Aperire sectionem principem

Alexanderr what were your reasons for removing this image? If it bothers you, perhaps you could find an image more to your taste and replace it.--Ioshus (disp) 15:35, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and view my talk page... Massimo has asked me to work on a template for hide/show, like en:Template:Hidden.--Ioshus (disp) 16:29, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Necesse est quoque imago lachrimae? lymphae? sanguinis? phlegmatis? bilis? sputi? urinae? stercoris? IacobusAmor 17:07, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Quippe, meo animo, si sint.--Ioshus (disp) 17:08, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Well, on the one hand wikipedia is not censored. On the other hand... I dunno, that pic might be a bit over the top ;) --Iustinus 17:12, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
What if
  1. It had the option to be hidden?
  2. Were hidden already and had the option of being displayed?
  3. Were different in some way that wasn't "over the top"?
For the record, I'm not particularly in love with this picture, but it certainly doesn't offend me. I don't know a grown man who hasn't seen semen before, this isn't a middle school locker room. And damned if it isn't a picture of what the article is about =].
But more objectively, this gives us the chance not only to discuss what is offensive to our viewers, and to introduce two new templates. A {{monstrare}} and {{celare}}.--Ioshus (disp) 17:25, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about any hidden option however, IMHO, this image shouldn't be displayed on the page. I'm not opposed to all images, I don't mind the first one on mentula, however I'd rather not see some of this stuff, especially when a person can stumble upon the page at radom by using "Pagina fortuita"; something I use quite often. Can't we just leave the image out? Honestly, I don't think it contributes very much to an article. I mean, if it were a diagram of a bunch of sperm cells, yes, that'd be useful, but just a pic. No, that contributes nothing. In fact, all it does is detract from the page, and offer to shock people. I'm almost afraid to click on the actual page name. I have to go to a random page, click on edit, and then type in "Eiaculatum" where the other page's name originally was, so I come up with the source instead of the page itself. Alexanderr 18:37, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
I agree that I was abit surprised at first, but certainly not shocked, so you might want to check you rhetoric on "in fact". I personally don't think it's offensive at all and I do think it contributes to the article, especially when/if we should have a section specifically on human ejaculate. However, I might see your point. So again, I ask about the three things above. How can we reach a compromise?--Ioshus (disp) 18:46, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Well is it possible we can find a diagram of multiple sperm cells? That would illustrate the article better than a "sample" of male ejaculation. And I'd have no problem with it. Alexanderr 19:18, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately the Category at commons is pretty bare bones... commons:Image:Sperm.jpg is a little better.--Ioshus (disp) 19:30, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Ioshus, you ask me not to remove the image until we are through talking, and yet you re-add it, while we aren still talking. Why should its default status be to be on this page instead of off it? Alexanderr 19:31, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Oh and thanks for the link. Alexanderr 19:32, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Re:default status, because that's how the original article was, and removed it without explanation. I know you have often argued for honoring the original author's requests. Furthermore, i don't like how you disguise its removal in the context of a larger edit. You edit something at Eiaculatum‎; 19:16 . . (+134) . . Alexanderr (Disputatio | conlationes | obstruere), don't give an edit summary, and don't say you removed a picture. This is sneaky... I am really trying to work towards a compromise here, so I don't really like being sneaky.--Ioshus (disp) 19:38, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Ioshus, I wasn't disguising anything. I removed the image, but I also made a larger edit, becasue I didn't care for the text of the article either. I'd be equally upset if you reverted my text edits as well. So please don't accuse me of anything! Alexanderr 19:40, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Or call me sneaky. I wasn't hiding anything. And anyone who looks at the article could instantly see that it was lacking an image. What did you expect for an edit summary? "Removed the image again"?
yes.--Ioshus (disp) 19:47, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't know how to reply to that. I thought it'd be self evident, and didn't think I need add such an edit summary. Alexanderr 19:51, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
You need only to click on the page to find that out. Alexanderr 19:43, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that you posted that stupid link to be "sneaky"? Because that is what it sounded like at the end of your last post. If so that's just wrong. Alexanderr 19:45, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry what stupid link?--Ioshus (disp) 19:47, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Check your last post, you know, the one before you called me sneaky. Alexanderr 19:51, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Are you there? Alexanderr 20:13, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia was down for a bit, so people have probably wandered off. Anyway, Ioshus I would vote for option #2. --Iustinus 20:22, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Imago nunc paululum mathematica est... --Alex1011 22:03, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did wander off for a bit. I still don't know what link Alexanderr means. I gave a link to the category at commons, and a link to a picture I thought looked a little more scientific/official, and a little less like spooge on a couch... I wasn't trying to do anything more than solve the problem. Whoever found the new picture though did very well. I still would agree with Iustinus, that we should have a hidden image (option #2). This way a potentially offensive image will only be displayed to those who willingly choose to expand the image. Encyclopaedic and political! UV has told me he is working on a way to do such an exandable image.--Ioshus (disp) 00:21, 21 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I take that back, and agree with Iustinus again. This is a better picture for Sperma.--Ioshus (disp) 00:26, 21 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a more educational image. But how odd to object to something so innocent as a photo of a natural object, but to be unperturbed by a painting of an oppressive & violent human interaction—a rape, the first image in our article on "homophyllophilia." (Wouldn't it now reflect a balanced & neutral POV for the first image of an article on heterosexuality to be a heterosexual rape ?) Vicipaedia boldly goes. . . . IacobusAmor 03:25, 21 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Iacobus, I was perturbed by the image on the homophyllophilia page, and that was before I knew that it was a rape. And as for why I object to the photo, it is because it is non-procreative, and treats sexual faculties as simply objects. And it probably has a little to do with western cultural biases and such. That is why I've tried to concentrate on getting a more educational image, and reach a compromise that everyone can be happy with. The image I added, I agree, isn't the best, for I have a clear image in my mind of what kind of image I'd like, however I can't find an uploaded version of it on commons. Alexanderr 07:32, 21 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
I put that image into the page: [1]. I did not know it shows a rape. And, yes, I was not perturbed, when I added this image. There is nothing bad with this image per se, even when it shows a rape. But now, after I have been enlighted, I think we should not have it on a page about Homophylophilia. --Rolandus 08:40, 21 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

