Forum:Image Review Part 4b

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Image Review Part 4b

Note: This topic has been unedited for 3831 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

To start with, let me say: this is not a list of images I (or Wikia) think should be deleted.

In other words, this is not a list of images I (or Wikia) think should be deleted.

Okay so those were the same words, but I'm pretty much expecting a few grumps of "really! you think that image is a problem?" And the answer is, probably not.

What we have here, is a mostly unfiltered list of images tagged by our first-stage image reviewers. They tag anything that Queen Victoria would disapprove of, so that can include images that will be passed on the second stage. It also occasionally includes a picture of a kitten playing with a toy mouse, presumably because they either miss-clicked, or because they have a cat fetish.

I pulled out a few really obvious ones, but rather than go through them in detail and list them on the old forum page about this, I'm putting them here for joint review.

So, the new guidelines are here. As you can see, we've moved our line to include more accounting for context, including the context of humor. That means that if an image of nudity is necessary and coherent for an article, then it can stay. If it's just a girly pic thrown on for the sake of tits, then it's out of context and should be removed (for the sake of the humor, even if not for the decorum of the wiki!)

There's another type of page that comes into this - the various user sub-pages of naked (or semi-naked) pics. Those really fall into the "girly pics thrown on for the sake of tits" category, and are very much out of context for the wiki. Let's clear 'em out!

Outright porn and shock images should be removed of course, that's always been the norm on Uncyclopedia. Sexualized or naked images of children are also firmly in the "remove" group, except in a few very narrow circumstances (which probably doesn't include your article on Disney). I don't think there are any of either group below, but I might have missed some. I also consider images of excrement to be shock, and Uncyclopedia has a surprising number of those, but I'll leave it to your discussion as to whether they cross the line.

I think the easiest way to check these, is for anyone to add comments on any image, and then admins/me to delete any marked to go. Hopefully we can work out a good way to process them that doesn't involve either deleting them all, or marking them all as okay!

There are more than this list, but here's the first batch. sannse<staff/> (talk)

The first batch

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Rayne_Gone_Wilde.jpg
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:CockinFace.JPG
Deliberately poor 'chop, which is part of it's parody appeal. Can't see how anyone could confuse this for a real penis. • Puppy's talk page • 08:35 am 15 Nov 2013
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Gay_Socks.jpg
Well it is all about 'gay socks'. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 08:04, November 14, 2013 (UTC)

This image is totally fine. --ShabiDOO 15:10, November 18, 2013 (UTC)
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Rich_roman_porn.jpg
On Sog's Richard the Lionhearted. Should be featured (first time I've seen it). Please read the caption, it fits the page and section perfectly. Aleister
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Abu_Ghraib_53.jpg
from Wikipedia; censored; was headline news. Spıke Ѧ 00:29 14-Nov-13
I'm not sure that's a good reason to use it for humor... same for the other Abu Ghraib photo. (But you know my views on that, and this line is with my official hat off. -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 18:40, November 15, 2013 (UTC)

When Kenowswa asked "Jabul, where were you? Second from the left, yes?" he broke everybody up and eventually we had to pile together again, careful not to have a tickle fit.

There ought to be consideration for historical photos like these. They changed much of the world's way of thinking about and Iraq War, including in America and the Falkland Islands, and for mere pixels to be able to do that show the power of these photographs. Here's what I propose, and thought of this yesterday. I would like to use the two photos in an UnNews or an article commemorating the Photo Incident at Abu Ghraib by holding a reunion of the participants. The photos would be them posing as a reenactment, and it will extend from there. How about that option? thanks Aleister 15-11

I would userspace this on sight. UnNews is no more to "commemorate" a US military mistake than the main page is to commemorate the Civil Rights movement. Humor; remember? If a political statement is the only reason to maintain a photo of stripped Iraqis, let's ditch it. Spıke Ѧ 21:12 15-Nov-13

