File talk:Motivator526d870f2edeb713fe9e67d2943cc230402d8013.jpg

A rather inappropriate picture, don't you think? Likely a copyright violation, too. Quizzical 08:21, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate image?
The following was moved from the Admin noticeboard.

File:Motivator526d870f2edeb713fe9e67d2943cc230402d8013.jpg was deleted by Dr Ishmael as being inappropriate; I think we've usually held that PG-12 material would be ok here, so I undeleted it. If y'all think it's as bad as the Maui images that were deleted, then raise your voice here and we can delete it again. (Since it might actually be a new user who posted this, I also would have wished for them to have been contacted about this.) -- ◄mendel► 23:04, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * If that's PG-12, I'll eat my gorram baby hat. I don't think it's appropriate here. Jink  23:08, January 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Have our societal morals degraded so far that a half mostly-naked woman is now "appropriate" for 12-year-olds? I'm no prude, and I enjoy boob-gazing as much as the next hetero male (just ask my wife), but... geez.  Even Maui never showed quite this much skin, that I can remember.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 00:27, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, I fail to see how this deliberately pornographic image, with no copyright status is appropriate for GuildWiki  Random  Time   01:13, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * A little much to retain (or perhaps, not enough). Delete imo. --JonTheMon 01:31, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Anything less than a standard (non-thong) "bikini" is too little. RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 01:42, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * RT, it's not pornographic. The bar for that is higher. I thought the picture was defensible as the model wears a bra and thong, albeit skimpy, in addition to the jacket, and the shot isn't even frontal, but I bow to community mores. -- ◄mendel► 01:46, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

-- ◄mendel► 01:51, January 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * The bra and thong are designed to look semi-pornographic. Whilst not 100% explisit, I'd take offence to the example of a 12 year old (the lowest member of our potential target audience) seeing that whilst on GuildWiki.  Random  Time   02:45, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * They look erotic. Pornography involves intercourse or similar, there is none in that picture. -- ◄mendel► 04:07, January 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * You're dead wrong there. Pornography is any "material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal," it doesn't have to be explicit.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 04:18, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, right, I had the distinction in mind that's mentioned on http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ : the law distinguishes between hard-core pornography and soft-core pornography, which involves depictions of nudity and limited and simulated sexual conduct. Because it is not as graphic or explicit as hard-core pornography, soft-core pornography is protected under the First Amendment. So this image was pornography, but not obscene. ;) -- ◄mendel► 04:34, January 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Regardless of how you want to classify the picture, it's sufficiently sexual to be inappropriate for GuildWiki. This wiki should be readily accessible to people who don't want to see that sort of pictures, or whose parents don't want them to see that sort of pictures.  And even apart from the propriety of the picture, I'd still hold that it's highly probable that it's a copyright violation.  Quizzical 04:48, January 6, 2010 (UTC)