798:
777:
1168:
to me to start the discussion, when it is supposed to be the editor who is attempting to make a challenged edit. Namechecking a book in this way for the sole purpose of namechecking a book is pointless and is completely incidental to the article. It is not being used to source any information, nor is this article about the sisters where such a book may warrant a mention. Lots of people mentioned in
Knowledge articles have written books but we don't bother namechecking them unless i) the book is used to source content; ii) the article is about the author of the work; iii) the article specifically exists to list works according to some particular criteria. In this particular instance you added the content three times and on all three occasions your additions did not go beyond mentioning the existence of the book. If the book provides essential background information that is relevant to the article then a more appropriate course would be to create a "further reading" section, although if that is the case I always think it is better to incorporate the content into the article and use the book as a source.
1134:. The reason I removed the content—in this case the mention of the book—is because the addition has no information value whatsoever: it simply touts the name of a book. We often draw on the background of experts in Knowledge articles but it is not necessary to list all their published works. In this case the place of the J. Sisters salon in pioneering the Brazilian Wax is already covered and adequately sourced. Simply adding that one of the sister wrote a book about it adds nothing to the article. If the background to the involvement was extended and their book used a source then citing their book as a source would be acceptable, but simply namechecking a book that a person has written—which is incidental to the article i.e. not a biography, not a list of works—is simply promotional and adds nothing to the article.
1198:
substantive content, so would you care to explain how the edit in question constitutes an "improvement in quality"? In what way does
Fusheado's edits further educate us about the background of the procedure? The only way this article will actually improve is if editors add information and source it appropriately. If the book contains relevant background information about the procedure would you not agree that the best course of action for improving the article is to incorporate the relevant information from the book into the article and use the book as a source?
693:
672:
703:
1763:. There is NOT ONE IMAGE of male genitalia on that page. So please do tell me: if graphic images have informational value when it comes to personal grooming, why are there NONE - not a single one! - on the male page? Could it be because Knowledge editors are predominantly male and apparently can't get kicks for their pr***s elsewhere? It's a bit pathetic, frankly, and, more seriously, it potentially creates a toxic and off-putting environment for female readers of WKP.
1767:
When such imagery has no true encyclopedic value, it serves only to objectify the subject. That is potentially discomfiting, demeaning and toxic for female readers (I'm female and this page creeps me out), and in an open platform like WKP, accessible by anyone anywhere in the world, that IS a problem. Just because you CAN post graphic images of genitalia according to the rules, does not mean that you SHOULD. I'm actually a bit amazed that I'm having to explain this.
1154:. Those sources are from Vanity Fair, Marie Claire and the LA Times, which are all prominent mentions that are highly relevant to describing the spread and signficance of the Brazilian procedure. Of course these are relevant to the section of the article about Brazilian. You cannot simply dismiss an edit because it contains a reference to a book. I'm eager to hear your rationale other than "It's a book." (PS: You might want to copy-edit your talk messages) --
584:
563:
909:
305:
245:
870:
479:
458:
427:
215:
489:
384:
341:
1310:
delete them.) i look forward to your improvement of this article to GA. if you would care to come to wikimania, and scholarships are now open, we could discuss our different interpretations of collaboration there. when i say wiki-cred, i do not mean number of GAs or number of edits, but rather teaming with an exhibit about wikipedia at the
Computer History Museum.
280:
594:
1360:. blocking further work by others, or voting is a failure of the model, which requires a shared ethos to get things done. the ethos should be that you place the good of the project over your own opinion. that is sadly lacking in most wiki-discussions which are really battleground with a consensus patina.
1800:
article has far more images, and your objections have everything to do with censorship IMO because you are using words like "graphic" and "gratuitous" to justify removing the images. The simple question is this: are these images helpful to readers in understanding the content? I would argue that they
1382:
been done has been because it has tried to implement changes before any kind of discussion or consensus had been reached to include the work - and so has gone against policies and practices of
Knowledge. This is the very crux of consensus - a change was suggested, and opposed. Now the merits of the
1337:
I'm genuinely interested now to hear how you think consensus should be achieved, if not through methods described above. All snide remarks aside, I'd like to hear your intepretation of it - if you don't think this page is appropriate, please start a new thread either on my own talk page, or yours if
1256:
no, that is not the way it has always been, and that is not the process. this "i'm right, and you are wrong" is a new innovation in consensus discussion. you will have to forgive the old editors who remember the good old days, when they did it a different way. i'm not advising the editor to drop her
1167:
The guideline is BRD, not BRRD. Simply put, after I reverted you with a valid reason (which I provided in the edit summary) the onus was on you to come to the talk page and start a discussion, so you are not really in a position to take the moral high ground. Let's not overlook the fact that it fell
1795:
It's an article about bikini waxing, the nature of it, the methodology and the different styles. It is completely reasonable to include images. They do not seem to gratuitous to me: there is a single image to illustrate each style, a single image illustrating the technique, and an image in the lead
1766:
UPDATE: I noted, when removing the gratuitous images, the comments about WKP and censorship. This has NOTHING to do with censorship. It is about the impact that informationally unnecessary imagery has on the overall environment of
Knowledge, specifically for women (and those with female genitalia).
