-ex777	The internet has many tits
[21:02]	Mr-ex777	and we are a part of the internet
[21:02]	Mr-ex777	a humor site
[21:02]	[QUIT]	Hotadmin4u69 has left freenode (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
[21:03]	Mr-ex777	not a kiddie's slapstick humor site.
[21:03]	sannse	I'm not talking of being a kiddie site, I'm talking about /more sophistication than just throwing boobies at an article (non-wikia hat on)
[21:04]	sannse	I mean, even the [[boobs]] article has mostly images that I would pass as being fine
[21:04]	sannse	and I think the [[penis]] article was the same
[21:05]	Mr-ex777	But nipples were once allowed.
[21:05]	Mr-ex777	for years.
[21:06]	sannse	nipples were ignored unless there was a specific complaint, they were never allowed
[21:07]	Zombiebaron	gay
[21:07]	Mr-ex777	^
[21:08]	[JOIN]	Guest82786 (sannse@c-98-234-144-239.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #uncyclopedia
[21:08]	[QUIT]	sannse has left freenode (Disconnected by services)
[21:08]	[NICK]	Guest82786 is now known as sannse
[21:08]	[QUIT]	sannse has left freenode (Changing host)
[21:08]	[JOIN]	sannse (sannse@wikia/pdpc.monthlybronze.sannse) has joined #uncyclopedia
[21:09]	sannse	<Mr-ex777> for years.
[21:09]	sannse	<sannse> nipples were ignored unless there was a specific complaint, they were never allowed
[21:09]	sannse	^ last I saw
[21:11]	[JOIN]	Guest82786 (sannse@c-98-234-144-239.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #uncyclopedia
[21:11]	[QUIT]	sannse has left freenode (Disconnected by services)
[21:11]	[NICK]	Guest82786 is now known as sannse
[21:11]	[QUIT]	sannse has left freenode (Changing host)
[21:11]	[JOIN]	sannse (sannse@wikia/pdpc.monthlybronze.sannse) has joined #uncyclopedia
[21:12]	sannse	my connection is playing up badly
[21:14]	[JOIN]	Guest82786 (sannse@c-98-234-144-239.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #uncyclopedia
[21:14]	Guest82786	I give up, this connection is totally unstable. g'night all
[21:14]	[QUIT]	Guest82786 has left freenode (Client Quit)

I think with my awful home connection, and the chaos of a live venue, it was always going to be difficult. Better would be to talk here. (Also, Mr-ex777, Freenode etiquette is that you should ask before posting logs. I would have agreed, but...) -- sannse (talk) 22:42, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

Who's Isarra? ~[ths] UotM 00:27, 10/13/2012

Isarra is Lyrithya.--WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! 02:05, October 13, 2012 (UTC)

tl;dr Mr-ex777 stop posting useless shit everywhere. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 00:38, October 13, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Frosty. Just as a disclaimer, in case anyone didn't know, Mr-ex doesn't exactly speak on behalf of the community. Or at least nobody's given him that kind of permission. -RAHB 01:25, October 13, 2012 (UTC)

Nipples

May be off limits, but how about pacifiers? They have nipples. In fact, that gives me a censoring idea....-- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 02:25, October 13, 2012 (UTC)

No all nipples are created equal. We aren't worried about cow nipples either (well, except that one pic with the... humm... best not go there) -- sannse (talk) 18:57, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

Gratuitous sub-heading

So, where are we? There seems to be agreement on "this sucks", but some variation in opinions beyond that. What I want to do is try and make this as painless as possible. I believe that it can be made less difficult by removing or ignoring personal pages that are just a collection of girly pics. That will deal with a lot of the images, without any detriment to the wiki's actual content.

I also believe that many of the other images in articles are either irrelevant or can be replaced with something as funny. I intend to re-do my "porn flakes" image to be less porny (but still right for the article (which I really must finish writing!)) for a start.

I can't stall deletions indefinitely while you look at how to deal with each image, to do so will slow down work on other wikis. But I can look at the first few, hold them for a day, and see if we can find ways to make this work.

The deletions are likely to start this week... So I suggest we create a space for images that need to be adjusted, replaced, or otherwise fixed. But that I don't pause on images that are not used in articles - including those on those girly userpages. ZombieBaron has already said he will work on images (I can't say I like the details of how he's working on them, but...) so hopefully he can concentrate on those about to be removed each day.

