Talk: Anonymous pages/Boobies

This is hilarious. 01:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Recklessly juvenile. --◄mendel► 02:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

... Just wow... -- I~sk8 (T/C) 02:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol. This is kinda weird. Btw, Mendel, boobsize changes with some armor. They have an inherent boob size modifier ;) --- -- (s)talkpage 10:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, so does boob exposure, so feel free to add more screenshots. Actually, what's changing is probably not the size, but the bra that belongs to the armor (or the chestpiece itself) shapes the boobs differently (much like a wonderbra promises to do). --◄mendel► 10:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Elite Gladiator armor for the Female Warrior decreases boobsize compared to naked. Dunno if that's what a wonderbra does? :P --- -- (s)talkpage 10:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I vote this article be seperated into the different ptofessions' boobies. Ex. Ritualist boobies, Elelmentalist boobies, etc, then perform a social experament to see which page gets the most hits. BTW, easily the best article on GWiki! Shadowshear 01:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Stub line

Should read:
This article is a stub. You can help by adding more boob (or other stubs) according to the style guide.
for more lulz. With proper links and such, ofc. --- -- (s)talkpage 12:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Done.--ìğá†ħŕášħ 16:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Epic. 16:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wtb delete

-_- (T/C) 01:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

100k+225e Shadowshear 01:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Go design your web page. 02:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Zack & Miri etc (T/C) 02:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Entropy wins imo. --Shadowcrest 02:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's a great statement on how ridiculous some of the female armors are. Jink 03:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Boobs are natural and beautiful. Porn is not. 03:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

All ppl use macros to farm hfff :P Its hipocrisy to understand that like a "sin" (T/C) 03:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I am the only Macros allowed on this wiki. --Macros 09:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Felix, I hate to disappoint you, but these boobs are NOT natural. --◄mendel► 12:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

These are actual unretouched un-texmodded Guild Wars screenshots. Anybody can see this within 5 minutes of getting the game. As our website caters to those that play this game, these pictures cannot be more inappropriate for our target audience than the game itself is. --◄mendel► 09:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

context like and such as (T/C) 09:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

wtb actual argument. --◄mendel► 10:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There are reasons why this page could be considered inappropriate for the wiki, not least of all because by centering on a certain aspect of their physique, it reduces the in-game women avatars to mere objects. They are, of course, and the way they are clothed reinforce that this is a conscious decision of the game designers. It could be replied that the same observation can be made about the male avatars, but there is no "muscles" article, ostensibly because the girls/women interested in them haven't made one.

So these breasts were made to be stared at; and this page seems to say "Go stare at them!". Of course, that's just an ironic exhortation, because the males of appropriate ages don't need prompting; inasmuch this page is ironic (and reduces "boobies" vandalism). So your female avatar is going to get stared at no matter what. What this page also does it make you aware that this is going on, and may make you feel uncomfortable identifying with your online avatar. For that, I am sorry.

What is the effect of this page on males? It might break a taboo for you and help you on your road to a more relaxed sexuality, especially if you realize that there are situations in the heat of battle where the boobz0Rz of a female avatar don't matter as much as the skill and intelligence of the player controlling it - and that, in fact, you won't know from the avatar whether that skilled player is male or female. If this page helps its viewers on the road to that realization, it has a reason for being. --◄mendel► 09:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Felix: "Porn is the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer." Like and such as... this page? After all, the subject matter of porn (boobs, most commonly) is "natural and beautiful", isn't it?

Mendel:

• "because the girls/women interested in them haven't made one." I am interested in maintaining a page about how excessive drinking is good for the body, is perfectly safe, and how we fully endorse kids to drink regularly. Let's do it. After all, ANet clearly knew what they were doing putting alcohol in the game and then adding a reward for excessive alcohol consumption, and how no harm ever befalls the character because of it and that people are rewarded for drinking. How is that any different from maintaining a page and encouraging people (including young kids with parents nearby) to stare at boobs?
• "and reduces "boobies" vandalism." It immortalizes it, not reduces it. Vandals will be happy making a boobies page, even if one already exists. If nothing else, you've provided them a means to copy+paste it into mainspace.
• "What this page also does it make you aware that this is going on, and may make you feel uncomfortable identifying with your online avatar." I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this. It's common knowledge boobs on video games are huge, we don't need to provide screens of said oversized boobs to kids.
• "It might break a taboo for you and help you on your road to a more relaxed sexuality." What would porn accomplish?
• "especially if you realize that there are situations in the heat of battle where the boobz0Rz of a female avatar don't matter as much as the skill and intelligence of the player controlling it - and that, in fact, you won't know from the avatar whether that skilled player is male or female." I don't understand how this has a point at all, much less one for keeping the page.

I still don't think this page should exist. Our job isn't to provide pics of boobs to people, regardless of whether or not they appear in game. --Shadowcrest 21:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Userpage though, IMO it should be at least be moved to a page that dosn't scream "porn" RandomTime 21:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

So I can upload whatever I want and put it on my userpage? This exceeds the bounds of good taste, much like this does. --Shadowcrest 21:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If you think this is beyond "good taste", go picket a Victoria's Secret. >.> —Dr Ishmael 21:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

We are not a lingerie store, last I checked. Nor do we target specifically those of a proper age with our content. --Shadowcrest 21:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

But that lingerie store is still sitting in the middle of the mall, where hundreds of kids are walking past it every day. This is an obscure page on a non-official wiki for an old video game. VS has a lot more exposure to kids than this article does. —Dr Ishmael 21:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Then explain to me where we draw the line, then. A page about boobs is acceptable? How is it different than not allowing scantily-clad people IRL to upload pics of themselves, encouraging people to drink more or allow unsuspecting kids to wander across Grinch's story? It isn't our job to police kids like a parent would in a mall, but we shouldn't be providing it to them. --Shadowcrest 21:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Who honestly is going to stumble across a page titled User: Anonymous pages/Boobies on a video game wiki accidentally? I don't see what purpose it has, but its not mainspace atm. Lord of all tyria 21:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone will, if we keep posting on the talk page. Cress Arvein 21:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, this is NOT pornography, this is NOT illegal, and the aforementioned "children" can stare at these all they want 10 minutes after their parents gave them this game. Get over it. RoseOfKali 21:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The wiki isn't here to encourage sexuality and freedom from taboos. It serves no purpose on the wiki, neither in the mainspace or userspace - if the aim of the page is to encourage people to stare at breasts, the page serves as pornography, and the wiki doesn't accept pornography. Also, vandalism articles that were deleted are meant to stay deleted. That's why it's called deletion. --90.196.43.120 21:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Do not invent definitions of pornography, please. And vandalism has nothing to do with this discussion. Also, this page is not meant to encourage anything. Anything else? RoseOfKali 21:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"Patently offensive" is in the section. If it can offend someone, remove it. This again serves no purpose whatsoever. And reread mendel's post, because that is exactly what he advocates. Anything else? --Shadowcrest 21:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That's Mendel's opinion, and I read it as sarcasm more than anything. I am also offended by the images of Bonecage_Scythe, it gives me nightmares, please, remove it. RoseOfKali 22:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"patently" would mean offensive to a good deal of people, because if we deleted because ONE person was offended, the entire wiki would be gone (I mean that literally too, there was some guy who tagged a bunch for deletion because of license things he thought were wrong after the Wikia move, and under him the entire site would be removed) --Gimmethegepgun 22:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