I also agree..Recensere

with option 2 I would have do it myself form the beginning, but I wasn't able to create a hidden image. I thank therefore Ioshus for his work. I agree also with the present image, but I remark that the first image is shown on all others wikis.--Massimo Macconi 07:34, 21 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

I just don't get why this whole can of worms had to be opened in the firs place. Alexanderr 07:37, 21 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for opening. I'd vote for option #2. --Rolandus 08:42, 21 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
For the record, option #2 is now technically possible:
{{monstrare|Imago eiaculati hominis|[[Imago:Exemplum JPEGis.jpg|thumb|Eiaculatum hominis]]}} gives:
--UV 13:27, 21 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
For the record again, option #1 is now available as well: Formula:Celare. --UV 22:04, 25 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

I suggest to introduce also a note, e.g:

ref>Imago occulta personas teneriore animo vulnerare potet</ref>

A standard warning on American television is "Viewer Discretion Is Advised." IacobusAmor 14:10, 21 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Whatever we use, persona is probably not the right word. If you mean "people", use homines or just eos cui est.... If you mean personalities, use ingenia or indoles. --Iustinus 18:00, 21 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)


(cfr. pagina anus)

What do you think?--Massimo Macconi 13:53, 21 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
What is the 1 doing in the center of the page. Also, is there a way we can get a caption more than monstrare, UV? Like even Monstrare:Anum. Other than that I think it's a great idea, and a great usage!--Ioshus (disp) 16:19, 21 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
I see now.--Ioshus (disp) 16:26, 21 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't Monstrare imaginem celatam suffice (and serve as a warning)? IacobusAmor 16:27, 21 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
You're probably right, that would work.--Ioshus (disp) 19:52, 21 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Works now. --UV 20:40, 21 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, again, man.--Ioshus (disp) 20:50, 21 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

External LinksRecensere

Anyways, The external links are all messed up. The italian one for example links to sperma instead of the italian word for ejaculation (I viewed page source a few seconds ago, yet can't remember the name). Alexanderr 07:41, 21 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Form de.wiki I took sperma Latine Eiaculatum sonat quod eiaculatio non est. --Massimo Macconi 08:42, 21 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Revertere ad "Eiaculatum".