I think this image does have humor potential, if only for the ridiculous positions that the prisoners were in - if it was implied that the prisoner's did it on a dare for instance, or if the image caption was praising the gymnastic abilities of the prisoners, that could have humor potential. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 21:34, November 15, 2013 (UTC)
Sannse and SPIKE, SPIKE's reaction is exactly why it should be kept, written well, and featured. Commemorating the military "mistake" (mistake????? just who made the mistake, oops!) by putting on a reunion of the participants on what, the 10th anniversary (I forget when it happened) seems now more than ever to be a good idea. It is a good idea, a good concept, and I ask for the photos to be kept so I can write and present it well. Thanks, Aleister minutes later
Politics and satire go together like two things that go together so well they're inseparable. This image has a valid purpose, and the pixelation removes any offensive material. Using a very limited definition of offensive, of course. • Puppy's talk page • 10:04 pm 15 Nov 2013

There's nothing wrong with using this image...as long as the article is helarious and the image is used to enhance the humour. Not easy to do with this pic...but I'd love to see Ali pull that off. --ShabiDOO 15:10, November 18, 2013 (UTC)
Gave it a go at UnNews:Vegas hosts Abu Ghraib 10th anniversary reunion. Hopefully it's good enough, I lol reading it aloud. Aleister 00:52 19/11/'13
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Asia_Carrera.jpg
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Wet_Breast_Paper.jpg
This image is the punch line of a quasi-featured article. Without the image the article wouldn't work. • Puppy's talk page • 09:31 am 15 Nov 2013
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:BuffaloBill.png
On an article about transvestites. Looks like a still. Fits the article in my view. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 08:21, November 14, 2013 (UTC)
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Funny-animation-carwash.jpg
From an article about women are supposed to want. Fits in with the article in my view. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 08:31, November 14, 2013 (UTC)
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Asses.jpg
I removed the last mainspace uses of this last week. Spıke Ѧ 22:21 13-Nov-13
It's used in two forum pages and two talk pages. Keep? -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 18:40, November 15, 2013 (UTC)
Keeper, of course. You can put them on my talk page if you'd like. Aleister 15-11
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Supergirl_Winner.jpg
This image makes the article Supergirl, which basically is satire on how comics emphasize the breasts of women in women superheroes' costumes. This is the most extreme example in the article of emphasis on boobs, and therefore was judged the "winning costume". -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 21:26, November 15, 2013 (UTC)
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Hardatwork.jpg
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Cigarette.jpg
A black and white nude artfully done, and has a definite place in the article. Given what is concealed by the posture there is nothing that explicitly shown, beyond the curvature of her body. • Puppy's talk page • 09:31 am 15 Nov 2013
Points for art. At least it's not Urine Christ, remember that guy? I wonder what became of the artist and the artpiece, help me Wikipedia, to again find my way...Aleister 15=11
When it was displayed in Melbourne it was attacked by a 17 year old, in the gallery, with a hammer. I think it was “restored” after that. • Puppy's talk page • 10:04 pm 15 Nov 2013

Agree with the above points. Doesn't actually reveal anything I can see that could offend. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 22:10, November 15, 2013 (UTC)
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Unfairness.jpg
Historical photo of torture in Iraq, ~~am now using it as the main picture in my next UnNews "Next Halloween in Jerusalem".~~ Wish to use it on the article described in the above picture of the same period. Aleister 14-11
See my comment on the other Abu Ghraib photo above -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 18:40, November 15, 2013 (UTC)
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:McAdele.jpg
Maniac1075, used in one mainspace porn article of his. Spıke Ѧ 00:19 14-Nov-13
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Artificial_Inseminator.jpg
Stolen from offsite with no comedy added. One user. Spıke Ѧ 22:42 13-Nov-13
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Topless_beach.jpg
Single use; Sog1970 ought not need the pic to "flesh out" his vacation report. Spıke Ѧ 22:23 13-Nov-13
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Ath.jpg
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Dong-bong.jpg
Only use doesn't relate to surrounding text. Spıke Ѧ 01:01 14-Nov-13
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:104626.jpg
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Twiggy2-bath.jpg
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:TMNAKrap.jpg
Maniac1075; am VFDing only user. Spıke Ѧ 23:25 13-Nov-13
Looks like something off a potter's wheel. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 08:23, November 15, 2013 (UTC)
It's purple. Scat humour is not my preference, but this is pretty tame. There is no way anyone could confuse this with faeces unless try have a diet really high in beetroot. If the article is deleted then the loss of this image is no loss, but it is in context in that article. If the article is retained then this image should be as well. • Puppy's talk page • 11:55 am 18 Nov 2013