RoseOfKali, some reasoning and a proper argument would be nice. --90.196.43.120 22:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read the definition and provide the "proper argument" for deletion first. If a page exists, nobody should have to defend its existence, unless someone provided a good reason for it's deletion first. I have yet to see one. RoseOfKali 22:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Does it really matter? Why don't we just move it to some obscure subpage or put it all in a showhide box (I cant remember if tables work in them). Would that satisfy your want for censorship? — Warw/Wick 22:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

patently offensive

(Reset indent) From patently offenive article:

• The dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex
• The material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters
• The material is utterly without redeeming social value
• Representations or descriptions of ultimate sex acts normal or perverted, actual or simulated
• Representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibitions of the genitals.

All of which are accurate. So when I make an article about sex in mainspace I won't have too defend it? Cool, thanks for saving me the trouble. At gimme: There's a difference between people finding what Gravewit did illegal and finding images depicting breasts offensive. --Shadowcrest 22:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course you will, this ACTUALLY fits under the "patently offensive" definition. RoseOfKali 22:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

patently (comparative more patently, superlative most patently)

In a clear and unambiguous manner.

Retrieved from "http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/patently"

I don't see anything "patent" in the arguments here. Move to "/Chests" and nobody will care about it in RC. Done. RoseOfKali 22:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• The dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex

It doesn't. No nudity, for one thing. No genitals, no nothing.

• The material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters

It's in the game we are about. If the game isn't up to our standards, we can just close the wiki.

• The material is utterly without redeeming social value

I've written text on teh page and here to show it's not without.

• Representations or descriptions of ultimate sex acts normal or perverted, actual or simulated

No sey acts whatsoever.

• Representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibitions of the genitals.

Breats are not genitals.

Conclusion? Your definition doesn't apply. --◄mendel► 22:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• prurient interest in sex

So, you're telling me boobs aren't at all related to sex? Lolk.

• it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters

Precedent says We don't allow [pictures] of women in revealing clothing.

• I've written text on teh page and here to show it's not without

I've agrued against it and Kali thought it was sarcastic. Just because you say so doesn't make it fact, else I'd have deleted the page by now.

• sex acts etc

I'll give you this because it's not an "act", but please note "simulated" (→cartoon) is in that definition.

• Representations etc

This page more. --Shadowcrest 23:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you even read your links? By your link, prurient is defined as "(US, law) Sick, morbid or shameless". Doesn't apply.

Precedent: don't see how it applies. Felix cites the armor galleries as precedent for allowing them. --◄mendel► 23:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

breasts elsewhere etc.

/sigh Wikipedia:Breast. If WP can show pictures of fully nude, real breasts, then we can keep this article. Case closed. —Dr Ishmael 22:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

How is Wikipedia and GuildWiki analogous? (How is that Wikipedia article and this analagous? They're two different entities, with different aims. In fact, this article is for the promotion of looking at breasts for sexuality, it's not for encyclopaedic or informative reasons. "Wikipedia does it, so why can't we" isn't really good enough. --90.196.43.120 22:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"I don't like in-game un-altered images of perfectly socially-acceptable cleavage" isn't good enough either. RoseOfKali 22:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to quote me, please make sure you're actually quoting me. I said no such thing, whether explicitly or otherwise. I don't like it or dislike it. I just realise its purpose is inappropriate and unrelated to the wiki's function. Also, acceptability in Life != acceptability in wiki. --90.196.43.120 22:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This page isn't "promoting" anything, it's not featured or advertised anywhere, and is not linked to from any Mainspace articles, and is located in Userspace. Why is it that it offends you again? I wasn't quoting anyone in particular, just summarizing the arguments heard so far. And what is so special about this wiki that it supposedly has stricter restrictions than normal everyday life and Cartoon Network Televition or the T-rated game that it supposedly references? Go write to Anet and tell them to remove breast physics from a T-rated game and provide camies under all those revealing chest armor pieces. If they listen, THEN come back here. RoseOfKali 22:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please, delete these unambiguously patently offensive, intercourse and strip-tease themed, pornographic videos that populate the Mainspace of this Wikia. /sarcasm... >_< RoseOfKali 23:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting how the "this page serves no purpose whatsoever in this wiki/game" argument is brought up. Clearly, all the pages at the Humor category also do not serve this specific wiki/game, except maybe for entertainment. And I found this page lulworthy and entertaining. Not as much as the discussion, ofc. --Alf's Hitman 23:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Might as well add a disclaimer or something atop for all the carebears. --Alf's Hitman 23:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

lol, spoilarz. --Alf's Hitman 23:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Ishmael: GW:NOT

Kali: There are people under 13 that use this site, regardless of the games being rated T.

Kali2: A video of a dance is different than a compilation of pics of breats, including a "best-boobs" competition.

Everyone trolling: Stop. --Shadowcrest 23:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

So "best-boobs competitions" are bad? Mmmkay. And we're not trolling, we're just using silly arguments because we don't feel this issue is serious enough to deserve a serious argument. —Dr Ishmael 23:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Because we're a wiki about Miss USA/America/Universe. Righty-o then. Additionally: I've been called a carebear, and you haven't seen IRC. --Shadowcrest 23:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A video of a dance is just as much a part of GW as all these images, we see these "boobs" running around every city, happily jiggling, but for some reason, still images of them offended someone, apparently more so than a Warrior running up behind you and starting to hump. This discussion is pointless. I haven't yet seen a single well-presented argument that warrants this page's deletion. Let it be. This wiki should have absolutely no reasons to not be allowed to present images of the game that it's about, regardless of what they are. Nobody else has any reason to visit this site if they don't play the game. If someone wants to upload images of Cynn's thong in front of different background, guess what, they CAN. This is not a gay float parade with firetruck-sized rainbow-colored penises in the middle of NYC, and nobody shoved this page in your face. Don't like it? Don't read it. (P.S. I have nothing against homosexuals, but I do wish they didn't do those goddamn parades...) On a final note, who are you defending? This is not about children under 13, they see their moms' and aunts' cleavage every day and I don't see anything on this page that would be offensive to a child under 13, if they by SOME GODDAMN MIRACLE happen to stumble into this page. They have better chances of finding their dad's porn magazine. And for the final time, I am asking for a formulated, short and precise argument that answers the question "Why should this page be deleted?" I can't see one anywhere, just random phrases about the supposed purposes and intentions of this article. RoseOfKali 23:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, by your arguments, we should go delete all armor gallery pictures, since they picture these exact same parts, albeit at slightly different angles. Shall we discuss what angles are acceptable and what aren't? Down to a geometric degree? And don't give me this purpose crap until you go and delete all userpages and all humor-related pages, as they serve no game-related purposes. RoseOfKali 00:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

