Talk:Disc jockey/Archive topless DJ

Topless DJs

Conversation conclusion The picture of a topless female DJ is to be removed and it's caption with citations will be put in the article. Main arguments: The picture of a topless female DJ should be removed due to irrelevence.

Resolved

 – October 4

The photo of a topless DJ has been taken out a couple of times, at least once with an edit summary about its inappropriateness for minors. This is not a valid reason for taking it out. Wikipedia is not censored... read Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored. If the minors wanted to see breasts, they could simply go to the Breasts page. Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Can the picture of a topless DJ be brought back? I understand Wikipedia is not censored for minors (despite what the user who removed the image implied), but neither is it a place for gratuitous nudity. Is the image appropriate here? JIP | Talk 00:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the image is no more or less appropriate than any other image of DJs performing. Binksternet (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added the image back. I have pictures of another topless DJ too, and IMHO she has better-looking tits. =) Should I upload another image? JIP | Talk 18:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The image is appropriate if this is a significant phenomenon - but the more minor a phenomenon the less appropriate the image. And if it's simply an excuse to get breasts onto the page then it is gratuitous and should go. We don't do readers a service by depicting fringe elements over more common ones. If this is significant then it needs to be written about in the article - a minor by-line for the image can't cover a significant phenomenon effectively. The current reference is in Finnish, it would be helpful if someone who knows could provide an English summary of what it says and let us know how respected the source is in terms of reports on DJ related news. -- SiobhanHansa 19:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how important a phenomenon the original Russian phenomenon is. The cited source claims it's a big thing in Moscow, but I have never been to Moscow, let alone to these club nights. I've only been to the Finnish copies of the club nights. I can provide an English translation of the cited source if needed but that still won't make it any more reliable as a source. JIP | Talk 19:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The translation request was in the hope we could provide rather more information than is currently in the article. You say "won't make it any more reliable as a source" - is this implying it isn't a particularly reliable source (for this information)? Of course more than one source would also be good... -- SiobhanHansa 17:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I wasn't implying anything about the reliability. I simply meant that the source stays the same regardless of what language it is translated to. Here is an English translation:

Topless female DJs to Sedu's nightclub!

The restaurant owner Sedu Koskinen starts daring Club Moscow nights in his Helsinki nightclub Studio 51 next week. On offer are female DJs in daring leather outfits, rivets and iron chains.

The DJs hired to the nights are top Russian names, who sometimes even appear topless. On the YouTube website can be found videos of appearances by DJ Affecta appearing in the club's promotional images, which are quite daring.

- It's a big thing in Moscow, that these top DJs mix in quite daring outfits. The nights have been a hit in Moscow and we decided to try the same thing here too. This has been developed together, says Sedu Koskinen.

Koskinen himself has good feelings about the new club and he assures the concept is fun. The restaurant mogul is however prepared to face the fact that not everyone will approve of the new club.

-Some people may have something to say about it, but it is not prohibited for someone to appear topless - male DJs do it too. This is not some kind of strip tease, these really are top name DJs.

There are no non-ordinary limits to the club nights featuring topless DJs.

-There is no special age limit. The age limit to the nightclub itsef should be about 20 or 18.

-Katri Utula

My only comment about the cited source, after having been to three of these Helsinki club nights, is that the famous leather and iron outfits seem to be rather conspicuous in their absence. Instead, the female DJs start out in quite normal clothing, and after only about ten or twenty minutes, start to strip, ending up with only a skirt. JIP | Talk 19:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks JIP. The article makes it sound more like novelty than a significant trend - though you mention there are now at least 3. What's your take? Is there much more coverage about it? -- SiobhanHansa 20:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There have been many more club nights than 3, perhaps 10 or so. I just haven't been to all of them. It initially caused a lot of controversy in Finland but it has since quieted down. I still haven't found any sources about the original Moscow club nights. A Google search claims they exist but that's all I have learned about them. I think it's best to wait until summer ends and autumn starts (even though here in Finland it feels like it's already happened), and if there is nothing more in the Finnish media about these club nights, it can be considered a novelty. JIP | Talk 20:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I found another news article about the Helsinki club nights: [1] (from another newspaper of similar reliability). However, the content of this article is very different from what I actually saw at the club. Translation:

In the Club Moscow summer club at Sedu's nightclub Studio 51, you will see lots of bare skin. The club has hired, among others, DJ Affecta, famous for her skimpy clothes and sexy performances.