I really don't know how this is going to work, it's not something we've tried on other wikis (holding images within the review process that is) but I'm willing to try it if it will help. Also (for those that don't know me) I acknowledge that I sometimes (well often) abuse parentheses ("()"). -- sannse (talk) 20:51, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

Personally I like the idea of individually going around and censoring the images so that they aren't removed from their context. I realize that that takes longer than just deleting them, but I'd imagine there have to be at least some concessions made for the way that wikis actually work, which is "Have a discussion about it and determine a solution dynamically", rather than "Delete all things that are a problem based upon one vague but firm guideline that decides these sorts of things." Given a couple or few weeks I'm sure if we pooled our resources we could easily accomplish censoring the lot of the images. Even users who are not skilled in photoshop or GIMP or what-have-you can put a black bar across some tits and upload over the old photo. After accomplishing that we could go around and probably delete unnecessary images from our side, although I still stand rather against the idea of deleting lots of images just because they currently serve no mainspace purpose. So in the spirit of that stuff I was saying about how wikis work we should probably hold a community vote on that while continuing preliminary image-censoring for the time being. That's my thoughts on it. -RAHB 00:44, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

Remember that I'm somewhat limited by the tools to hand. If I tag an image as outside the ToU it gets deleted. If I tag it as OK, then the system ignores it for the future (and I get asked firm questions about why there are boobs marked as OK!) There's a sort of holding state in between those for images under consideration, but I can't let that fill up with Uncyc images for ages, because then I won't be able to pick out the images I actually need to do something with now.

I can hold them for a day, but after that I need to process them. Hopefully that will be long enough, but I think it's possible that we may have to put up with some redlinks in some articles for a while. My deletion log will give a list of the removed images, and we could create a page for "these images need checking, replacing, adjusting, or the article redlinks fixing" from that list. Might that work? -- sannse (talk) 17:15, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

It would mean some temporary

Yeah, if you give us a list of "Images To Censor Today" we can probably take care of them. I am not always around, but Simsilikesims has also been censoring some images, and as RAHB points out putting a black bar over a nipple is something anybody can do (even in MSPaint!) -- The Zombiebaron 18:37, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing which images are marked down for deletion/censoring. Looking at the Nipples category, that includes a few paintings as well. I trust they will escape the cull. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 18:48, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like the best idea with all things considered. We could find a way to direct users interested in helping out to the page with the offending images listed and get them taken care of on a day-by-day basis. I realize it's a lot more work, and the whole community really appreciates your trying to help us out with this sannse, even if they don't know it :P -RAHB 21:41, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

You can stop panicking - I'm here! Quick question on this issue - the problem is that these images are "hosted" on Wikia, rather than being "linked to" from Wikia. As we can "externally link" images from another site, if we do exactly that - something that has been done various times before, especially with "censorable" content, such as a particular image of Muhammed and a sausage - does this suit the needs of Wikia? Given we have the content warning, we are not storing "porn" (which in itself is a difficult thing to define), but we are allowing it to be viewed. We already have an off Wikia image host (in the mirror or uncyclomedia commons), and the ability to do exactly this is not beyond our capacity.

Second question - We also have a significant number of unused images on the site - some of these are of comedic value, but others are just there and we are de facto acting as an image host. Is it in the interest of Wikia for us to remove these non-usuable/unused images, or to remove duplicate images? Given that they will still be in server history (accessible by admins), we have always assumed that this makes no difference to the cost of hosting/server space, etc. Having said that I have no idea how log deleted files will remain in server space before becoming cleared out completely - if ever. And depending on the asnwer to these questions as to wether point number 3 is even valid, so I won't stress about it. Nominally Humane! 03:54 24 Oct

Thank goodness you are here Puppy! it was scary without you!!!1

Anyway, questions. I'm not sure if you mean embedding images or linking to them, but in either case: that would be a problem. If they are embedded, it's the same as if they were stored here on the wiki - it doesn't matter if they are on our servers or not, they are on the site. And for linking to them, I would say the analogy would be linking to warez or whatever. if the content is inappropriate for the site, it's inappropriate to link to from the site