They're more likely to accidentally find their way into an immeasurably more uhh... inappropriate... website than they are to find this page --Gimmethegepgun 00:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If a single user is ever offended by this, then this page should have been deleted. There is no reason to keep this at all; it is not the wikis place to guide people on how to grow up. I am tired of being trolled over this. If you need me, find me elsewhere. --Shadowcrest 00:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If a single user is ever offended? What are you, high? There are so many user page jokes that offend me and probably offend others. This is IN userpage space, so if that's your argument for deleting this, you're gonna go have to go dictator mode on all the other userpages.--GerrOh! 00:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

So, I guess, nobody is bothered by the fact that I had nightmares of animated Bonecage Scythes chasing me? I was scarred for life by that image. And I can find you a single offended user for about half of the pages on this wiki. That is not an argument. And this again is not an article of the Mainspace Wiki, it is a Userpage article, and many users here post all kinds of materials that are perfectly fine to the general population, but can be seriously offensive to some people. Much more so than some fucking cleavage. Get a Muslim in here, and she will be offended by every single image of a female character or NPC. Goddamn, you people are so fucking stupid. (Oops, sorry, my bad.) Oh, and plese point out who exatly is that single user that was ever offended? Because it seems like you're defending a non-existent user, as I hightly doubt that Shadowcrest sees offense in some clothed boobshots, PUHLEASE. RoseOfKali 00:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A

I like how the Assassin is omitted here... RoseOfKali 06:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Male Paragons stole whatever proportion of boob size that Assassins got. (T/C) 06:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

They even took the nipples... :( RoseOfKali 06:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

They especially took the nipples. 06:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Golden Fox Strike ought to cause Cracked Armor if it hits the chest. Also, Rits should have a greater chance to be hit in the chest, etc. (T/C) 06:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

GFS is useful enough as it is, tbh. In fact, it's probably one of the three most useful lead attacks. 07:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A useful Lead Attack? Hohoho. I count four:

1. Unsuspecting Strike (domages)
2. Golden Fox Strike (domages, unblockable)
3. Jagged Strike (domages, quickest recharge, has great synergy with Seeping Wound)
4. Disrupting Stab (useful if works, chains well to Exhausting Assault)

There is also Sneak Attack but that's...special. (T/C) 07:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they are:

1. Golden Fox Strike (Shattering Assault chain)
2. Jagged Strike (spammable bleeding, short recharge)
3. Black Mantis Strike (forms every decent non-shattering non-Death Blossom chain)

Unsuspecting Strike is only good with Vow of Strength. 07:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Black Mantis Thrust? Cripple on Hexed? Okay...also, Unsuspecting is 2nd fastest recharging lead at 2 seconds. If you got the energy then it is superior to Jagged Strike (coz, you know, Bleeding is a wimpy condition anyway) (T/C) 07:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Assassin added (but somehow I couldn't manage to zoom in properly). The reason for the omission is simply that I originally made this gallery from Nightfall, and that this provided enough screenshots to make the point. --◄mendel► 09:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This needs sections. Such as 'winners', and there you put Eles and Rits; 'fail' for assassin boobs, 'man boobs' for the gay paras and the rest could be grouped in 'runner ups' and 'honorable mentions'. --Alf's Hitman 10:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I like how the boobie article turned into a lead attack discussion... WTB attention span? Oh, and let the best boobies win! Let's see who beats that ele. RoseOfKali 19:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, ofc among the forgotten list: Elite Glad's, Elite Druid's, the Monk tattoos, Enchanter's (both regular and Elite), Mesmer Elite Luxon, ALL the ele armors except Obsidian and maybe Ancient, both Scar Patterns, Elite Cabal, Necro Tyrian/Sunspear, Assassin Canthan/Luxon/Monument, Ritualist Luxon/Shing Jea/Elite Luxon/Monument/Obsidian/(honorable mention for awesome)Norn, Dervish Vabbian, Paragon (female, people :P ) Vabbian/Ancient, and a number of Male Paragon's throws up --Gimmethegepgun 20:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I could upload; Ele elite Geo/Hydro/Aero/Lux/Sunspear/Vabbian/Kurz :P Also have Ancient, Obs and elite Pyro, but they're meh ;) --- -- (contribs) (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I walk into Gwiki and where do I find you all? Must I watch you all the time? 21:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Need I upload my Female Elementalist Elite Sunspear pictures that show NO panties? :P 00:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ancient rit has the most epic win boobs of all. They cannot be defeated.--GerrOh! 00:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The one and only thing I will say about this

Fudgemuffins. That is all.--îğá†ħŕášħ 23:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

liek, fgsfds? --Alf's Hitman 23:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

But tasty, and much worse for your cholesterol count.--îğá†ħŕášħ 23:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Dinner. 00:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

LoL

This isn't porn, gtfo, srsly. This is just for some LoL's and giggles. If someone uses this as porn, then they probably use Kormir's page as porn, and the dance page as porn, and Gwen's page as porn. Let it stay and put it under "Gwiki Humour"--GerrOh! 23:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol... If someone thinks this is porn and is offended by that fact, they need to move to Iran and ensure no contact with non-Islamic women. RoseOfKali 00:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Why should you censor what someone puts within their own userspace? If someone finds this page, they were probably looking for it. If they didn't mean to, it was an extraordinarily odd chance that they stumbled upon it, and can click the back button. What's the big deal?-- (Talk) (Contr.) 02:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Offended?