In one video found on YouTube, DJ Affecta danced provocatively topless. During the day, the daring videos were removed from the site.

- In Moscow it's a big thing that these top name DJs mix in quite daring outfits. The club nights have been a hit in Moscow and we decided to try the same thing here too, Koskinen tells of the idea's background to Ilta-Sanomat.

He also emphasises that, topless or not, the DJs are top Russian names and the most important thing in the club nights is the music.

Sedu tells Iltalehti that in Studio 51, you won't get to see star DJs with their breasts bare.

- They are sexily dressed, but not topless. They are not any more sexy than beauty pageants in string bikinis in the corridor of some supermarket, he assures.

- The club is a whole concept, not just a DJ. The idea originally started from a Moscow theme, with some Soviet Union spirit thrown in. Also the crew is dressed in a Moscow theme.

The Club Moscow summer club starts 14 June in Studio 51 and continues every Friday and Saturday until the end of summer.

After summertime, Studio 51 will have a new concept.

- After that, Studio 51 will be closed for September. In October we will reopen with a new concept and a new name, Sedu reveals.

The first source to tell about DJ Affecta's visit was Ilta-Sanomat.

This is very different from what I actually saw. Now I must admit that I missed the grand opening party on 14 June with a total of three female DJs (and apparently, all topless at at least one point). My first visit was two weeks after that. But according to my experience, the way the club nights actually turned out, the toplessness was the whole point. I saw nothing of the famous leather outfits or crew dressed in Russian/Soviet themes. For the first three to four hours, it was a simple club night with a male DJ. At around 1 AM, he was replaced with a female DJ dressed in pretty normal clothing. Soon after, she began to strip, and mixed for two hours wearing only a skirt. This happened for all of the three times I visited the club. So it appears that either Iltalehti got wrong information, Sedu changed his plans, or he doesn't actually communicate with the people he hires. The toplessness was all very fine, but I would have preferred if the DJs had actually worn the leather outfits that were so much advertised.

Also the part about this being only a summer club pretty much confirms it's a novelty, at least here in Finland. JIP | Talk 16:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to say I disagree with the above. The point of the page on DJs is talk about the various DJ's and in general what they do, etc.. Being nude while at a club is not that relevant a matter that you need to upload an image of a nude DJ. Its not some thing hard to visualize someone being nude. If someone were interested in looking at a person being nude or at breasts, he or she could just go to that page. Talking about nude DJs should be enough here and posting such an image is not required. Yes wikipedia does not censor its pages, so that doesnot give us a reason to take advantage of that and post nude pictures. You could possibly even talk about DJs being nude in the nude page and probably upload this picture there. In the end I would like to conclude by saying that this image is not required here and hence should be removed. --Prasanaik (talk) 02:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. These point of these topless DJs seems to be that they are topless, it does not affect the actual DJ act, so it's not very relevant to this article. This summer club thingy should perhaps still be mentioned here briefly, but without the picture. The picture could go to the nudity article or a similar article if necessary. But I would like to hear opinions from other users too. Anyway it looks like the summer club is over very soon, tomorrow is the such club night on the club's calendar. So it doesn't look like this is a lasting phenomenon in Finland at least. JIP | Talk 10:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not so much that it has the picture but that there is no indication at the top that there is an explicit picture. I removed the picture on those grounds and if someone wants to put it back in, please put the template Template:Explicit{{Explicit}} tag at the top of the page as a warning. Wikipidia has a lot of younger children using it so regardless of the no-censor policy, we must at leat provide warning. That is the minimum I ask for, actually I also belive the picture does not signifigantly enhance the artical to justify it's presence. I belive we may need a total lock if this issue cannot be resolved by consensus.--Ipatrol (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Me again, I thought we can portion off this issue into a nude DJs page, essentially splitting part of the article. Because of the title, we don't need to have this arguement. Otherwise please keep the picture off until the debate is resolved

You're coming to the page and asking that a fairly-well discussed picture be kept off while consensus that you called for is reached? No, the image comes down after consensus for removal is reached.