On deleting unused files - as you say, we store a copy of all deleted images incase of the need to undelete, so it wouldn't save us server space. So whether you delete unused images is just a choice for the community. You might want to have them tidier, and so clear out ones you aren't using... or prefer to just ignore unused images, which won't be seen in most cases anyway. It's up to you. -- sannse (talk) 20:17, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

I'm just here for the cheese and biscuits really. I figured that would be the case for the former, which may be more problematic than the censorship of images. While we are able to actively control the content of images preserved on site, the content of images hosted off-site is more problematic. This would suggest that as a policy idea it makes more sense to stop using/allowing externally linked images on site. That has been the policy on Wikipedia, but being (previously) more lax in regards to our content standards, not an issue here enough to bother addressing.

Also when I first started here the tendency for linked images was to link via external URL ([http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Removing_problem_images http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110914122811/uncyclopedia/images/3/3f/boobie_image.png]) rather than via wiki format ([[File:boobie image.jpg|link=Forum:Removing_problem_images]]). This is still being used in a number of places, such as Template:FA.

The other thing I'd been playing with over the past few days was trying to determine usable/used/unused images. (This is probably not such a wikia thing but an Uncyc admin thing.) I have created User:PuppyOnTheRadio/image which will sort out what is used, what is used only in user space, and what is unused. I also have a list of just under 5,000 "unused" files. (Note that files that are tagged as {{Notorphan}} are classed as "used" as the template actually uses the image.) I've had to move the files to ANSI URL encoding due to my own technical issues, but I have them here. I'm going to create a list of them in my user space somewhere, if anyone wants to go through them and determine their value - or lack thereof. Nominally Humane! 01:34 25 Oct

Images linked via external URL only will show up as unused. Just thought I'd point that out. Nominally Humane! 01:40 25 Oct

Images from external sites are really the same issue as other content - it comes up in Recent Changes, gets looked at by the community, and dealt with as needed. I don't think there's a need to block the ability to link to an off-site image because the link might lead to porn, any more than we've needed to do that in the past because it might lead to tubgirl. -- sannse (talk) 19:19, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

An admonitory text by German pro skateboarder Martin Niemöller

First they came for all the penises,

And I didn't speak out because I wasn't a penis enthusiast.

Then they came for all the nipples,

And I didn't speak out because I was, like, "Doodz! Censored porn is even funnier!"

Then they came for the articles that offended certain people

And I didn't speak out because rules are rules and, hey, everybody's opinion is just as valid as mine, even if they are offended by things I find entertaining, right?

Then they came for MY articles,

And there was no one left to speak for me. —Martin Niemöller 08:44, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

That sounds familiar. Wasn't that in a song by Lil' Kim? Nominally Humane! 04:03 24 Oct

a totally personal and non-Wikia-representative reply

First they made fun of the holocaust

And I didn't speak out because it was pretty well written and funny, and only history anyway

Then they joked about cancer

And I didn't speak out because I didn't want to be a killjoy, even though it's a subject that impacts me and I thought the joke was in bad taste

Then they made fun of rape and suicide

And I didn't speak out because the anti-censorship lot would scream at me. And anyway, you can't limit humor to topics that won't upset people, or those that fit within a narrow and arbitrary moral paradigm, right?

Then I realized that Uncyc was nothing more than shock humor and boob pics

And there was no one left to make funny articles that didn't contain arses

This has been a second perspective brought to you by the department of showing that hyperbole can go in both directions, and the letters "avocado" and "moonbeam". -- sannse (talk) 20:51, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Arses are funny! Nominally Humane! 01:37 25 Oct

From the amount of usage on this site, boobs are more popular than arses. In stick figures, the boobs help distinguish female stick figures from male stick figures. I prefer the male parts myself though. Another question: what about images on featured articles, drawings, and diagrams?