If you are offended by the contents of this Userspace article, please sign below, and provide a concise and descriptive reason for your feelings. If there are other articles on this wiki that offend you in the same manner, please provide a link to them. (This is not a discussion, go above to discuss, this section only gathers signatures and reasons for them.) Thank you. RoseOfKali 00:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There won't be reasons for feelings. You can either post "I feel uncomfortable viewing this page, please take it away" or something to that effect (some more detail would be nice), and it'd be nice to know how old you are and what gender (but that's not required at all); or you can have moral reasons to be offended "in general" (OMG TEH CHILDREN!) even if you are not personally affected. Of course you can have both, but they're usually not related. I am not offended. --◄mendel► 01:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I am. However, my feelings about the page in question are nothing compared to how offended I was reading the discussions above. For shame, GuildWikians. I expect to find this sort of trash on GWW. (T/C) 02:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this page should be deleted, not because of the content, but because of the drama people are making over it. --Macros 02:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This page has been very divisive. I was torn earlier about the propriety of the page, but didn't expect this huge argument over it. I suppose it's a classic majority/minority thing where the "majority" doesn't see the need to change and gets upset that the "minority" is pushing change. In the end, I don't think this is overly offensive. The game does portray females a certain way, and this is just pointing it out a bit more. But I would be fine with its removal also, b/c it does give the wiki a little less class. And removing it b/c of the argument would also be valid. --JonTheMon 02:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

So really, nobody feels like they are offended much by this page, if at all. Everyone just felt like having a cat-fight. Yay! Hiss. Delete this discussion page and post pictures of kittens? Some agression let-out is healthy every once in a while, just like controlled burning of forests. Regardless of the verdict for this page, let's all move on, shall we? RoseOfKali 02:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That's funny coming from you. <- See what I did there? The page offends me more than Mgrinshpon's stories because I know he's just being a dick. But seeing as this page has attracted so many editors who I respected, to defend it and even purport that it is useful in some way - that offends me much more. (T/C) 02:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of things about people that don't come out until things get ugly. Don't be so surprised. It started as "I don't really like this..." "Why? There's nothing wrong with it." etc. etc. and look what happened? Anywho, this is something that will always have differing views, and there will always be a seriously offended minority, a humorously amused majority, and a variety of inbetweens. No reason to discuss it further, as it will not produce anything better than the above. RoseOfKali 03:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Entropy, if i remember correctly, your page at one time had a little thing that said something like "fascism, give your cows to the government, etc etc, anarchy, shoot the government, steal their cows". As an anarchist, the whole thing about anarchy being shoot the government, violence, non-sensible was somewhat offensive to me. But i didn't say anything, because it was on a userpage, and the intention of it wasn't to offend people. This is in the userpage space, and it's not put here to offend people. Plus, if you're gonna be like that, you have to dictate all the userpages. Do you have any idea how many userboxes have a sexual reference with the picture for Tease in them? Seriously, just because you have boobs, doesn't mean you should be offended by this.--GerrOh! 19:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a slight issue with the phrase "this is in the userpage space". It's technically there, but practically it's a community page. So, if it were in an individual's userspace, it might fly easier. Just a thought. --JonTheMon 20:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That was quote which I pull from...dunno where...which I use as joke. It's been suggested that this page has a srs bsns intent and is not a joke, to which I say BS, but if people are going to argue it that way then you can't make a comparison between the two. (By the way, I was very aware that I was posting numerous stuff that would offend someone, but I didn't care. Because, you know, I doubted anyone would care enough to complain.)

You're right, I do dictate all the userpages. I let a lot of it slide. I didn't for this, so QQ, and this is not a userpage anyway. I also think you are really jumping to the conclusions of why I am offended by this, in that you instantly jump to the most easily available (and should I say sexist) conclusion. (T/C) 20:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

All aboard the "Accuse-of-Discrimination" Train. First, it was in humour, not to be taken seriously, that's why i used the word "boobs", and not "breasts". Second, going with the most likely reason for you to be offended is not sexist, it's logical.

And yes, you used that quote as a joke, just like this is being used as a joke, it gives people a laugh. It's part of the game, they're screenshots, if you're offended, take it to Anet, like everyone else has been saying. There's so much more offensive things on Gwiki, that the fact that you're so horribly concerned with this is just flat out hilarious. If it really, honestly, truthfully offends you, tell us exactly why it offends you, and then maybe we can help you see the headLights.--GerrOh! 22:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to Entropy calling "shame on you", I'll just say that it's mostly because of Entropy that this whole mess happened at all. "Wtb delete" ... "Zack & Miri etc" ... "context like and such as." Except for one other unrelated comment, that's all she provided as her initial "request" for this page's deletion. If she had not sounded so flippant to begin with, the rest of us would have taken the issue much more seriously. Even mendel said, "wtb actual argument" after the "context" comment. Shadowcrest's comment that "Entropy wins imo" was an unfortunate precedent to his later arguments, setting the same offhand-ish tone as Entropy did. I'm not saying that everyone else is blameless, no, simply explaining why it was so hard for us to take the issue seriously. Internet shorthand does not a serious argument make. —Dr Ishmael 07:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Soqed_hozi/Adult-humor

Deleeeeeete, mrite. --- -- (contribs) (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

How hard did you have to dig to find that? (T/C) 20:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:GuildWiki humor, which is exactly where this is. --- -- (contribs) (talk) 10:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Humor category is obscure (and apparently needs pruning) (T/C) 10:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This page does not need to be deleted

There is no pornography on this page, and no nudity. All of the screenshots were taken in-game, so if a user comes across this page that is'n't mature enough for its content, they probably shouldn't be playing the game that the content comes from in the first place. -- (Talk) (Contr.) 20:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

/Agree--GerrOh! 22:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not porn. (T/C) 23:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Pornography is not the only criteria for deletion. So you can get the entire world to agree that this is not pornography, but still have the community split on whether the page should be deleted or not. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 01:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol... This is still going, eh? ^_^; Just delete this talkpage and post pictures of kittens on it. I think the talkpage is more offensive than the article itself, really... And if it's the issue of this Userpage really being a "community" page, I get first dibs to have it moved to my userpage. Problem solved. RoseOfKali 07:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Entropy still hasn't told me exactly what it is about this page that offends her..soo... i'd say there's no real grounds for deletion until someone can give a solid reason they're offended, then explain why we should delete a page that none of the mainspace pages directly link to should be deleted because one person is offended--GerrOh! 03:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

We're working on it. Be patient. (T/C) 03:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have to look for a reason to delete a page, it probably doesn't need to be deleted.--GerrOh! 06:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol. ^^ RoseOfKali 08:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Both our replies are already written but they are still drafts to be worked on, so they are not ready for teh public yet. (T/C) 09:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

So go do it! While that is going on, everbody can have a quiet think how the "See also" below applies here (thanks SC!). --◄mendel► 11:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

/facepalm Can't believe i missed those. Can someone explain exactly what happened? Someone posted topless pics, or...something? And if so, i'd say sure, that's not for wiki, as entertaining as it may be.--GerrOh! 18:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The pictures were topless, yes, but not nude. Image:The Real May.jpg (the controversial versions have been deleted), Image:Info Maui.jpg (the 6 June version was the most complained about) and Image:The Real Shadowphoenix.jpg (which she cropped after the "No bikinis" complaint). —Dr Ishmael 19:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

One of the more complained-about pics Maui uploaded has been deleted, btw. --- -- (contribs) (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

*goes to look* O_O wow. I didn't know about those. —Dr Ishmael 21:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Am i the only one with a huge urge to see such pictures? Oh wait, i forgot most of the wiki has a weiner too. I don't see the problem with any of those pictures. Sure, Maui's is extra hawt, but i don't think it's sexual or provocative.--GerrOh! 22:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

