Just FYI: not having seen you post at WP:VPP recently, I don't know whether you saw my comments/links there in your thread on username blocks, about the block of Hruodlandus Brittannici limitis praefectus (the Latin name of the historical Roland), now lifted by the blocking admin. -- Ben 15:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not meaning to "stalk" but rather to learn by example from your contribs, I saw your recent exchange on an article talk page where there'd been repeated requests to censor text, pictures, or the entire article. Thinking, perhaps naively, that one clear statement up front might help reduce the repetition, I came up with the following box, and added it at the top of that talk page. If you'd find it helpful, please use or adapt wherever you deem suitable. -- Ben 17:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting idea. Let's see how it's received by others. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the one used in the breast article. you might be able to adapt parts of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Atomaton (talk • contribs) 20:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this Talk page is for discussion of changes to the Breast article. Wikipedia is not censored for minors, and the images used to illustrate the subject matter are necessary for the quality of the article. Please refer also to Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer. Off-topic discussions, including discussions about the acceptability of images of nudity on Wikipedia, serve no constructive purpose in improving the article, and may be removed. Thank you for your understanding.

Overall, this seems more like an attempt to intimidate people from objecting to Pornopedia. Pointing out that Wikipedia is not censored is good, but more emphasis needs to be placed on keeping the discussion of images to their content and relevancy, and not about "OMG HES NEKID!!!" As it reads, it seems more to the effect that people are not allowed to talk about images that contain nudity, without regard to their relevance, and that such discussions will be ignored and deleted. When I saw the one on Talk:Ejaculation, my first response was "to hell with you." (And that's the nice version.) Then I reread it about 3 times and realized that nudity is the topic that is not of relevance. Try turning the phrasing to:

"Off-topic discussions, including discussions about the acceptability of nudity in images on Wikipedia, that serve no constructive purpose in improving this article <snip> may be removed."

The bold emphasizes my addendum, and the <snip> is an unnecessary comma-and contingency. This turn of the phrase will actually make it mean what you want. As it is written, it can be interpreted as a form of censorship itself, saying "if this picture is has nudity, you are not allowed to object to it." And there are plenty of valid reasons to object to some of these images, above and beyond the nudity itself. -- jsa 06:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I think this phrasing would be even better:

Off-topic discussions that serve no constructive purpose in improving this article, including discussions about the acceptability of nudity in images, may be removed."

It seems more cohesive and authoritative as a statement, and perhaps stresses the intended meaning even more. We can safely omit the "on Wikipedia" part, as "this" before it references the article on Wikipedia for us. -- jsa 06:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read this through carefully, several times, and I think we agree on the meaning we want to express, but perhaps we are not parsing the two statements the same way. Please walk with me through the two versions and let's see if we can come to some harmony in interpretation.

Original: "Off-topic discussions, including discussions about the acceptability of images of nudity on Wikipedia, serve no constructive purpose in improving the article, and may be removed." -- Subject is "off-topic discussions" (of which "...acceptability of images of nudity..." is only one example), and the statement is that such discussions (a) "serve no constructive purpose in improving the article" (precisely because they're off the topic of how to improve the article), and (b) for that reason they may be removed. As far as I can see, this leaves anyone perfectly free to object to one or more specific images for other reasons, such as not fitting the article's needs, being worse for the purpose than other pictures on the same topic, all the other "valid reasons". These would not be "off topic", as they would address how to improve the article, so the statement is not even referring to them. That seems to me to be the outcome you wanted. Have I got that right or wrong?

