Image talk:Desinsertion du muscle CO.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh man, that makes my eyes water... wow, ouch. 71.77.207.50 01:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Man, I can't believe this is going to be a POTD... imagine everyone opening up the front page to that! It's cool though :-) Trisweb 21:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

*throws up* i can't believe that's POTD either. worst. choice. ever. 74.130.66.100 00:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS REALLY SCARY  :D Ammar 00:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Umm.... I don't think everyone visiting Wikipedia will be able to stomach this picture. --StormCommander 01:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

pansies. --69.67.229.93 01:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Owwwwww come on...... Spare our souls! Do we really have to see this? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Holy shit that's brutal, luckily I haven't eaten recently. Quadzilla99 04:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

MUDDA FUCKA! Seriously, this is just too sick to be a picture of the day. Sickos. >:(

Oww Darkcraft 05:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This picture it's really a bit too much IMHO. Is it really necessary? barbarajacob 14:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know the name of that person in the photo? dogman15 06:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I was gonna add this as a featured wallpaper, but the bastards protected it. :( Playstationman 09:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This picture does not meet the ratio requirements at either Category:Wikipedia featured desktop backgrounds or Category:Wikipedia featured widescreen desktop backgrounds; rather, it falls in between the two ratios. Had it met either one, I would have added it to the category at the beginning of April, as I usually do each month. --Herald Alberich 04:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Spoke too soon. I assumed that was the reason I didn't add it, but it's actually perfect for the first category. Sorry, somehow I missed this one. --Herald Alberich 04:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

And to think I was just about to have breakfast. I can't say this is the best PoTD ever. 82.19.8.137 10:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


Protected WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE
We make no claim of censorship. For those who want to know why this was chosen, follow this link — Jack · 11:18, 3 April 2007
Thanks for the illuminating template (sarcasm), no one said it shouldn't be featured but putting it on the main page is a little disturbing. Basically everyone is just anxious to get this day over with so they can look at the main page again. No need to get defensive. Quadzilla99 12:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It's aimed to inform the anons, not you. Please, don't be offended, I was only trying to help, and the link seemed relevant. I personally have no problems with the picture, it fulfils all the WP:FPC. Perhaps you should spend less time talking about how offended you are, and more time working on the encyclopedia? — Jack · talk · 13:38, Tuesday, 3 April 2007
I must comment that more people view Wikipedia than work on it. GracenotesT §
Pretty disturbing, considering that it's on the main page and that the casual visitor is forced to see it. barbarajacob 14:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Not Bad

Ok everyone, that picture isn't that bad, just an eye. And let's just all hope that his vision is for the best. I think the picture looks pretty cool perosnally. Nicole —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.48.192.32 (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] What is sick about ...

..an operation which cures a the misalignment of the eyes and helps 1.2 mio people in the US alone to see straight again? This should be uplifting. *shakes head* --Dschwen 16:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone isn't like you. The main page of Wikipedia should be enjoyable for everyone. There is a difference between a picture like this in an article and on the first page. People are basically forced to look at it. On an article, they choose to learn about the topic. --StormCommander 20:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, StormCommander. There's a big difference between a possibly offensive picture in an article, such as the Penis article, which people can choose to go to if they so desire to learn about it, and they feel ready enough to learn about it, or the two women kissing in Homosexual (which I personally find off-putting, though I know many others don't), and something like this right on the main page. Granted, it's not the first thing you see when you come to the website today, but if you want to scroll to the bottom, maybe to get the Wikiquote link, you have to pass by the picture, making it an unexpected shock that people are more or less forced to view. It's not like there's a bar or something that says "Warning: Graphic Picture below". And I think that's really the issue here, that such a disturbing picture is put on the front page, where many see it not because they want to or are even interested in the article (I personally couldn't care less about Strabismus surgery, and would probably never visit the article otherwise), but because they're more or less tricked into seeing the picture simply by scrolling down. Kevin 23:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. If there's one good thing to come out of this picture, it's that maybe now people will vote on what pictures will be featured, so this doesn't happen again.
P.P.S. I checked out the current featured picture nominations, and they seem fine. However, as for the next month, an almost equally gruesome picture was chosen for April 29th, a picture that's good quality, but it's a picture of dozens of whales with their guts hanging out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Whaling_in_the_Faroe_Islands.jpg). I doubt there's really anything anyone can do, since it's already accepted, but it's basically the same problem there, waiting to happen. It's a picture that may be relavent to the article, but by putting it on the front page, Wikipedia's making people accidently look at it, without necessarily even having an interest in the content. It's silly how the Featured Picture identification process works, with photo quality being almost the only thing considered. For all they care, they could have a featured picture of a baby being put into a blender, and if the photo quality was good, they'd probably accept that too, reguardless of how disgusting it was.
"This should be uplifting". Well I have no doubt it's quite uplifting to know such an operation exists, but nonetheless seeing this picture on the main page is more unexpected than anything, really. I mean the pictures of gangrene at gangrene are kind of disgusting, but at least by navigating to that article I know that there's probably going to be pictures. Someone with a weak stomach might be a little annoyed that they unexpectedly see this picture of an eye operation on the main page...
And anyway since when has Wikipedia cared about being uplifting? If people complained about a picture of Adolf Hitler as a featured picture, would you be opposing that? :-D
And finally - to some extent I think this is being done more to prove a point than anything else. I see no harm in not putting this picture on the main page. Meanwhile there are hundreds of Wikipedians vomiting onto their computer keyboards all over the world :-) ugen64 21:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not being done to prove a point. The PsOTD are taken from the featured pictures in a FIFO order. Very rarely do we skip any of them -- and that's usually done for layout purposes or because there's little to say about the image. It's just this guy's turn in the queue, that's all. howcheng {chat} 21:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outstanding Picture

the is absolutely amazing! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.211.91.140 (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Castroviejo ??

there are words here that i don't understand. This was a featured photo... that is how i found it. what is Castroviejo? Manson-Aebli? Cook? Sign your username: Newtowiki2 (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)