Resolved

~~http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Master1.jpg~~
from Romartus; used at People Who Like to Fuck Naked, which is actively being edited. Spıke Ѧ 00:38 14-Nov-13
Totally essential, this feature page was written around this picture, it was the inspiration for the page. Aleister 13-11
~~http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Hjghjh.gif~~ Kept
On Adult, Boobs, and Chatroulette, fits the page on all three and is one of the classics on the site. Aleister
Defintely in context at Chatroulette, which is a feature. • Puppy's talk page • 10:43 am 15 Nov 2013
~~http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:French-aids-posters530.jpg~~ Kept
Used at Spider and I'd consider it essential for the page. At Bestiality it has this wonderful caption, if I say so myself: "Two trailblazers in the art of bestiality explore the ultimate and exotic joys of insex." This feels really sick picking and choosing something like this in 2013. Aleister 13-11
These were published in France as health warnings. Bizarre but not shock/porn. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 08:24, November 14, 2013 (UTC)
~~File:Zebelia.jpg~~
~~File:Bbfana10.jpg~~
~~http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Nun.JPG~~ Kept - sannse<staff/> (talk) 23:57, November 14, 2013 (UTC)
Seems very tame to me. After all, what do nuns wear under their habits? --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 08:02, November 14, 2013 (UTC)
On the page 'Holy Habits: Lingerie for Nuns' where it fits like a glove, or at least half of a glove. Aleister 14-11
~~File:Armdick.jpg~~
~~File:Tof1.jpg~~
~~File:Kalley.JPG~~
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Sade100.jpg
Only use was in two puns about Marquis de Sade. Reverted to an older version as the joke still works, and this isn't a good 'chop. • Puppy's talk page • 10:43 am 15 Nov 2013
~~File:Live151.jpg~~
~~http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Lolitacomplex_013.jpg~~ Kept -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 23:57, November 14, 2013 (UTC)
Nothing showing. Single use in FA. Spıke Ѧ 22:42 13-Nov-13
Used on a feature, and on the Stanley Kubrick page which is being shaped into a feature, plus, not pornographic in the least!!! Aleister 14-11
But could be viewed as a naked image of a child. And, as I said above, this is a mixed batch -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 23:57, November 14, 2013 (UTC)
I am pretty sure it is a still from a main stream movie, in which case that is an actress playing the role of Lolita. Anyway, left note on image. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 09:57, November 15, 2013 (UTC)
~~File:Bryci_17_019.jpg~~
~~# http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Hand1.jpg~~
I think that can be replaced because the image doesn't help the article in my view. Will look for something else. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 08:07, November 14, 2013 (UTC)
Replaced image for now with something else. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 09:11, November 14, 2013 (UTC)
~~File:Girlsgonewow1024.jpg~~
~~File:Couple1.jpg~~
~~File:Nate2.jpg~~
~~File:Deathsex1.jpg~~ uploaded by Romartus; classical; orphan
~~http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:JC_Wikiwanker.jpg~~ Kept
Is that Jim Carrey? Sock on a cock joke seems ok to me. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 08:09, November 14, 2013 (UTC)
Good context too -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 18:40, November 15, 2013 (UTC)
~~http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Mr_bean.gif~~
Used on Trouser Snake, totally fits the page and is its only picture. Aleister 14-11
Agree with Al. I think it is quite funny too (it is Mr Bean after all), --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 08:18, November 14, 2013 (UTC)
~~File:Debauch1.jpg~~
from Romartus; fits in context. Spıke Ѧ 00:28 14-Nov-13
Think I will replace it. It's a bit 'in your face'. See what else I can find to illustrate an orgy. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 09:29, November 18, 2013 (UTC)
Done. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 09:44, November 18, 2013 (UTC)
File:BoobSlipz.gif
Used in {{RandomGenericCheesecake}}. I have no idea, so fence sitting. • Puppy's talk page • 11:55 am 18 Nov 2013
I dislike the template more than the images: originally created "for pages that lack pictures" (in other words, use cheesecake to obviate providing truly funny pix), pranks the reader with USERNAME and <option>, used on only two pages. I propose to orphan-by-edit. Spıke Ѧ 12:36 18-Nov-13