First off, the image is there because it shows a DJ at work, and a female to boot. Do we have any other female DJ image? No, not yet. Secondly, Wikipedia is not censored. Kids are going to see normally-hidden body parts if they go to the Wikipedia page about that body part. Have you seen the penis page? Guess what they have a photo of... Still, nobody here is trying to harm small children, however, these same small children most likely have seen breasts already. The photo under discussion isn't leering or grossly over sexualized nor is the woman misshapen by surgical enhancement; she's just a topless DJ concentrating on her work, wearing what seemed appropriate for that particular gig. DJing is about entertainment, and sometimes entertainment takes an edgy direction. Binksternet (talk) 08:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll give you that about consensus before removal. Due to the Silence is Consensus Policy, in the mean time I will continue to remove the picture in order to indicate my lack of agreement. I will post on the requested pages list an article for topless DJs, which I hope you or someone else will create. There we can post the picture in all it's (chuckle) glory (LOL). Then a line about topless DJs will be placed on this article, with a link to the new one. I ask for this for the purpose of compromise (and therefore consensus) as well as if this is such a phenomenon, someone can go into it more deeply. In addition, despite the no censor policy, we shouldn't take advatage of that if the pictue does not sufficently enhance the article, as I belive is true. So if this is just an excuse by Testosterone-headed men (no offense to anyone in particular, by thy way I am not a women here) to put porn on a page, then by all means it should be removed.--Ipatrol (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What did you mean by "I'll give you that about consensus before removal"? You give nothing. "Silence is consensus" for which position? It's impossible to know. How can you conclude that silence by other editors confirms your opinion? You have already made your position plain; deleting the photo at this point is premature.

Take a long look at each photograph we have in this article. Do any qualify as indispensable to the meaning of the term "disc jockey"? Not many, or perhaps any. What the images do, in my opinion, is collectively help to form the idea that disc jockeying is a profession that covers a wide range of activities, energy levels and venues. Taking out the Russian female DJing in Finland (the woman who isn't wearing a shirt) harms the collective effect. I do not feel that this image must belong only to a notional page about Topless disc jockeys. This image is of a person who is a disc jockey; this image belongs here. Restoring. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If topless discjockeying is a fringe activity that is not a significant aspect of disc jockeying as a profession or phenomenon (as the discussion above seemed to indicate) then inclusion of image is mainly serving the purpose of adding a little titilation and shock value to the page. That is not encyclopedic. If there are sufficient reliable sources that indicate this is something that doesn't just happen occasionally but added something significant to disc jockeying (maybe it increased club attendance, changed the music played, led to the acceptance of female disc jockeys where they had previously been unheard of, or caused riots and the closing down of clubs in some countries - I don't know) then we should expand the article to actually talk about the phenomenon. Images in an encyclopedia article should give a good sense of what is normal or significant - if topless DJing is neither the photo does not belong on the page as it distorts the readers understanding of the subject. The same goes for any image that has a remarkable quality about it. I agree though that banishing the image to a page on topless DJing is pointless - either the phenomenon is significant and should be included here or it isn't and shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. -- SiobhanHansa 12:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Mention should probably be made of topless DJing somewhere in the article (I've tweaked the caption to broaden the scope a bit) but I have a feeling that the picture creates undue weight problems. I've no real problem with nudity in WP, but I'm not quite convinced we need an illustration, just a half a paragraph somewhere. Haikupoet (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The new caption is wrong. The topless DJ was in Finland, not in Russia. I am now convinced this is just an occasional novelty in Finland so far. It lasted so far from the middle of June to the end of August, and then it stopped. The club has even closed down now - not because of this thing, but because it had been operating at a loss for a long time now. According to the source I cited, this is a big phenomenon in Russia, but I have not seen any other sources for it. JIP | Talk 18:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot has happened so far. I think we need to do a bit of research on this issue. Someone should put a post here with a reliable citation to prove to us all the signifigance of this phenomenon. So far the reaserch I have done indicates that the only real topless female DJs are at strip clubs. Unless someone can prove otherwise, chances are this is not a real phenomenon after all. As JIP stated, if the controversy is with the picture and not the topic, mabye we should just put this issue to rest by replacing the picture with a half-paragraph about the subject. Besides, that would explain the story in much more detail than a seven-word caption could. This issue is beginning to verge on an edit war. We also need to get to a consensus so this discussion can be archived before it takes up more space than all the debates before it. --Ipatrol (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)\

