User talk:Anaxial

Smash Court Tennis

Dude why, why did you do this to me analaxle, why? It was a constructive edit!

5041

I have man whore don't discriminateque. !!!

Talk:Fraţii Buzeşti High School

There was a great deal of discussion between me and the other party on our Talk pages. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

In that case, you should have linked to that discussion (I did look for a discussion, but couldn't find one). No problem, though; feel free to re-list the request with the correct link. And remember to sign with five tildes, not four! But thanks for the correction. Anaxial (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's resolved because it wound up at WP:ANI. Thanks. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Your note

There is nothing wrong with the image on Erection. What you are complaining about is the wording of the caption. I do not understand the caption to mean that both images are the same person, and there is no need for them to be the same person. The caption only tries to describe the state on the left and the state on the right. It is irrelevant that they are two individuals, and irrelevant whether the one on the right is circumcised or retracted. Instead of deleting the images, you should edit the caption. —Stephen (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

One image exists of circumcised in both a flaccid and erect state. The other, contentious, image purports to show un-circumcised in the flaccid and erect state. The un-circumcised erection is disputed, we have no evidence that the image is as it purports to be (or as in the other pairing a single unique individual). We have anecdotal evidence that such a state, an erection with no foreskin whatsoever is neither likely nor the norm. Therefore, as a challenged image with a relevant basis the image requires a supporting ref. And, hence, its removal. 99.141.241.60 (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I can barely understand your English. The image on the right is erect with no visible prepuce. That is what it is and that is what the caption attempts to say. I have no idea what you are disputing or what reference you are requesting. —Stephen (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The image on the right, "erect with no visible prepuce" does not appear to be an un-circumcised penis. The image caption's claim to be otherwise is disputed.99.141.241.60 (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I still cannot understand what you are trying to say. You seem to dispute something in the caption. Please cite the particular words that you disagree with and then restate them the way you think the caption should read. —Stephen (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for a re-write. It would be the encyclopedically accurate "Image on left is a flaccid and uncircumcised penis. Image on right is an erect penis. It appears likely it is circumcised." The image is useless for our article there, and the current caption is unsupported and disputed. Other images are available, including the Wiki commons image here earlier.99.141.241.60 (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I see you've re-written the caption. What is your basis for claiming that "the foreskin is retracted"? Whose to say any foreskin exists? How do we know it's not circumcised?99.141.241.60 (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not about foreskins or circumcision, it is about erection. As I said before, it is irrelevant whether it is circumcised or retracted, it is only to show the state of erection. I put retracted because that, to the best of my ability, was what I believed you were attempting to say. If you don’t like the word "retracted", describe it in another way. If you have better images showing flaccid and erect states with prepuce, replace the image. The caption can be fixed or the images can be replaced. —Stephen (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. 99.141.241.60 (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you have to have both flaccid and erect together as in the earlier image. Otherwise it’s just a penis. —Stephen (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"I think you have to have both flaccid and erect together as in the earlier image." We already have that in the image lower down the page, showing the states of circumcised. The image you've re-written is not a trusty source for the two states of un-circumcised, ideally we need an image that is. The one I removed just has no purpose, it's not like the other image, it's just an untrustworthy mishmash.99.141.241.60 (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)