Talk:Garter
From Voyeurweb's Wiki
Thanks for the arbitrary censorship. Pam
Sorry Pam, do you think that is a nice clear image of the front of a garter? It isn't a page dealing with pubic hair? Guidelines on the Do's and Don'ts says: * Do not use blurry pics or other low-quality pics. That other one is a nicer quality image and isn't focused strictly on the pubic hair portion. The one you put up isn't as clear or crisp. I have no connection to the pic for the front, I didn't take it, I don't know the model, I just looked for a nice image that was representative of a front view of a garter. I agree it could definately have used an image of the front of a garterbelt. Which pic best represents that? --Cam 17:47, 24 February 2007 (EST)
Whatever the arguments may be, there are issues of respect which mean that some discussion can and should take place before editing occurs. That didn't happen and it was therefore arbitrary editing on your part. That is the basis of my objection to your actions. The quality of the images was not the issue, although I think the image you substituted, with vehicles in the background, was more appropriate to an entry under exhibitionism.
Isn't the basis of Wiki the idea that anyone can update anther entry to elaborate and/or make it clearer and more consise? Although the VW community is smaller and we "know' one another to a small degree, do you think that contributors to wikipedia ask permission to change/update entries?
Pam, do you really mean this "there are issues of respect which mean that some discussion can and should take place before editing occurs.". How many of the edits you have made have you asked permission or started a discussion on before you made the edit? Can you image the stand still this whole project comes to if each edit is discussed and some committee takes a vote? This whole project evolves with people trying to make the entries more concise, spelling corrected, links added, new pages put up to satisfy the links which starts the editing process over. There is the entire VW active contris, past winners and HoF to draw upon for the best pictures to satisfy the pages. Jessie is right, the idea behind Wiki is to update/elaborate and make things more clear and concise and in this case put forward a nice representative image of the idea being put forward. Branch out beyond your own library of images and explore all the ones that VW has to offer. That is half the fun!
I try to resist my urges to remove an image from a page, and I'd rather see people add rather than remove. As long as the total page does not get too bogged down with images, there should be no big issue adding one to compliment the existing ones.
Anyone can update an entry, and anyone can change it back. The purpose of the discussion page is to avoid such editing wars. If there's no conflict with showing both, why not show both? If the page becomes loaded with images, perhaps two entries are the right course of action. If someone feels an image is totally inappropriate, remove it. It can all be rolled back if needed. But if it just a matter of taste/preferences to show one image over another, I think showing both is a simple compromise.
We do need to strive to keep the Wiki pages presenting some of the finer images available. Many Google searchers will be first experiencing VW through these Wiki entries. Thus far, I've not any issue with Pam69's images. While there are sharper images of some of the subject matter, hers are not blurry, out of focus, photoshopped-to-death (we already had some of those removed). In this case, she was expanding the garter entry with showing a purpose the garers are designed they way they are. That is a valid expansion, and her images fits that expansion. Also, I do get a kick out of seeing what images people select of themselves. I think that is really in keeping with the VW spirit. --FAQ 20:31, 24 February 2007 (EST)
Sometimes it is in the best interest to change images used. Before I replaced that image with what seemed like a better representation of the front of a garter (the other is close up of pubic hair with only partial garter visible), I checked to see if that was the only link to that picture. It wasn't, it is also posted in the See through pubic hair style page. The other pics on the garterbelt page showed how a garter belt was worn from different angles including the stockings and where they fit on the waist, etc. There are LOTS of pubic hair pages much more appropriate for that image than the garter page. It wasn't removed from public viewing, just one less link. I agree it is interesting to see what people post as their interpretation. And sometimes it turns out what they post isn't really the best fit but there might be a better more appropriate place. I really don't care if Pam choses to leave that picture there, my opinion is that it isn't really approriate for that page but hey, just my opinion. the current placement on the page doesn't necessarily make sense if you are looking at the first two long views of garters and then a picture of a full bush, then another picture of a garterbelt from the front as a full body shot. That odd man out photo should probably be the one on the next line or make a 2x2 table. Anyone look at the line directily under this editing box....?--Cam 21:29, 24 February 2007 (EST)
Rearranging the furniture is fine since blind men do not frequent VW. Even editing, altering, or removing is all part of Wiki. However, on the Do's_and_Don'ts page, it recommends Add content. Resist removing content. Reading Pam69's caption for her image was adding a new twist to the page - the fashion, the style, the display of a garter belt. The Why it differs from a girdle with stocking straps. I'd suggest if you prefer rearranging the page, go for it. If you see some images giving you views from all directions, arrange them in a slow turning fashion. Separate the images that are explaining how the garter belt accents and frames womanly features. My eyes see 3 portraits and one landscape images arranged fine, but I'm open to putting the sofa and TV on the other side of the room, too. --FAQ 22:41, 24 February 2007 (EST)
