"== Prevailing opinion == 

 The prevailing opinion seems to be to include the photograph of human feces (even if you remove the alleged voting irregularities.) However, those who opposed the image in the past are now placing  the image at the bottom of the page and reducing the size to a thumbnail. Two new issues arise: (1) SIZE of photo and (2) PLACEMENT of photo. NOTE: The following poll is NOT to debate inclusion of the photo. For that debate, SCROLL DOWN. If you do not believe the photo should be included on the page at all, DO NOT VOTE IN THIS POLL.    

 === VOTE HERE ON SIZE. The photo size should be:=== 

 ==== Normal size (200px) ==== 

 #   

 ==== Thumbnailed (100px) ==== 

 # Vote 

 === VOTE HERE ON PLACEMENT. The photo should be at or near the:=== 

 ==== Top ==== 

 #   

 ==== Bottom ==== 

 # Vote 

 == Archived Discussions == 

 This page is too big. I'd like to see the following archived:  
 * discussions on eating poop (non-controversial) 
 * discussions on whether or not people are sock puppets (should be at RFC) 
 * debate on blocking the page in the past (moot) 
 * debate on unblocking the page in the past (moot) 
 * stupid comments like ""put the poop in the freezer"" (vandalism) 
 I tried it once but I got a rude message from SlimVirgin. Does anybody else have an objection to this?   

 :Let the admins do it.    

 == Shall there be photos of feces?== 

 Why is there no picture of fresh feces? I understand there are problems with obtaining legal pictures on other Wikipedia pages but obtaining a picture of fresh feces is probably one of the easiest things. 

 :The old photo before was small, petrified, and not characteristic of human feces. I have added a new photo which is more representative of a typical stool.   

 :: Sigh... Is this really necessary? Is there any reason that you have taken a picture of your dung other than for shock value? I'm going to shrink this so it's a little less visually putrid.    

 :::This is an article on feces. There is no shock value when one looks up 'feces' and finds... gasp... feces. I have also included pigeon and rabbit feces.   

 :::: Sometimes you have to step back, take a look at yourself, and realize that you are arguing about posting a picture of a turd. Fine, have your turd. I'm off to better-smelling areas of Wikipedia.    

 INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE PROJECT. THE IMAGE APPEARS OUT OF CONTEXT AND WHILE FAIRLY AMMUSING TO REGULARS WILL NOT BE UNDERSTOOD BY ROOKIES WHO MAY MIS-INTERPRET IT.  

 :out of context? where might the proper context be?   

 I think the image is absolutely disgusting and doesn't deserve to be in the article. However, the caption for it could be incorporated into the article.    

 Human Feces Photo:  Is it necessary? 

 I've noticed there has been quite a bit of debate over whether there should be a picture of human feces on the this article, and I have a simple question:  is such a picture really necessary?    

 :No, it is not. Nothing in Wikipedia is really necessary. Least of all necessary is your question, which you could have avoided asking, if you had actually read the debate.   

 ::I figured I'd get the ""if you actually read the debate"" response.  I was, as you can clearly see, too lazy to read all of it.   

 :::Or any of it. Why are you here?   

 ::::He's here because it's a free encycloped