What about a strip club DJ makes them less of a DJ than a mobile DJ? Who decides what a "real" DJ is? I don't like the knee-jerk delete-it-quick response to perceived obscenity in a photo here on Wikipedia and I'm not willing to let it slide when my perception is that the image is harmless. I don't think this photo is obscene! The woman shown isn't trying to be especially alluring or overtly sexual... she's clearly listening hard to the music and concentrating on her craft. On the other hand, if the consensus is that the image doesn't help anybody understand some part of what deejaying is all about, fine, take it out. Just don't take it out because she's not wearing a shirt. Me, I think the photo DOES help the reader understand that the goal of the disc jockey business is to entertain and that a wide variety of methods have been tried in order to attract and keep customers. The disputed image is no more nor less worthy of inclusion here than the photo of one style of a mobile DJ setup (there are as many flavors of mobile setups as there are mobile DJs), or the photo of the collection of certain models of DJ equipment (there are a bunch of other manufacturer's products that could be represented). No photo here can be described as definitive of "disc jockey"; each photo shows a narrow aspect of deejaying. Together, the photos show how much variety is involved in the business. (BTW, it would help to add a photo of a radio broadcast DJ...) My vote will always be to keep the image of the topless Russian DJ during the business experiment one summer in Finland. Binksternet (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I simply cannot believe one single picture has caused almost 20 kilobytes' worth of discussion... JIP | Talk 18:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree wth uou about the 30 Kilobytes JIP. As for Binksternet, I didn't say strip club DJs aren't real DJs, what I said is that the only DJs that are actually topless, and not just scantily clad, is in strip clubs, with a few exceptions like Sedu's. The idea is beliveable, entertainment has often gone to the edges of acceptability, I just can't find any examples of such. So please don't cling endlessly to one conviction or this debate will never end, just like the arguement about the Sea of Japan. --Ipatrol (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not taken a stance either for or against the picture for about a month now. As far as I am concerned, the idea itself should be at least briefly mentioned, but as for the image, that's between User:Binksternet and you. JIP | Talk 20:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

We are being asked to understand that the only topless DJs are in strip clubs, with a few exceptions, but the editor promoting this idea "can't find any examples of such". I am not going to guess about the concept, nor give any weight to conjecture about who the topless DJs might be and where they might perform. All I'm going to be talking about is this one image which serves as its own proof.

