Re: New Category for Wallpapers

[Thomas Wood <thos gnome org>]

My main reasons for not including "adult" content on art.gnome.org was 
that we have had complaints before about it so no longer accept this 
type of material. I don't want to include any material on art.gnome.org 
that might offend any users, which "adult" material can do.

On the subject of new categories though, I would like suggestions on the 
following categories:

GNOME, Nature, Abstract, Other?

I think GNOME, Nature and Abstract should cover most of the current 
backgrounds. Should we also make a category for distribution wallpapers? 
We still get quite a few of these, although the submission policy says 
we don't accept them.

-Thomas


Marius M. M. wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I was just discussing with thos my idea of a new Category for wallpapers
> on art.gnome.org. First, here the log:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <thos> I want to add some more background categories
> <devilx> maybe a password protected adult category.
> <thos> er no
> <devilx> :( it was worth a try
> <thos> well, it would be pretty hard to password protect a sectino of
> the ftp
> <thos> but why onearth should there be adult content on art.gnome.org
> anyway?
> <devilx> I don't mean "porn" with adult. Just.. do you remember the
> Login Screen i've submitted, thos?
> ...
> <devilx> thos, I mean, I'm sure nobody will hate art.gnome.org if it
> provides some nice ladies in bikinis licking the gnome-logo or stuff
> like that.
> <devilx> you don't even need to write a login. Just a warning-page,
> explicit content.
> <thos> devilx, well there were complaints last time...
> <devilx> sry, but who complains about a wallpaper with a nice lady? (not
> porny, it should be just esthetically nice)
> <thos> er, other women do
> <devilx> thos, they can also add nice guys, if they want. So what's the
> problem.
> <thos> devilx, it's just appropriate
> <thos> er
> <thos> not appropriate
> <thos> would you ever see that sort of content on the official windows
> site?
> <tirpse> on msd - yes
> <tirpse> i mena this multimedia - entertaimant page from MS, i cant
> remember how it was called
> <tirpse> ah
> <tirpse> www.msn.com
> <devilx> thos, no, because everyone at microsoft has at least one stick
> in his ass.
> <devilx> thos, and I don't expect to see that kind of content on
> www.gnome.org
> <devilx> thos, I just would like to see it on art.gnome.org
> <devilx> and the point is: Who does not accept on the
> "explicit-content"-page, won't see the pictures. Who accepts and
> complains, is just dumb. Because why do I accept the terms to view stuff
> I don't like?
> <devilx> thos, even picasso and all other artists have drawn pictures of
> females, because it is art. Why do you want to censor art?
> <devilx> look at this:
> http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=25357
> ...
> <devilx> personally I don't like the wallpaper, and I don't like her.
> But they rated the paper 55%. So, it doesn't seem to be that bad.
> ...
> <thos> devilx, perhaps you should ask other people on the list to get
> their opinion
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So, now I'm asking you. What do you think about this?
> Thanks.
>
> Bye
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> artweb-list mailing list
> artweb-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/artweb-list
>