Template and photo are now orphaned-by-edit. Spıke Ѧ 00:54 26-Nov-13
File:Badmichaelangelo.jpg
Even where it was in context it was out of context. • Puppy's talk page • 09:41 am 15 Nov 2013
Last remaining reference was in your userspace; it's gone now. Spıke Ѧ 01:08 26-Nov-13
File:Cock.png
Not used in any content pages. • Puppy's talk page • 09:41 am 15 Nov 2013
Deleted on that basis. Spıke Ѧ 01:08 26-Nov-13
File:Threebods1.jpg
Uploaded by Romartus; only use is in BHOP. Spıke Ѧ 23:25 13-Nov-13
I am pretty sure I uploaded this for article about sex. Perhaps the article was deleted. It is a film still from some French movie I think. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 08:17, November 14, 2013 (UTC)
As nobody knows, it is gone. Spıke Ѧ 01:08 26-Nov-13
File:VidaG.jpg
Only use is on 3 personal porn caches. Spıke Ѧ 22:54 13-Nov-13 Gone. Spıke Ѧ 01:08 26-Nov-13
File:Stamford_sexy_elf.jpg
Used once by Sog; orphaned by edit after an ambiguous dialogue on his talk page. Spıke Ѧ 02:33 26-Nov-13
File:Thongs.jpg
This picture is the only one used in Thong Bikini and is small enough sized that it is ambiguous whether the ladies in it are wearing Thongs or are bare bottomed with tan lines where the thongs should be. It probably could be removed from Papa John's, but its use in Thong Bikini appears to be in context. ---- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 21:16, November 15, 2013 (UTC)
Would replacing it with an image where the ladies are actually wearing thongs remove any humour value? • Puppy's talk page • 10:04 pm 15 Nov 2013

Found a very Uncyc appropriate replacement. • Puppy's talk page • 11:15 am 26 Nov 2013
Was also used at Papa John's; no less funny now that it's replaced by nothing. Spıke Ѧ 11:44 26-Nov-13

Discusion

Several of these are single-use photos. I have not yet found one that is vital to sustain the humor of a page. Many Uncyclopedians maintain personal galleries precisely to keep photos from becoming orphans, and in the case of a handful of them, the purpose of these is titillation. They don't need to be kept.

Commenters should note that the Wikia policy linked above extends not just to pix but to the written word. I can live within its bounds but routinely encounter new users in the exact business of writing about "how [certain people] have sex" — indeed, the stock bad biography starts with the character's birth and mentions the mother's vagina. I move against some of these based on bad writing and not the Policy Manual. But it seems the notion that was used as the excuse for the insurrection at the start of the year remains alive: That no activity should occur unless there is a Corporate Policy.

This week Anon asked, at User talk:Romartus, for us to delete Islam, Jesus, and all related pages to avoid hurtfulness. He was unanimously shouted down. I wonder how he would have fared if he had gone to the corporation instead. Spıke Ѧ 22:36 13-Nov-13

We have defended those articles and more on numerous occasions. A quick look through our archive shows 11 complaints about "Islam" in the last couple of years, along with three about "Jesus", and two about "penis" - because apparently it has something about Islam in there. We even have a damn template that basically says "it's Uncyclopedia, humor is usually offensive to someone, deal with it" - because someone being angry about Uncyclopedia happens often enough for us to have a standard reply.

Note there is nothing in the guidelines about not making fun of religion. Or atheism. Or Cancer for pete's sake. What we do have a problem with, is hate-speech... you know, the sort of thing that's illegal in a whole lotta places

And on the porn side, Uncyclopedia has always had a rule against that - images or text. And unless you are very odd, a mention of someone's Mom's vagina is not going to be thought of as porn. I'm really not sure where you are going with this one, unless you think that by "how they have sex" means how are babbys made]. No, what that means is that you cannot make a text version of your favorite porn movie, with graphic descriptions of the whole fruit salad scene.

Other points:

"vital" isn't necessary... if it adds to the article (and is used in an article or other valid area) then that's fine. As long as it's not porn, shock, or children. if (as I said above) it's just gratuitous tits, then it should go.
You will have to explain what you mean by "That no activity should occur unless there is a Corporate Policy". I honestly don't know what you mean there
You talk about "the corporation", which is where I really wish you had been with Romatus and Sims when they visited the office. It sounds like you think the building itself is making decisions, or some other amorphous and sinister being.