Stick figure with boobs

-- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 01:42, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Oi, somebody mentioned Encyclopedia Dramatica in the forums. Where the fuck are you, Modusoperandi... ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Thu, Oct 25 '12 9:29 (UTC)

I'm playing Borderlands 2. Badly. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:01, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Images on featured articles are the same as any other. Drawings and diagrams too, although those can be more difficult to make a call on, and have different levels than more realistic images (for example, I'd likely say the stick image on this page is fine, although I'd want to get a second opinion just because it's a situation I haven't seen yet) -- sannse (talk) 19:14, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Hipster censored this image. Didn't you say earlier that it was okay, though, and didn't need to be censored? After all, no nudity was found in it. ~[ths] UotM 00:43, 10/26/2012

Can we err on the side of conservation? I don't want to see us censoring images that would survive on a PG show, or on Wikipedia. Nominally Humane! 12:56 26 Oct

Yep, the Mario gif passes... that's not my censorship -- sannse (talk) 18:37, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

It's okay guys, I got this one covered. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 00:57, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to post this pic everytime I see ED mentioned in the forums. It's a nice pic of my Pa'. *sniff*, I miss Pa'. Went out for smokes and never came back, he did. Plus, since headers don't appear to be length-limited, I can just ramble on about whatever comes to mind. Which is nice. The rambling, I mean...

"Hola, me llamo ED. Oí que usted me buscaba."

I'm sorry, that was bad of me. I've edited above to remove all mention of the unmentionable -- sannse (talk) 18:37, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

who gives a fuck they're only tits or whatever geez

go jerk off to something else anyway the whole internet is here. uncyclopedia was never about tits, anyway. or pregnancy fetishes. or anything at all. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 00:54, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering if the ban includes male nipples too. Which it should since they are biologically speaking, the same as women's (except the milk production business) and can be the same size if you drink too much beer. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 09:05, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

we are partially an NSFW site, my dear. And we want to cope with the internet.--WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! 12:35, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Avoidance is a coping skill, one I practice frequently. Now if some of the complainers (the ones who want NO NSFW content) would practice this more often...then again, if we do become more family friendly, maybe we will attract more conservatives. This could be a good thing or a bad thing. Interpretation is another coping skill, as illustrated.

This is not a tit. It is a circle within a circle.

-- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 17:01, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Romartus: No, it doesn't... and that's Western society being illogical, not me. -- sannse (talk) 18:39, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

So if we photoshop mannipples on ladyboobs, that's okay then? Because we'll do it! Just try to stop us, polite society! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:37, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

I tried to write a long explanation of why that's not OK, which involved "nipples in the context of ladyboobs" and "isolated nipples, even mannipples, can imply a sexual context".... and then I realized this was too difficult to explain, and too weird to be typing anyway (how the hell did I end up with a job where I write sentences like that as part of my work-day?!) So I decided just to tell you what you already know: No dear, that won't work.

Basically, if it's an image that you would feel uncomfortable showing your grandmother (no, wait... safer to say my grandmother), then it's likely to be too explicit. You would likely show her Michelangelo's David, but not a still from "Michael and David Go Wet and Wild" (no, wait... safer to say I would show to my grandmother.) -- sannse (talk) 22:26, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

'Isolated Nipples' was the title of my jazz-funk fusion band's third album. And also your grandmother loves the sight of mannipples. Even mine, which are like saucepans. When I wear pasties, it looks like someone put two thimbles on a pair of pink frisbies. I've said too much.Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:35, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is becoming the thinskinned grandmother wiki. FUCK IT--WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! 08:23, October 29, 2012 (UTC)

Woah, woah, woah...

So let me get this straight... I leave, and Wikia fucks over Uncyclopedia even more than they had before? Did anyone listen to me when I suggested we secede? Guess not... Now look at the shit we're in.

And yeah, I know this was a bump, but I saw this and had to let out how pissed off I was about this. --Revolutionary, Anti-Bensonist, and TYATU Boss Uncyclopedian Meganew (Chat) (Care for a peek at my work?) (SUCK IT, FROGGY!) 21:39, November 15, 2012 (UTC)

Ikr, Wikia's a bitch, right? -- Кıяву ^Тαгк _{Сойтяıвs} 2012-11-15T23:03

Yeah. Did you see the new content warning? Looks a lot more like Wikia's shit to me. →L A B O R A T O R I E S_{20:57 16 November 2012}

I'm more of the opinion it's Sims being Sannse's bitch, but meh. --Revolutionary, Anti-Bensonist, and TYATU Boss Uncyclopedian Meganew (Chat) (Care for a peek at my work?) (SUCK IT, FROGGY!) 16:01, November 17, 2012 (UTC)