I'm getting the impression that editor Ipatrol doesn't like the topless DJ image on its face because the woman is shown nude from the bottom of her ribcage and up. I think that's a terrible reason to delete a photo on an uncensored online encyclopedia. I'm totally against deletion of the image simply because there's no shirt being worn by the DJ. I believe that each of the DJ images does its part to help the reader see the big picture, and that this one is no different. Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Binksternet, you have repeatedly misunderstood my words. I meant that I can imagine more topless DJs, but I haven't found many examples of such. I see this picture as an example that these DJs exist, but how many non-strip club topless DJs are there really? The issue is no longer the fact this is an explicit picture, but it dosen't serve our readers to call something a "phenomenon" (yes, I know that word isn't used in the caption) when it's seen in only a few places. --Ipatrol (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter even if this photo shows the only topless DJ ever to perform, it can still serve as a photo that shows experimentation can be part of being a DJ. Binksternet (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you Binksternet on that one. If there is only one or two topless DJs in the whole world outside of strip clubs, than the picture and anything else that goes with it more belongs in the article about Strip Clubs or the nightclub she performed at, which I think I will do. Tell me If you agree with that, and I can't stress this enough, PLEASE don't stubbornly hold on to the idea that this picture should stay on here or this argument will never end, like the arguement about the Gender of God. --Ipatrol (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I hold my opinion because it appears to mo to be appropriate for the situation. Regarding strip clubs: I have no experience with their staffing practices and whether or not they have female or male disc jockeys who may or may not perform in stages of undress, and I don't see any supporting references about such a practice, so I am not paying attention to conjecture about it. The photo under discussion was not taken at a strip club, so it would definitely not belong in the article about them. The photo shows a DJ at work. This is the DJ article. Binksternet (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The question isn't conjecture about strip clubs - it's about reliable sources that show an image isn't undue weight for an article on DJs. Sources indicating mention of topless DJing complies with this policy have been requested for over a month but not one seems to be able to find them. This makes the image inappropriate for this article as it it does not help provide a fair representation of DJing. -- SiobhanHansa 22:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Siobahn Hansa, haven't seen you in a while. I agree with you about undue weight here and that's what I've been saying all along. Thank you for showing a policy on that. I think Binksternet is trying to take advantage of the consensus-first policy to force his opinion, which is violation of Wikipedia policy, on those to follow the undue weight policy correctly. I think his rollback privleges should be revoked. AND the picture should come off and stay off. --Ipatrol (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I wish you agreed with my methods as well. The edit warring over this image is appalling. And now IP accounts being used too. I've asked for full protection for the page while to allow a consensus to be reached. Even if that isn't granted would you and Binksternet please stop edit warring - there is no excuse over an issue like this. -- SiobhanHansa 12:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not me who's using IP anonymity to revert. My edits are all aboveboard.

Regarding WP:UNDUE I see your point very clearly. I'm curious, though... why is nobody looking at the mobile DJ photo and complaining that the loudspeakers are a narrow promotion for Mackie SRM450 speakers? Not every DJ uses this one brand and model of speaker. Why is nobody complaining that the top photo of DJ equipment emphasizes Pioneer and M-Audio? Why isn't Rane or Allen & Heath or Bozak represented? Why are the computer products in the picture Lenovos and Dells and not Apples, NECs or Alienwares? Each of these photos shows a narrow aspect of disc jockeying by showing a narrow range of products; however, the situations are typical. The photo of the topless DJ shows a narrow-breadth Finnish and Russian experiment, and, I think, shows that experimentation itself is typical of the DJ experience. Binksternet (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.

---

On undue: If the Mackie SRM450 speakers photo were simply of the speakers and they weren't a common or significant brand it would be inappropriate for the article too. But people aren't objecting to that photo on the basis of the speakers for the same reason that the speaker brand wasn't mentioned in the photo caption - the speakers aren't what draws attention to the photo or what gives it meaning on the page. As to the equipment photos - these are significant brands. There could be a discussion about whether they are the best brands to illustrate - a photo of different brands might be worth considering - but there's nothing about showing these (or the other brands you mention) that give readers a false impression of regular DJing. The DJ in the Topless_DJ.jpg photo wasn't topless because she happened to be hot (which if such were a particularly common occurrence would make such photos common place and would not draw attention when the photo was placed on the page). She was topless as - apparently - a gimmick to try and bring people to the club for something that had nothing to do with her DJing. If that is a significant part of DJing then it might be worthy of mention. But as yet it seems there are no sources that show it is more than a very limited gimmick. So the photo of her on this page is as much a gimmick as the club was using and hence not appropriate. -- SiobhanHansa 20:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