This is a small company, with real people working on everything that comes towards us. I wrote those guidelines (didn't you recognize the jokes? I mean, the attempted jokes?). I showed them to my boss, who checked them over with her boss and a legal guy (as they would be mentioned in the ToU, which is a legal document). Then I put them online (minus the joke about another-site-that-shall-remain-nameless, which was the only thing the lawyer cut - critics everywhere!).

I've typed out a few conclusions to this, but deleted them. Maybe we should have a Skype video call, so we can talk in person. But the main thing I would like to say is to ask you to please try to consider that we might actually have good intentions. At least once in a while. -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 01:10, November 14, 2013 (UTC)

PS--It seems we catalog our own stuff at {{Erotica}}. Spıke Ѧ 22:42 13-Nov-13

Who are the 'first image reviewers'? I can see a couple of photos that look like they come off some weird person's website. Won't it be messy to add our comments under each pic?? --

RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 22:54, November 13, 2013 (UTC)

Another thought: Who thinks there is enough effort being put into this wiki to siphon off probably half of it to deal with this list, with the proviso that unlimited additional lists might be forthcoming? Spıke Ѧ 23:25 13-Nov-13

Romartus, they are a group of people working remotely. We employ them to do that first check, and then I go through the ones they flagged to make a decision on each.

Spike, it's up to you. If you like, we can do it the way we do on every other wiki. In other words, I'll go ahead and delete those I think should go. But I've tried to give Uncyclopedia some extra consideration, and extra opportunity to work with me on those decisions. (If you can hear a level of frustration and annoyance in my voice, you have accurate hearing.) -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 01:10, November 14, 2013 (UTC)

Please give this list a week before deleting any, for other users to check to see if we will censor the lot or every other picture on the fucking wiki. I hate this. It's 2013, I haven't seen one of these yet that's pornographic except maybe the woman masturbating a guy, and the fisting, maybe those two should be deleted. And you say there's more batches? Give at least a week per batch. Aleister 14-11

Agree with Aleister. Need a week to see what else we can come up with some of these images as their removal will leave gaps in the affected articles. --

RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 08:12, November 14, 2013 (UTC)

if we agree to keep a photo - a link to this discussion page can be incorporated into the caption so that the same image isn't re-nominated again for change/deletion. This could be placed here - "Editing File": See here http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Hand1.jpg for an example. --

RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 10:02, November 14, 2013 (UTC)

Section heads are a great thing

There first round image reviewers: I'm assuming if they have been employed by Wikia, then they have a set of guidelines as to what to flag along their travels. Are we able to get a copy of these guidelines?

Main reason I ask is given a few of these nominated are cartoon quality, or less than realistic depictions of rudey nudies, it seems that some may have been nominated purely because someone is being paid to nominate something. If a portion of my income relied in me being more puritanical than a hirsuite Jesuit Mother Superior, I'd suddenly find the word cumquat offensive. Nippley cartoon nuns, or an MS paint penis drawn on the image of a celebrity, I find very nit-picky.

Sorry to add to your frustration here Sannse, but your first sentence on this forum (or maybe it was the second) suggests that as a corporate entity you are obliged to do something, but not even as a corporate body do you feel all of these should be deleted. • Puppy's talk page • 09:13 pm 14 Nov 2013

The guidelines are pretty broad. If it's nudity, sex, strong violence, or shock, then it gets tagged. We don't distinguish between real and drawn, or try to give them a specific line of where "childish willy pic" ends and "furry porn" starts. They are not paid by the number of tagged images, they are paid by time worked.

