Re: New Category for Wallpapers



I think a distribution category would be a good idea.

James

Thomas Wood wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
artweb-list mailing list
artweb-list gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/artweb-list





[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]