The same picture is also used in the strip club article to illustrate the idea that topless female DJs are also found in strip clubs. Now, I have to make a comment about this. If the picture is deleted from here but kept in the strip club article, I feel at some level that it gives the wrong impression, because it was taken in a normal nightclub, not at a strip club. I don't know if topless female DJs really are common in strip clubs, as I have only ever visited a strip club once in my life, and the only topless women there were the actual strippers. JIP | Talk 18:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware of the picture's origin when I placed it there. In my opinion any objections about it being on the strip club article should be discussed on it's talk page. If that's what's keeping the image here I will remove it from there. Speaking of the IP issue, I once removed the picture when not logged in. So I fully admit to that and you are welcome to tag my IP as a sock puppet if you consider that nesccecary. As for Binksternet, your statement about the company name is irrelevant because it's off-topic. I personally think unless your talking specificly about a company or brand an image should have company and brand names blurred. But that doesn't matter to this discussion. We all agree that topless DJing is a fringe phenomenon, but you seem to think that regardless of that fact, this picture does not violate the undue weight policy. Now what's wrong with that picture? In the mean time I agree with Siobahn Hansa that this article should be locked until a consensus is reached. --Ipatrol (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As the person who took the picture in the first place, I would like it to be used in Wikipedia in some place. Not necessarily this article, but I don't know what else. Using it only in the strip club article just feels wrong, because it was not taken in a strip club. JIP | Talk 19:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, JIP, not every photo uploaded to Wikipedia is going to find a perfect home. If discussion here concludes that the image doesn't belong on the Strip club page nor on the Disc jockey page, then you're in a tight place. You'd have to start a Topless disc jockey article in order for the image to illustrate the concept to best effect. Do you have enough material to make a topless DJ article stand on its own without being deleted? Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As my only experience ever of topless female DJs comes from this summer club experiment by Sedu Koskinen, I really don't think there's enough material for a stand-alone article. JIP | Talk 06:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we're getting somewhere Binksternet. It seems this picture doesn't have a perfect home indeed. If someone could make an article about Sedu's nightclub (or wherever else it came from), then we might get somewhere. Also as to the removal of the picture from strip club, you are welcome to do so, but make sure to keep an eye on the article so you can know if an editor objects to it's removal. Sound like a plan? --Ipatrol (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't kid yourself, Ipatrol. "We" aren't getting somewhere; I am balancing arguments from every contributor here but you. You first removed the image under discussion because it was explicit. I go with first impressions, and I will always consider you the editor who wanted the image taken out because of nudity. I have no problem with its explicit nature, and I dig my heels in when the uncensored nature of Wikipedia is challenged. Your paternalistic instruction to keep an eye on the strip club article is wildly misplaced with me. I've made over 7000 mainspace edits in fourteen months, I have over 2400 pages on my watchlist and I know how to spell the word "tenet". I know how to keep track of things. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sedu has many nightclubs all over southern Finland and keeps trying various experiments. This topless DJ experiment is, to my knowledge, only a brief experiment, and only the second time normal Finnish nightclubs have featured topless women. The first time was in the early 1980s when Finland was suffering from a great depression and bars tried topless waitresses to increase income. I was still a minor back then and so unfortunately could not experience this. Sedu Koskinen claims this is a big thing in Russia, but I still have not found any other mentions of it existing at all outside this brief Finnish experiment. However, even if the picture itself is never brought back, a brief textual mention of the phenomenon, with both reference links, would be in order for this article. JIP | Talk 19:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I wholly agree with you JIP. As for Binksternet, I don't care about about the number of edits you've made or the number of pages on your watchlist. It's the editor behind those edits that counts. When talking to JIP, you start coming closer to a consensus. But when I'm around, you assume bad faith and start getting hostile. I think that once this issue is resolved you should go on a wikibreak. I admit I may have had a knee-jerk reaction at the start, but I haven't been here for very long and so such can only be expected. I bet you were sometimes like that when you started editing Wikipedia. So stop bragging about your edit counts and start coming up with an acceptable compromise. Don't keep this picture on here just because you think it was once removed because of nudity. Especially if the picture is more or less irrelevant to the article. Edit wars and talk page arguements benifit no one and eat up time that could be better spent elsewhere. Constructive edits make Wikipedia a more accurate and reliable resource for everyone. --Ipatrol (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking exception to your avowal: "I haven't been here for very long". No beginner starts their Wikipedia journey by attempting to create a new template page as their first post. This is why I'm not giving you the benefit of doubt as a newbie. Your edits as Ipatrol are far too template- and essay-oriented for you to pass as a newbie. You apparently began as 216.118.68.193 in October 2007 editing the LSD article; your newbie grace period is long over. Of course, I assumed good faith on your first edit to this article, but the faith shown (deleting an image for nudity) was crossgrain to my belief, making it imperative that I revert. Now that we've crossed paths, I see you've demonstrated a prediliction for unnecessary censorship before arriving here: for example, you removed a whole Talk page section for the presence in one entry of the phrase "pennies are bullshit", even though there is no rule against such language on Wikipedia talk pages. This kind of edit behavior raises a warning flag. Yes, I will continue to "keep an eye on" the article, and on your contributions here, including your spiteful reversion to re-introduce misspelled words to one of your essays.