And remember, in a normal situation, I look at all of those tagged images and make a decision based on the full guidelines and the type and context of the image (with a second opinion from someone else here if needed). For Uncyclopedia, I have had a hold on the images for some time, until I had time to bring them here so that you can have the involvement you want. Whether you consider me a corporate or non-corporate entity, or even corporeal one, this method is more time intensive than simply going though them once as I do on other wikis. Which is why I didn't do a full filter on the images, I just removed any very obvious ones that I saw while marking them for hold and listing them for you here. You have been given more involvement in this than other wikis, whether you want that is up to you -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 19:02, November 15, 2013 (UTC)

People working and finding skin, jigglies, and the like and pocketing some cash to narc them out. Ha! For having a part of your soul outside of the corporate world, thanks, and thanks for passing these images by us. I haven't seen most of them, and most of them are pretty stupid. Some that I know of I've written requests that the image be kept, and they are essential to the flow of the page and the escalation of the intended joke, imnho. Is coffee break over yet for the narcs? Who are they, local nun and/or priest and/or security guard wannabees or the guys over at the Catholic League of Decency and All Things Proper (CLDATP)? Aleister 15-11

Genuine thanks for the clarification. Given I obviously am extremely conservative and touchy, how do I apply for this job? (For God's sake, won't someone think of the children?) • Puppy's talk page • 10:08 pm 15 Nov 2013

Non-issues

Sannse: You wrote: "I'm not sure that's a good reason to use it for humor... same for the other Abu Ghraib photo. (But you know my views on that, and this line is with my official hat off.)"

Although you started this Forum with shuck-and-jive, you later disclosed that it is backed by ultimatum. The point of this Forum is that certain illustrations (you don't know which ones, as you have not necessarily looked at any of them personally, and you reserve the right to say Oh Never Mind on any individual one after wasting our time with group hand-wringing) subject Wikia to legal risk or blacklisting. I totally concede to you when that is the case.

The totally separate issue of your personal opinion on what kind of jokes we should be telling needs to be raised in a separate Forum, if at all, and with your Official Hat off, without threats and insults, so that we can give it the level of inattention it deserves. Do not use this Forum to segue to your personal concept of a kinder-and-gentler wiki.

Likewise, the occasional claims of Aleister and Romartus that a given illustration, if it should subject Wikia to those risks, nevertheless "fits the page" or was used with coherence, are irrelevant.

Separately, "hate speech" (like "assault weapon") is a non-concept, a value-less thing with an emotional adjective prepended for the sake of manipulation. The U.S. hate speech laws you cite as a precedent for action serve to give one group special rights against hearing from another group words that they shower on themselves casually. That you think this is a justification for anything proves my point that your basis for eventually prohibiting even non-pictorial utterances here is dangerously open-ended. Spıke Ѧ 19:17 15-Nov-13

Away for the weekend

I will be away from this page until at least Monday, possibly Tuesday. In that time I will be taking a deep breath and probably saying "Ohm" for a while.

Spike, I don't believe that I have made threats, given ultimatums, or insulted anyone. I also don't believe that I have been evasive (I looked up the meaning of "shuck-and-jive", that's a new one for me)

Perhaps the closest to any of those, is saying that if you felt the process was taking up too much editor time (something you mentioned) then there was the option of going back to the standard Wikia process. If this sounded like a threat, then I apologize. The intention was to make it clear that this was being offered as an alternative, and you were free to reject that offer.

The rest of my reply can wait. So have a good weekend everyone, and I will see you next week. -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 01:33, November 16, 2013 (UTC)

If we are going to have to do this then this way of assessing individual images seems better to me. Otherwise holes will start appearing in many articles if stuff is getting flagged by others and then deleted without warning by Wikia (except for all the grounds - cyberbullying/vanity/shock/out right porn - that have been accepted before). --

RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 13:46, November 16, 2013 (UTC)

Stay of execution

For image files that can't be retained, a request for a 7 day gap so that those articles that will be affected can be fixed to prevent holes appearing in them. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 09:26, November 18, 2013 (UTC)

From Wikia

Hey all -

I’m hopping in here and I apologize for the delay in getting back to you all. Wikia’s given Uncyc a great deal of leeway regarding images; we’ve invested engineering time to keep Uncyc’s images out of the standard review process and then more time to get them into their current review state. As far as I can see, Sannse started the conversation here regarding images over a year ago and it’s time to wrap things up.

We’re going to move forward with putting all of Uncyc’s images back into the standard review flow at the end of this month (December, 2013). Starting in January, images uploaded to Uncylopedia will go through the same image review process as every other image on Wikia. We can no longer continue to give this community special consideration regarding images.

