SlimVirgin has misrepresented the situation. The photo was never larger than 250px - the same size as the other two photos. If you note on the talk:feces page, nobody ever objected to the size of photo. However, I REDUCED the size of the photos from 250px to 200px. Me. I did. Just for better layout. And the image was not 'plastered all over tangential' articles. It was added to defecation and one other. In those cases, other editors simply removed the picture, and I deferred to their judgement and did not re-post it. Is this vandalism?
Jane
I don't feel that including an image of human feces is inappropriate. Having it huge and then plastered all over tangentially-related articles is vandalism, and Eyeon should note that _that_ is a perfectly valid reason for being blocked.
Sam
_________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/