This is getting far too far off topic. Sorry, everybody, for wasting your time.

From the first, I liked the topless DJ image and wanted to retain it but it definitely doesn't show a typical disc jockey situation. Its only benefit was to add to the breadth of experience that all the images showed en masse. Binksternet (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

A few things Binksternet: One, my first templates (and my most recent) are all pre-existing templates that were copied and then modestly modified. My essays were not done with full knowlege of policy, and some may even be redundent or off-policy. I don't remember most of the templates, I have a favorite page for that. I work on a shared computer and my brother has been working on Wikipedia for a lot longer than me. So don't say I deserve being wacked with trout instead of minnows. I never had ANYTHING to do with the penny article. Usercheck can't see the actual person on the other end. And as for your editing of my essay, in addition to the spelling changes you also changed the general tone of the essay. I agree with the spelling and have corrected it. However, an essay is not an article, and therefore does not need to be in an encyclopedic tone, as you made it. So in my opinion your edits were almost akin to vandalism. Topless DJing is a fringe phenomenon and your picture only takes up space that could be better used for a much needed picture of a radio jockey. Tensions are heating up here so I suggest we table (stop talking about) this issue and take a recess from it for the weekend. During this recess no one should change the picture or make a posting on the talk page here unless it's on a different issue. We should reopen this discussion on Monday September the 29, 2008. Hopefully by then we'll all have a clear head and some fresh thoughts. Sounds good? --Ipatrol (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not Binksternet's picture, it's mine. I took it, I edited its contrast, I uploaded it to Wikipedia, and I placed it in this article. Binksternet is just defending its use here. JIP | Talk 17:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, whoever's picture it is I've said I don't see it's necseeity. It's been gone for days now, what happened to it? Nor have I heard from binksternet. In the mean time look at my wikibreak suggestion above and tell me if you agree. --Ipatrol (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

My wiki activity is my concern. And thanks so much for helping me with the definition of "tabling". o_O Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been gone for days only because this discussion is still ongoing. I could always bring it back, and I have other pictures of both her and other topless DJs, but bringing them back would only prolong this discussion. I will wait until consensus is reached. JIP | Talk 19:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Binksternet, All I did was suggest we put this issue away for the weekend so we can all cool down about this. Do you agree? P.S. Tabling means the exact opposite in Britan --216.118.68.193 (User:Ipatrol)19:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop asking me to agree to something you've proposed or requested, Ipatrol. It won't be fruitful. Binksternet (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Then just say you don't agree. From what I see about your contributions, you haven't had a period of inactivity for a long time. Mabye you might want to take a vacation to the Caribbean to relax a little :). Anyways, if we can't agree on a consensus by the end of this week, I think I will have to ask the Mediation Committe to help us here as this has gone on long enough. --Ipatrol (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Half tongue-in-cheek, I've added another topless DJ photo to the article. It helps to expand and illustrate the broadcast DJ section and makes me smile because of the controversy the previous topless DJ photo caused and because I expect zero controversy on this one. Heh heh... Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Very funny binksternet, mabye you should look at WP:SARCASM on that. Anyways, your picture is helpful on illustrating radio DJs, but don't add content just to make a point. Yes, there will be no controversy, but only because people on above discussions have also asked for that picture. Moving right along, the issue has come to the point where we aren't arguing per-say, but we haven't declared a consensus either. I would like us all to fully formulate and declare our opinions so we can have a real dicussion again. My opininion currently is:

The article should be kept as-is at the time of this writing, with the topless female DJ picture ommitted and the "topless" male radio DJ kept. --Ipatrol (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is: The picture of the shirtless male DJ should be kept. The textual mention of topless female DJs, and the references, should be brought back. If the picture of a topless female DJ is brought back, it's all the better, but we can live without it. JIP | Talk 18:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)