Our image policy has been communicated to Uncyclopedia and while it does change depending on cultural shifts, we won’t be debating the finer points of that policy here. Jenburton (talk) 00:03, December 3, 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Does this mean that images on the site as of December 31 get to stay, and uploaded images will be the ones subject to review? And what has changed regarding this community and its special consideration? Thanks. Aleister 00:28 3-12-13

Images that are currently on Uncyc will stay but new images will go through the same process the rest of Wikia goes through. Regarding the special consideration and images: we need to get things in line so that we (Wikia) can move forward and focus on other things. Jenburton (talk) 01:03, December 3, 2013 (UTC)

Given the images listed above here that have been flagged but ended up as kept (due to context), moving to the “standard” process seems extremely premature. Uncyc had been given exceptions due to being in an unusual position; One of the most popular sub-domains, direct competition with a non-Wikia fork, and being a parody site that relies on dark humour.

Given Wikia haven't yet fixed the mobile skin issue raised several months ago, adding further restrictions on this site may be what loses the remainder of this community here completely. • Puppy's talk page • 02:22 am 03 Dec 2013

Who is this Jenburton? I will check with Sannse to see if this is a hoax account. --

RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 07:50, December 3, 2013 (UTC)

Jen Burton is staff at Wikia. Since it is possible to impersonate people here, I will ignore this until we receive an official message from either Sannse or Jen Burton on their Wikia accounts or they can email me. Meanwhile I am going to block this Jen Burton account until further notice. --

RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 08:23, December 3, 2013 (UTC)

Update. Can't block the account as it is listed as staff. I await official confirmation that this is a genuine message. --

RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 08:34, December 3, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is Jen Burton, who hosted you in San Francisco. Only actual Wikia staff have the staff right in Special:listusers (except I just noticed a couple that hadn't been removed when they should have been, I'll fix those now" -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 20:02, December 3, 2013 (UTC)

You are using Sannse's account/sig Jen. Now if I am correct, you want all images uploaded here to go via the Wikia system. I am not sure how that works. I am not aware anything objectionable has been uploaded of late and I look at the latest images. Who is going to do the 'flagging'? --

RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 20:31, December 3, 2013 (UTC)

I assure you that I'm not using Sannse's account, Romartus. Sannse and I are, however, using the same IP address because we're both here in Wikia's SF office. Regarding the image review process, our team of current image reviewers will be reviewing the images uploaded to Uncyc just as they do every other image uploaded to Wikia across our network. As Sannse explained above, any items that are marked as "questionable" do get a secondary review by Sannse or another member of the Community Support team here. I honestly don't expect there to a be a great deal of controversy - as you mentioned, images uploaded to Uncyc haven't been bad or necessarily objectionable as of late. Jenburton (talk) 21:47, December 3, 2013 (UTC)

I think Romartus merely misinterpreted "Yes, this is Jen Burton" above. Spıke Ѧ 22:34 3-Dec-13

Yep, that's what we figured (of course /after/ I responded. Jenburton (talk) 18:05, December 4, 2013 (UTC)

Jen/Sannse: If the community disagree with a Wikia decision relating to the removal of particular content, what is the process of appeal? • Puppy's talk page • 07:11 am 04 Dec 2013

To appeal a decision, it's best to write in via Special:Contact as we don't receive notifications for posts on our talk pages here on Uncyc.Jenburton (talk) 18:05, December 4, 2013 (UTC)

In other words: If you find that Wikia has deleted an upload of yours, you are welcome to use our automated complaint system, which will route your complaint to a random and more junior employee with no connection to the situation, who will cheerfully inform you of the policy you already knew, and will queue you up to receive an email asking you to rate the pleasantness of the transaction. I can imagine no better guarantee of dissatisfaction, outside perhaps the Obamacare website. Spıke Ѧ 18:42 4-Dec-13

Exactly. Jenburton (talk) 19:17, December 4, 2013 (UTC)

So I suppose that means that we can no longer have images of decapitated nuns with fountains of cum squirting from their knecks into the Pope's face? --ShabiDOO 22:42, December 4, 2013 (UTC)

One word: EW. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 03:26, December 5, 2013 (UTC)

Well if we are talking of 1st Jan 2014 to check on all new images, that can be done by admins here. Pre this date, a forum like this can be used. If someone else wants to flag an image, we can ask them to contact an admin here. --

RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 08:02, December 5, 2013 (UTC)