As for Maui's picture, I believe you meant the June 13 revision, not the June 6th... this guy. (Interestingly, her edit summary for the upload was "Auron sez it's okay." Hmm...) 21:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

DNA is Aurons sock, omg :O Also, Felix; don't forget the pic with the spanish rapier, and don't forget non-sysops can't see deleted revisions (not even if you link it like that, if Prog is to be believed :P ) --- -- (contribs) (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but don't you forget that I am no sysop! Yet I found that image quite easily, so it must be visible for other lowly users as well. I do recall the Spanish Rapier picture, but I believe that was the revision I deleted. 23:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The one Felix linked (with the chain) has not been deleted, it's still in the visible file history. The rapier one has, though, and the only link I can give is this, which I'm pretty sure non-admins won't be able to see. —Dr Ishmael 23:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that explains. I thought both got deleted already. --- -- (contribs) (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

See also

• No bras
• No bikinis
• User:Entropy/archives#Language use in images

To quote from something I wrote over a year ago in one of the see-also links: "I agree with you that we shouldn't be a carebear crew, but somehow this image has triggered the "has crossed the line" alarm in my subconsciousness." -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 00:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record

I hate you all. Gogo NPA. (T/C) 14:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Gogo generic unnecessary exclamations of frustration. (I'm aware "You all" probably refers to me the most =P)--Darksyde 21:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed something, how come you can say "I hate you all", but Kali can't say "God damn you people are so fucking stupid"? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?--Darksyde 21:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

ionno, but I don't feel insulted when someone hates me (unless it's liek, family), but being called a fucking stupid (particularly the fucking part) is rather offensive. --Alf's Hitman 21:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"Gogo NPA. " basically says "Yes, I know that is just as NPA as "you fucktards r dum"". --- -- (contribs) (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought the "Gogo NPA" was referring to the fact that the attack was not personal, and was made on the general public, thus not NPA worthy.--Darksyde 22:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally am impossible to offend with words.--îğá†ħŕášħ 23:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Giga, ur fat 23:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well the words are only pixels, and the "offensive" pictures on here and those that used to be on Maui's/Shadowphoenix's/Warwick's page are just pixels. So i say anything composed of pixels be deemed unoffensive. Don't you wish the wiki was run by people like me? =P--Darksyde 06:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Our vision is comprised of pixels, thus everything is unoffensive --Gimmethegepgun 06:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. Our brain doesn't work in pixels. There aren't even any units that the brain works in other than signals. Vision is simply what the receptors in our eyes take in, and that can overlap. Pixels cannot. A pixel is a small piece of a screen that is controlled by computer code.--Darksyde 07:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sucks doesn't it? My monitor, on the other hand, can haz over 9000 colors and pixels. --Alf's Hitman 07:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I see what you did there. (T/C) 08:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

So porn (which is comprised of pixels) would be a suitable upload? Hrm. --Shadowcrest 15:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

orly Dark? Look very closely in your vision and you can notice that it's comprised of tiny little images. Each of those tiny images if from a receptor cell, which can only pick up such a minute amount of data each that would easily be able to be called a pixel --Gimmethegepgun 15:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No, vision is not in pixels. Pixels are units of information, vision is not. Your brain does take in small bits of information from your eyes, however nearly all of what you see is fabricated in your head from those signals. A pixel is constructed from a raw signal, vision is constructed from thousands of variable within your brain. Memory, logic, mental conditions, etc. Which is why you think "Oh, i thought i saw a rabbit, turns out it was a truck", or something similar.--Darksyde 18:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Vision could be equated to a computer monitor's overall output, and the tiny bits of information to pixels. The overall output intended by a monitor is a picture, and yet it is undeniable that it is comprised of pixels. Vision is little different. And to prove you are not arguing semantics: Dictionary.com: Vision: Noun. The act or power of sensing with the eyes; sight. Thus, vision is raw data uploaded to your brain. Perception is the word you are looking for. Cognition works also --Gimmethegepgun 05:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

so i herd Wikilawyering Dictionary referencing is srs bsns (T/C) 05:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

So i say anything composed of pixels be deemed unoffensive. If you want to split hairs, the picture is indeed unoffensive; it's the imputed thoughts of the person uploading it or a part of teh intended audience, respectively, that are. --◄mendel► 00:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You're good with words. I like the way that was put.--Darksyde 03:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

shouln't there be

A movie showing that boobs move when you shoot an arrow? Or at least a note about this wonderful effect? Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 18:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

What about running? Did you ever notice? :) RoseOfKali 19:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm ususally staring at my char's ass when I'm walking, so no, I hadn't noticed. But I'll check it out! Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 19:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It's rather deceptive on an assassin. >.> (T/C) 05:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Assassins do not belong to the same Female category as the other Professions' Females. Even monks have them covered to an absurd degree. I guess Sins need to lose all the "unnecessary" weight to be able to shadow step... Or something... This reminds me of a while ago, I was sitting in an advanced (read: geek-candy) computer lab at my University, and some fat dude came in, said "Boobs!" and walked out. Everyone started hysterically laughing. I still don't get what was so funny. O_o RoseOfKali 06:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That reminds me of my MUD days where people would do "boobies mentioned" and/or "(.)(.)" (+100 variations of that) anytime someone said boobs. I guess it was like the wtf chain of those days. Somehow it is a funny word because it is overused. Like pie. (T/C) 06:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I like pie. A lot. I liek pie. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 14:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

And yes, Assassins are skinny. I never said they weren't, but I play my warrior most, and she's got some nice b00bs (non leet glad FTW!), and a nice ass to boot. and those b00bs shake while running. How cool. Some1 should check wether male warrior b00bies shake while running too... Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 14:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

for the lulz

Here's rebuttal that Mendel and I wrote awhile back but I never wanted to post it. I figure you all could use a good laugh, though, so here it is anyway in its unpolished beauty. (Mendel, if you changed your mind about posting this, I apologize.) (T/C) 06:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You could've cut your WoT at the top and signed the yellow box at the bottom, but for my part I'm still ok with posting that. --◄mendel► 19:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I could've, but then I wouldn't reach 20,000+ characters under the sea. (T/C) 02:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Deleting Our Boobies