Your last revision: "Off-topic discussions that serve no constructive purpose in improving this article, including discussions about the acceptability of nudity in images, may be removed." -- Now the subject is "off-topic discussions that serve no constructive purpose in improving this article", and immediately I'm confused, because by definition the topic of the talk page is how to improve the article, so anything off that topic does not address that purpose, and the point of adding the modifying phrase escapes me. It seems to suggest that some off-topic discussions may actually be on-topic, and that only the off-topic discussions which actually are off-topic may be removed. Either there's a redundancy here, or a suggestion that "off-topic" does not in fact mean "not addressing how to improve the article" -- but in that case what is the topic of the article talk page? The rest of the statement, making "...acceptability of images of nudity..." an example of the subject as subject to removal, doesn't seem to have changed at all; this version even leaves intact the declaration that "discussions about the acceptability of nudity in images" serve no constructive purpose in improving this article. By removing "on Wikipedia" we only lose the present focus on what Wikipedia is and is not, e.g. "Wikipedia is not censored". (Whether images would be suitable elsewhere, off-wiki, would surely be even further off-topic.) So it seems to me this doesn't achieve the outcome you wanted. Again, have I got that right or wrong?

Please tell me if I've missed or misinterpreted something along the way. Thanks! -- Ben 12:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right, the inclusion of "that" creates two possible readings. Namely the one of conflict is that it implies there will be off-topic discussions that are somehow relevant. If you omit the word "Off-topic", there would be an implicit statement that any discussion no about bettering the article will not be tolerated. Thus "Discussions that serve no constructive purpose in improving this article, including discussions about the acceptability of nudity in images, may be removed." This (should) essentially declare any subject without "constructive purpose" off-topic for you. Leaving "Off-topic" in, but removing "that" makes the statement more declarative, admonishing the reader for being off-topic. "Off-topic discussions serve no constructive purpose ...". So it really depends on if you are trying to nicely point out that subjects not on topic are inappropriate, or aggressively declare that off-topic discussion is pointless.

The semantic of "of nudity" vs "nudity in" (I believe "nudity within images" may be grammatically more appropriate actually) is harder to explain, but it's the difference between an image that contains nudity for the sake of nudity, and one that for whatever reason happens to contain nudity. A girl flashing the camera would be "of nudity", since nudity is the focus of the picture. An image of a mans ulcerated penis in the context of an article about STDs would be something that would have nudity in it, but not be the focus/intent of the image. As for "on Wikipedia", it's my opinion that with the preceding statements already citing Wikipedia and it's standards, you have laid down the basis of your authority in removing off-topic discussions. Additionally, by omitting that part, you also imply that "on McDonald's website" is just a off-topic as "on Wikipedia". Perhaps "its" added would help that part, by inheriting "the article" as the subject, which in turn inherits it's meaning from the first sentence of the statement in the paragraph. All of which are understood to be on Wikipedia

"Discussions that serve no constructive purpose in improving this article, including discussions about the acceptability of nudity within its images, may be removed."

The emphasis here, I think, is that "the nudity of the article's images" is not a relevant topic of discussion. That if a person has a problem with that, whatever Talk: page it is on is not the place to discuss the subject. It takes the emphasis off Wikipedia and makes the statement about the article directly. i.e. "there may a place that is relevant to discuss nudity on Wikipedia, but it isn't here." Rereading the above, I think adding in "off-topic" in a declarative my be important actually.

"Discussions that serve no constructive purpose in improving this article, including discussions about the acceptability of nudity within its images, are off-topic and may be removed."

Is that one better for you? Like I said, in the two statements before that line, we have established the basis of our authority in declaring nudity off topic by Wikipedia standards. The final statement is now about the article itself and how using the fore mentioned authority to protect it from off-topicness will be applied. Actually, you might even go as far replacing "may" with "will" in that line.

I think the hard part here is that the phrase has to carry the weight of "nudity in general" but not limit "nudity here specifically." The only real case for discussion of nudity is "is this necessary to illustrate the subject?" And as so much of the answer to that question is conditional by both the subject and the image, and is a very relevant question to be discussed. An example here would be of, say, a Ninja Turtle with a penis. It would be topical for the Ninja Turtle article as it does illustrate the concept, but it's not the best image as they are typically not pictured with penises. If there article were to be on the fictional Middle-Aged Well-Hung Anti-Hero Tortoises, it might very well be impossible to represent them without the penis. Context means everything when dealing with acceptable nudity.

"Discussions that do not serve the purpose of improving this article, including objections to the relevant usage of nudity within its images, are off-topic and will be removed."

