User talk:Bevlouthan

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Half Shadow  21:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Thong (clothing), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Half Shadow  21:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Image removal
Is there any reason that you have been removing images from articles? Alansohn (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The images that I tried to remove contain nudity and are offensive. Some even pornographic, which has no place in a supposedly informative site like Wikipedia. Bevlouthan (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that you have a look at Wikipedia's disclaimer: Content disclaimer. Wikipedia has also adopted a policy that it is not censored (see WP:NOTCENSORED for details).  -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * How are those photos not "informative"??? P.S. What do you think of Bruce Jenner? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that a view of a girl's buttock is pornographic, then your view is some way distant from current thinking. Nevertheless, it is your view and you are fully entitled to hold it. But you are not entitled to attempt to impose it on the wikipedia community. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And if you insist on doing so, we are entitled to revert your edits. The only reason you aren't banned right now is because two admins have taken it upon themselves to explain how things work here. Consider your next action carefully. Half  Shadow  21:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Bevlouthan, I disagree with some of the sentiments expressed above. I think we've been a bit too draconian in our messages to you, partly because we just assumed you were one of the hundreds of people (mostly kids) that "vandalize" our articles everyday. I also think there are many tens of millions of people that think we probably take the "uncensored" part too far. Even within the Wikipedia community of editors, there's probably a substantial minority that think the same thing. I certainly don't think your view is "some way distant from current thinking" but it is more conservative than the consensus about this sort of thing on Wikipedia and our norms here are set by internal consensus. I sympathize with your concerns but as an administrator, ultimately I concur that you must not delete these images from our articles in the future. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

After I came across the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingerie I was shocked to see two photographs of women's full breasts displayed. I looked into contacting someone to express that I thought this was offensive. While researching this, I found information telling me to go ahead and become a user and edit it myself. So I did. I'm very surprised that it's so easy to make edits if this is not allowed. I suggest that this be changed if it's not something that should actually be done.

I find it very inappropriate that a pornographic picture is used to educate people what "lingerie" is. Here is another example of a site that is inappropriate: [] There is absolutely no reason that these need to be on an informative webpage. Sure, if it were a site talking about pornography or eroticism, etc then it might be fitting (it is ironic that the wikipedia site on pornography is completely appropriate and without nudity). There are several tasteful sites that explain types of lingerie without showing nudity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_%28clothing%29. However, in the following link, the first image is fine, but the second is not appropriate, and there is no reason for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bustier  Why are these images posted there when they are unnecessary to explaining the topic? I believe it is because so many men just can't help but to slip in inappropriate and sometimes pornographic images whenever possible.

I don't believe in censoring but I do believe in being warned when you are about to see inappropriate photographs. We should be able to go to Wikipedia knowing that it is a safe website where there won't be nudity. If these types of photographs are to be allowed, I suggest that there at least be a warning before you see the page or image. Or have an adult version of the site, and one for children. Some of us try to protect our children from pornography and other trash on the internet, and while filters can help, they do not catch the photographs on a site like Wikipedia that I, until now, thought was harmless.

Everyone has their right to view nudity and pornography if they like, and as I'm sure all of you know, there are plenty of websites where this can be done. However, unless Wikipedia is to become one of those, it should not be allowed, and I believe should be kept completely separate from this website. Bevlouthan (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As I have said above, you are entitled to hold your own view, although in my personal opinion and speaking as a family physician of very mature years, it is a minority view. I have looked again at the images you highlight as links, and would point out that they are photographs which you might well see in commercial advertisements in National newspapers. Be that as it may, I feel the need to remind you that if you again revert pictorial edits on the same basis as before, you WILL be blocked from editing. I concede that you have not done so since your last warning. Please do not do it. Last warning. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you telling me a woman's breasts and nipples are commonly shown in commercial advertisments and national newspapers? I have never in my life seen this and I am almost sure that that extent of nudity is not allowed in those types of publications.  Thank you for your numerous warnings, as you can tell and as you pointed out, I haven't touched anything since I realized that it wasn't allowed (again, why is it so easy to make changes if it's not allowed?) but they are clearly unnecessary.  However I understand your apparent need to continuously threaten me with your power.  Heaven forbid that I be banned from Wikipedia!Bevlouthan (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to say I think you have been rather harshly treated here and that this last warning at least is completely unnecessary - we should not escalate warnings when people have already stopped what they were being warned for. I'm sure your edits were meant in good faith, and some people seem to have forgotten WP:AGF here. But to answer your question "why is it so easy to make changes if it's not allowed?" - while Wikipedia is open to anyone to edit, that doesn't mean anyone can do anything they like with it. Changes have to be in line with Wikipedia policy, and one of Wikipedia's policies is that it is not censored to protect the sensibilities of individual readers. Controversial changes need a consensus before they can be made, so what I suggest you do if you think a photo in an article is inappropriate is start a discussion on the article's Talk page (you should see a "Talk" tab at the top of every article) and see what the consensus is. But I would advise that I don't think you would get a consensus to remove or replace most of the photos you removed. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If you think that I have been unreasonable or harsh, as Bong! said Zebedee does, then please accept my apologies. But my point remains, and if I am being excessively emphatic it is only to prevent your being lost to the encyclopedia. As to your comment about ladies' breasts and nipples, I feel that there is a quantitative difference between a view through a semi-transparent garment, or a view of an upper areola only, and a flagrant exhibition of the entire breast in full exposure. But clearly you do not. OK, but please do feel free to continue editing but also please bear the view of the community in mind. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And if my response was a bit short, I'm sorry too - I think all parties have probably started off on the wrong foot here. But now that things have been explained, hopefully we can welcome a new contributor and all go do nice constructive things now. Best wishes to all -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone's missing the obvious point here: What did you expect to see when you went to a page about lingerie? A suit of armor? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)