We've discussed this together on #gwiki, and that's why we're posting together: Entropy and mendel. Before I say anything else, I want to say that if this was moved to a true userspace - Mendel's, probably - then I would have had no problems about it. Since this is probably the only part of the WoT you will read/remember, I thought I would get that out of the way first. We've tried to discuss the deletion of this page as an issue of obscenity. That failed. Spectacularly. And it had to. Because, let's face it, there are no international standards for breasts. Even within the US, a bible belter is likely to have different standards than, say, a New Yorker or Californian. We can't possibly expect all GuildWikians to have the same standard of decency. This is a Wiki matter and that is all that matters. I don't care about US society, Miss USA pageants, Victoria's Secret, what is available in-game, etc. The discussion is about this page and this page alone, in its context on the Wiki, what it means, why it has any validity whatsoever to remain. We could try to define a community standard, write GW:DECENCY and enforce that. Shadowcrest cited precedent enough to imply a consensus. It'd be a largely pointless exercise, though, because it would likely create more conflicts than it solves and open the door to policy gaming. Another thing to consider. There was, at one time, a beauty pageant held by Gigathrash. Some of the female pics entered raised alarums. They were considered indecent and eventually they were replaced/deleted. (Was it the OMG CHILDREN argument? I cannot remember) I would like to ask why that is considered such different situation than this. You may answer: These are (mostly) clothed images. I ask: Why does that matter? The net effect is the same considering the context. You may answer: These are in-game images, easily accessible, and they are "fake" anyway. I ask: Why does that matter? Hentai is still treated as porn (to make a relevant example), and in fact because it overemphasizes certain aspects it may even have a worse effect (eg. "because it is fake" is not an argument). Therefore, an exaggerated fake image of a breast is not intrinsically better than a "natural" image. Moreover, as I said - this has nothing to do with how easy it is so see such image in-game. The question is how appropriate it is to have it on Wiki. It is very easy to find porn, racial slurs, all sorts of crap on the Internet; if you turn off that chat filter for GW, sure, you can see all sorts of bad language. Heck, dive into certain talkpages here and you'll find horrible stuff. But, ease of access does not dictate community standards. We don't allow NPA violations because they are easily found in the game. The same applies for boobies. Just because they are easily viewed in-game is not a valid argument for why they should be allowed here. About community standards. Consider a new user who comes to the Wiki and sees this page. What will they think? (This is NOT the same as a "4 teh children" argument) If they share the same views that I have, what they take away will be a warped and misinformed opinion about the nature of the GuildWiki community. If they share the "majority" views here, they will come to think that this sort of page/this sort of humor is acceptable/tolerated anywhere on the wiki, which is equally false. You will counter this with: "but no such user has come forward yet, it is all hypothetical". That is true; I am arguing on principle here. Community standards is, after all, a bunch of arguments on principle. It's very rare to have users actually complain about a lack of AGF/YAV/NPA/ name some other policy (policies reflect and are based on evolving community standards), but we have those policies in place anyway "just in case" So let's for a moment assume that GuildWiki is a lively community of editors that value each other immensely (and are thus always certain to find an open ear when drama breaks out on a talkpage :-P ). We're that way because we have certain standards of treating each other, politeness being one of them. So if somebody says, "this offends me, please delete it", it's not a matter of looking up some policy. It is a matter of courtesy to take the offended person seriously and to try to understand the complaint, and if it is found to be serious, to comply. On the other hand, we assume that such complaints are not made frivolously. So why would somebody be offended by a page about "natural", healthy, clothed boobies? For that, I must digress somewhat, please bear with me. I still believe that this page draws off vandals - I haven't seen a "boobies" vandal since this went live. Doing that kind of vandalism just seems pathetic compared to the awesomeness of this page. Shouldn't we follow this to its logical conclusion then? Create a page with screenshots of phallic objects in Guild Wars to outdo the PENIS vandals? And for the GAY NIGGER crowd, we create a page of unclothed dark-skinned GW avatars (it wouldn't be called Naked Niggers, but rather Skin Tones of Guild Wars). I must admit that at this point of the thought experiment I do get somewhat uncomfortable. I mean, what kind of people would be watching the page? They'd be hating dark-skinned people, not mind hurting them ("they deserve it"??), generally treating them as objects. This page serves no purpose, and it does in fact serve as detriment. Consider, for example, what would happen if a vandal were to create a "Gallery of Nags" page, where images of NPCs were rated on a "blackness scale" (much the way the current boobs is ranked with "winnars"). Racism is not equivalent to sexism/sexual discrimination/objectification. But, is it not a logical precedent considering that this page is allowed and defended by a majority of the community? Oh. There are men out there who treat women much the same way; and much as the Skin Tones page would make me think of the ones, Boobies would make some women think of the others. That's not what I intended. I'll tell you why this page offends me. It offends me because in my eyes, it helps to promote the objectification of women. (I laugh that you think saying "boobies" instead of "breasts" makes it any different.) And I don't like that. That is how I interpret the page. Moreover, I feel that this drags down the Wiki, as it is ostensibly in the "public" namespace, being openly editable and in "Anonymous" (eg. everyone) pages. Consider the comments on Vampirism, Power Flux (iirc), Golden Fox Strike, etc. Those are discussions which talk about what is in a skill icon. Or Blood is Power, even. All those may also be considered equally inappropriate discussions. But because they actually serve a purpose - sharing knowledge, however unwanted it may come to be - they are allowed to exist. So what did I intend with the page? As I stated above, it's a decency issue. I like the page because it is frivolous and slightly indecent, and openly so. Because it is that, it makes others chuckle, and they think it is humorous. I think it may help viewers be more open about sexual taboos. However, on the whole, I don't believe that's a good enough rationale to keep it. This page has no intrinsic benefits and no implied ones, either, beyond what Mendel has said above - but Mendel's arguments unfortunately are a very optimistic leap of faith. Do you truly believe that someone who looks at this page will "achieve a more free sexuality" or such as result? Do you believe that this page's intent is "to break a taboo" and therefore liberate us and move us forward? Lol. If this page is meant to be humorous, then it fails miserably. It does not make me laugh, it makes me cry. I anticipate your counterargument and counter it. "lol ur wrong, this is just joke, QQ". Unfortunately for you, the only types of opinions/interpretations that can be held incorrect are those which are based off of hard facts. Therefore I cannot dismiss your interpretation of the page, and you cannot dismiss mine. My interpretation is just as valid as yours. Back to the question of why should this page exist. Please tell me what the benefits of this page are. "There are no detriments" or "Why not" is not a valid argument. I have only heard a valid reason from Mendel so far, and I disagree with those reasons. I wish to hear ones from the other people. Consider, also, that "a bit of harmless fun" is neither if it offends someone. You may counter that with "gtfo, grow thicker skin, one person offended does not matter if no one else is". Well, I have news for you...this is a Wiki. Ergo, the majority does not always have its right of way simply by count of numbers. YAV anyway - my opinion, and my feelings, are no less important than yours. What right do you have to dismiss them? I am going to delete the images I have uploaded, except for one that I am going to thumbnail for my Controversy Guide. The Open Edit template is going to go (it is my userpage, after all), and I ask all other contributors to put their screenshots up for deletion if they agree with me.--◄mendel► 06:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Decency is conformity to sociocultural standards of conduct and speech. Standards of decency vary greatly depending on the cultural context. Most nations have laws against indecency which regulate certain sexual acts, and restrict one's ability to display certain parts of the body in public (see indecent exposure). — Wikipedia, Decency This text is taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decency&oldid=251839348 The Cultural Status of Breasts in Practice File:Namibie Himba 0716a.jpg Cultures that associate the breast primarily with sex (as opposed to with breastfeeding) tend to designate bare breasts as indecent, and they are not commonly displayed in public, in contrast to male chests. Other cultures view female toplessness as acceptable, and in some countries women have never been forbidden to bare their chests; in some African cultures, for example, the thigh is highly sexualised and never exposed in public, but the breast is not taboo. Opinion on the exposure of breasts often depends on the place and context, and in some Western societies exposure of breasts on a beach may be acceptable, although in town centres, for example, it is usually considered indecent. [...] Women in some areas and cultures are approaching the issue of breast exposure as one of sexual equality, since men (and pre-pubescent children) may bare their chests, but women and teenage girls are forbidden. In the United States, the topfree equality movement seeks to redress this imbalance. [...] In Australia and much of Europe it is acceptable for women and teenage girls to sunbathe topless on some public beaches and swimming pools, but these are generally the only public areas where exposing breasts is acceptable. — Wikipedia, Breast:In practice This text is excerpted from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&oldid=251466234