That's my final, most terse, and most thougt out iteration on this for the moment, (hopefully) implying "off-topic in general, but general nudity in specific". I hope I answered your questions and left a bit more to consider. Sleep beckons. -- jsa 17:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Atomaton!

I have now turned my one-line box into Template:Notcensored. Your longer box I've adapted into Template:Notcensored2, with two minor changes from the original text: 1) removed the blank line from top, 2) used BASEPAGENAME to provide the article name automagically, so that doesn't have to be typed in every time.

It's probably better to "subst" these -- {{subst:notcensored}} or {{subst:notcensored2}} -- rather than make the poor computers transclude them each load. That also reduces the risk of being affected by template vandalism. -- Ben 11:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For now I'll assume you aren't a Cplot sock(looking at what you said you ment by your post). It was just what it appeared to be combined with the fact that you contribs were all recent that made you a suspect. If I see anything to further make you a suspect, however, my opinion of you will change very rapidly. --Wildnox(talk) 03:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your gracious assumption of good faith, and for not biting. -- Ben 05:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having read your explanation, I retract my claim that you are a Cplot sockpuppet. I would also like to apologize to you for what must have appeared like a grossly incivil removal of all your comments from my talk page. If you want an explanation of why I removed your comments without reading them, well, see my talk page history. Pretty much every single time I tag one of his socks, Cplot leaves either a snippy remark, or posts one of his giant diatribes, or just blanks the page and fills it with obscenities([1], [2], [3]). I was on my way out the door as it were, and didn't want the emotional drain of reading yet another childish insult, so I just reverted without even glancing at what you actually said. Rather embarrassing for me. I really hope this doesn't put you off editing or anything. --tjstrf talk 06:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind note, and for your apology, which I both accept and appreciate. Certainly no hard feelings on my part. After what you've been through, it's a wonder you're not seeing Cplot in every shadow of your own home! -- Ben 07:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, just in new editors with three(ish) word long noun phrase names who mention federal agents in their posts, show up on policy related pages, and create very short userpages for themselves... The only real part of the pattern you didn't fit was that your name isn't in CamelCaps, and that one's only common, not always true. Just be glad you didn't pick the name User:BenedictTheMoor, or you would have been indef blocked off of an AIV report before you had a chance to even try explaining yourself. --tjstrf talk 07:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that would have proved a U.S. government plot! ... <skating on thin ice> ... -- Ben 07:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BANNINGS TIME! ok not really... --tjstrf talk 08:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Anton Wilson, who died just a few days ago, was a prolific writer on what I can only roughly summarize as "countercultural" themes, including a series of novels involving conspiracy theories -- starting with the Illuminatus! trilogy he co-authored with Robert Shea. Sometimes real live conspiracy theorists made Wilson himself a figure in their conspiratorial cosmology. One time he was in a radio talk show, and a woman caller launched into a rant at Wilson, concluding with: "... and you're the people behind the international banking system!" Wilson jovially replied: "Well, I certainly won't deny that; it can't help but improve my credit rating!"

If Cplot is bound and determined to insist that You're All Federal Agents, you can be upset by that or have fun with it. Of course you must (to be honest) not claim any such official role, but you might respond: "I can neither confirm nor deny any such statement." "Your entry cannot be accepted at this venue. Please fill out form USG-FARAWAY-2007-01-23bi1776 in triplicate and submit it to the appropriate office." (not saying what office) "Due to recent changes in high-level budget allocations, this file had to be truncated, and your contributions were regrettably relocated to paper storage. Please feel free to consult the copies at Sub-basement level 5 of the FARAWAY Archive Annex." ... and so forth and so on.... What? You want to know what FARAWAY means? F*d*r*l Ag*nts R*nn*ng All W*k*s And Y*h**. There should be a logo for your user page and those of others thus accused. Make this something like the rogue rouge admins, and people might line up to join. Just an idea to mull over. Even if you never actually do any of the above, perhaps thinking about it now and then will let you smile. -- Ben 08:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]