---

Delete anonymous pages

I don't like the idea of "User:Anonymous pages" as a quasi-mainspace for stuff that everyone knows doesn't belong mainspace. If someone wants to claim this nonsense as his own, so be it. Move it to his personal userspace. But not here.

Same with Acorns, etc. How's that for your general guiding principle?

I'm somewhat tempted to create a new account named "Anonymous pages", declare that someone has been vandalizing my userpage, and delete this. Quizzical 16:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous pages has already been registered. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 16:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

How is it any less userspace than User:M.mendel? Anyways, the pages here are made by anonymous users, and moved into userspace. We just give it a change for lulz, or keep it for examples of stupid, nonsensical articles in need of deletion rather than a long winded debate *ahem, acorns*. Just tell me why this is quasi-mainspace and your userspace is not. It's not like we are creating articles ourselves which we're afraid of keeping in our own userspace. --- -- (contribs) (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

IMO, the purpose section at the top of the user page indicates it's a community page ("every editor"). --JonTheMon 16:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

These are all "community pages" then. --- -- (contribs) (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those are, but they are claimed and maintained by the associated user also. They have "edit consent by User:_____". So, for these pages it's "edit consent by all users". --JonTheMon 17:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup, these pages aren't in mainspace, and since it's not in GuildWiki: space either, the strict content retention rules do not apply. They are userpages, but communal, i.e. Boobies belongs to my shoepuppet, but it's ok if you edit it. The issue doesn't arise with any of the other anon pages, because most of them are basically archival copies.

As the nominal page "owner", I'm in a bit of a quandary. Entropy has indicated she wouldn't mind the page so much if it wasn't "communal property". So maybe it should just lose the "open edit" status and remain as it is now. I can also see where it could be reasonable to delete all images outright, but right now I don't feel pressure to do so. I definitely would be uncomfortable with any kind of "ranking". There has been community discussion about the page, but no community consensus on what to do with it - if there is, I've missed it. (The majority seems to be in favor of keeping the boobies.) So what now? --◄mendel► 19:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

IMO move all these pages to your userspace. Technically it wouldn't be much of a change, but it now has a single endorser, rather than the community. --JonTheMon 19:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) , but I still felt like saying this, because this is so sad that it's not even funny anymore:

I can't believe this is still going on, you people! O_O This talk page is now so big that it lags my browser trying to load, and I lose the cursor when editing. PLEASE I'M BEGGING YOU, ANY ADMIN MOVE THIS ARTICLE (but not the War and Peace - sized talkpage) INTO MY USERSPACE AND GET THIS OVER WITH! This is ridiculous that this page spawned such a massive POINTLESS and seemingly endless debate. Are you people just THAT bored that you claim objectification in place of some open-hearted admiration? Can you even tell the difference? Seriously, why do people get offended by EVERYTHING for no reason other than to be offended?!! And then they sue a restaurant for serving HOT coffee... WHAT? O_O This is not a game of verbal ping-pong! DECIDE something already. How hard can that be? You want this moved? MOVE IT ALREADY! Beating a dead horse won't make him get up, it'll just make you stink. RoseOfKali 19:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is up to admins to decide to move it. If you want to claim it, you should just move it yourself after making sure those who care do not oppose it being moved. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 01:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I support deleting "Anonymous Pages". I also endorse being bold. (T/C) 02:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want to delete my pages? And does it make a difference whether they are at User:M.mendel/anonymous_pages or here, if they're still "communal" (i.e. open editable)? Or do you want to ban communal userpages altogether? It's not as if I wasn't taking responsibility for them. --Anonymous pages 12:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Because it's a bad idea to immortalize vandalism. Keeping things like guild pages is fine, obvious such vandalism isn't. --Shadowcrest 15:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Which of the pages on the list are vandalism?

• /Acorns spoof item
• /Albino dinky bunny beast
• /Boobies gallery
• /Henchment glossary
• /KOFS guild page
• /Special talk page
• /The Empire of the Crow guild page
• /The Southern Strike (X) guild page

--◄mendel► 15:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Acorns could be seen as vandalism, Albino Dinky Bunny is obv, Boobs (started out as, that is). --- -- (contribs) (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Acorns and Bunny are only vandalism in mainspace; in userspace, they're parodies, so if you AGF really hard you can say that the editors who made them didn't know we allow them -- parodies do work better in mainspace. Boobies is different in many ways. --◄mendel► 19:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not completely comfortable with "AGF really hard", but as long as the old mainspace locations don't redirect to the parodies, I'm content to let those "rescued-vandalism-turned-parody" issue slide for the time being (until somebody comes up with some compelling perspective that convinces me to take sides). -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 19:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Why do you want to delete my pages?"

I've been putting off (or to phrase it nicely, "gathering my thoughts to compose") a formal response for far too long. Partly I was semi-content to just let the whole thing die. But now that mendel has brought up a question that at least partly touches the crux of my would-be response, I feel it is going to be irresponsible of me if I continue to avoid finish composing my response.

Better to say something imperfect now, and have an exchange of ideas to better evolve/defend my position, than to keep staying silent trying to finish formulating a position on my own.

There are multiple intertwined facets to this issue.

Personally, I support some parts of the underlying concept of User:Anonymous pages. In fact, I had been thinking about doing something like that a long time ago (though with slightly different naming). On the other hand, I personally feel User:Anonymous pages/Boobies is a distastefully poor excuse to make an immature joke out of sexuality. Others may not share my view, what I perceive things to be may not be what they actually are, but I'm stating what I am seeing.

I do not consider the page to be "porn", but to me whether it fits the technical definition of porn never mattered. The issue is the underlying mentality that drives, or at least seemly drives, the page. Sure, Anet uses visually attractive images that have sexual connotations to help sale their game. But they do not (at least openly) treat the female body/image with immature jokes. The Statue of David (warning: link contains nudity) is beautiful. The Venus de Milo (warning: link contains nudity) is beautiful. The Falls is beautiful. I made fun of the Texan parents who sued the teacher because the teacher took students on a museum field trip that featured statues with nudity. And I find the (perceived) underlying attitude behind this page distastefully immature.

It is not about existence of sexually alluring images. It's about the context, the attitude around which the page is built.

And now I'll bring us to (or near) the question User:Anonymous pages asked: "Why do you want to delete my pages?". It comes down to accountability.

If this particular page were under, say, Mendel/B or RoseOfKali/B, even though it's an open article that the community can edit, but I would associate the (perceived) immaturity with Mendel or Rose, and that's fine. But being a supporter of the general User:Anonymous pages concept, I feel it presents the attitude of the general community (even though mendel technically owns User:Anonymous pages. I wouldn't go so far as to censor the attitudes of individual users, and I think collaborative parody/usermade-skills are great. But as long as it remains under User:Anonymous pages, it needs to be sufficiently inoffensive to a consensual degree even if it still fails political correctness.

Right now I don't think there is a consent to delete, and I don't think any admin ought to delete the page, or otherwise take other administrative actions unless consensus is reached. However, in the mean time, every single editor may mercilessly edit this page, including rename it.

If fact, if this page is still here in its current form by Friday, I do plan to edit it without mercy, taking into account the original direction but willfully choose to reshape it in a completely different direction, including renaming the article itself. If anybody wants to preserve this article in its current spirit/directly, I highly advise moving this page away from User:Anonymous pages and into your own userspace.

If anyone really want to defend the right of this page remaining under User:Anonymous pages, let me know and we'll talk it out. -USER:PanSola (talk to the ) 19:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

ps. also, please feel free to compare this vs my bellybuttos idea. I (should) have no problem subjecting them to the same standards. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 19:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I've never intended the page as a joke, and if by editing it you can ensure that it comes across as less of one, go right ahead. There is no need to wait; anyone who wishes a "pristine" copy can get old versions out of the history as long as the images haven't been deleted. What would you want to rename the page to? I think it's a bit of a stretch to read the open edit to allow moving the page away, but it's likely that your proposed name is better anyway. ;-) --◄mendel► 19:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: You probably need to associate the imaaturity with both Rose and myself (dunno if DNA also uploaded images), we're in this together. --◄mendel► 19:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You know, I really don't see why admiring female physique (even in pixel form) has caused so much controversy. Who is acting immature here? :P Happens everywhere every day, get used to it... Females are awesome. (No... I didn't say I was BI or anything of that nature, I'm happily married and never talked to or touched another female "inappropriately", so don't pin this one me. My husband enjoys the fact that I help him draw his anime.) And don't BB me, I don't have privileges to move a page. I guess I can just copy-paste it, but then the history is lost. RoseOfKali 22:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Everybody can move, I think Monaco just hides it? Anyway, if it is to be moved, we ought to do rock-paper-scissers to determine if you get it or I. ;-P --◄mendel► 23:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Rose: Blah, you know, a third of the point of my post was trying to establish that it IS ok to admire the female physique. The way this page is set up (intentional or unintentionally) unfortunately encourages a juvenile attitude that isn't really "admiration of the female physique", even if the original contributors to the article did not meant it that way. Anyways, any registered user is supposed to be able to move pages, the Monaco skin isn't supposed to hide the option, and I have no intention to "BB" you, whatever "BB" stands for (nor do I know what initials to "BI" in the context). So if you really are not able to move the page, that is something worthy of attention to be brought to the GuildWiki:Wikia staff noticeboard. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 23:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

BB = GW:BB. And I normally use monobook and switched to monaco to check, and the move button is at the top, just to the right of history for me. --JonTheMon 23:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Doh! I phail at recognizing abbreviations of our own policy >_<""""" -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 23:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And BI = bi-sexual, I think she just capitalized both letters for emphasis. —Dr Ishmael 23:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

They got it right. And somehow I never noticed I could move a page. O_o Doh! Oh well, I guess Mendel has first dibs if he wants it. :P RoseOfKali 04:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

oh btw

Example of a userspace page that I don't mind. (T/C) 04:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

While we're waiting, see also

this webcomic (Boobies!). Pan, you wanted to do an edit, but still haven't gotten around to it? --◄mendel► 00:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Periodic Table of Awesome 13 --◄mendel► 00:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

more webcomic, from the creator of Stud Kickass. --◄mendel► 18:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

LoL Psychology

Nice attempt at putting the psychological pros and cons at the top of the page, totally unnecessary. You also missed 1000 other things it can do to dudes and dudettes.--Darksyde 18:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The whole thing is meant to be a joke. RoseOfKali 19:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I figured it was either Entropy's or someone else's attempt at letting people know that the page has some sort of non-comical value, or something like that.--Darksyde 19:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

My attempt, Entropy doesn't like this at all. It's somewhat satirical. (Satyrical as well? Naaahh.) If you can think of 1000 things I have missed off the top of your head, would you care to list some of them (no elaboration necessary, but it's appreciated if you want to give it). --◄mendel► 07:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously i can't think of 1000 things off the top of my head, but every person will have a slightly different reaction to this, and a large portion of those can be put under the same category. Some parent might see this and banish their kid from Guild Wars, or someone might think "Peepz n diz wiki r teh dum". Neither of those suggest a problem with this page, just a problem with those particular people. The effect on me: Makes me giggle, no sexual/perverse/offensive effect whatsoever.--Darksyde 20:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but why does it make you giggle? There's no punchline to it. --◄mendel► 05:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why, but it makes me giggle too. :P RoseOfKali 05:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Given recent events... I'd say you-know-who ...WAS the punchline <.< . . .... . . >.> (--ilr)

This page doesn't make ME giggle, it just made me go liek WTF, thats like, cool. Someone took the effort to put the niced boobies together. Cool. So there's no punch line... Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 20:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

New candidate?!

05:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Now there's a naked woman I regret seeing... RoseOfKali 08:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll give someone a tenner to ban him for a day or so for that one :P A F K When Needed 10:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we should do some image edditing and put it up there. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 10:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The picture of Madonna and her Ex-husband Guy Ritchie was to have been auctioned off at McTear's in Glasgow last Saturday for a minimum of 22,000£; apparently potential buyers had much the same feeling you do, because it didn't get sold. --◄mendel► 12:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Madonna should sue for that. O_O It's truly amazing what people find to be "art" these days, amazing not in a good way... RoseOfKali 18:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)