1390:
are. Everybody here knows that the project - and the good of it - is the reason we are here, yet you haven't clarified what you think is wrong with the process as outlined above. Simply saying that it's wrong (at least in your opinion) is no help if you don't qualify why you think it's wrong. In
1273:
I have successfully led articles through GA and FA reviews so I think my "wiki cred" is in good standing order, thankyou. Rather than discuss procedural technicalities the article (and this discussion) would be best served if the actual content were discussed. I will repeat my question: in what way
1755:
This page is seriously messed up. Why are there a billion images of female genitalia? (I think we all know the answer to that question.) They serve little to no informational purpose, with the exception of those in the style section. I'm going to remove all of the others, and suggest a discussion
1443:
claimed that
Fuzheado had more "wiki-cred" than her. GA submissions would seem to be a reasonable measure of Wiki-cred. In other respects, you're still refusing to acknowledge the simple fact that if a change is reverted is should be discussed before it is re-inserted. Again, this is a classic
1309:
i guess we have diametrically opposed views of what consensus is, and how to collaborate. i guess we have different views of what the meaning of RS is - when the NYTimes says something, it is a statement in a RS not "promotional". (i see people attacking sources as promotional, when they want to
1197:
The edit process is the same as it always is: be bold, and if someone challenges your edit then begin a discussion on the talk page and obtain a compromise with the editor or a consensus from other editors. Articles are also not improved by letting editors add whatever they want but rather adding
1182:
wow, i guess the new process is edit; revert; veto. why collaborate when you can revert all work that does not jump through all your hoops. i guess you need to wiki-splain the new process with the recalcitrant editor at ANI, warnings are not enough. no wonder that this article will not improve in
1239:
Basically, you're incorrect to advise Betty to drop her position, as her understanding of the process is clearly correct. Frankly, I think this is the first time an editor has been accused of being in the wrong due to their accurate understanding and implementation of policy. That's just plain
1212:
i see a lot of this - "i reverted you, now prove to me it is a good edit, or i will continue to revert." it is not my idea of consensus. it is a blocking / gatekeeper mentality that has crippled other wikis such as wikinews. i see that is how you "collaborate", but when you pull your "rule by
1149:
I'm disappointed you are bringing this up in bad faith and characterizing it as "warring" when it was *you* who have simply hit the revert button without any discussion. My followup edits have added more context and proof from references as to the notability and importance of the book and
1409:
as far as blocking goes, the ORES says article quality before edit war was: "B": 0.3539356364540658, "C": 0.2478673124742018, "FA": 0.3062362754302484, "GA": 0.07187254384245706, "Start": 0.018248921285020422, "Stub":
289:: If you find any images offensive on Knowledge or anywhere else on the internet, it is possible to configure your browser to not display them. Additionally, please refer to the notice above this one. For a detailed guide on how to block images on Knowledge, please see
797:
776:
1257:
position, i'm suggesting that dictation is not collaboration. this is not the first time this editor has been "accused of being in the wrong": this editor has been warned before. templating the regulars is bad form, but i do not expect you to understand.
1563:
Judging by your block record, Andy, I can appreciate why you must be tired of it. However, if we followed your facile logic an "abuse of BRD" would amount to reverting anybody who effectively chooses to reinstate their edit rather than discuss it.
1415:
quality now : "B": 0.3487591959880669, "C": 0.24618405292169807, "FA": 0.31445721099818774, "GA": 0.07068651749637979, "Start": 0.018097054934555868, "Stub": 0.0018159676611118366
1231:
is actually pretty close to how it works. If an edit is removed, then reinsertion can be considered disruptive if no discussion has been attempted. Justification for it to stay needs to be provided - and that happens by
1405:
my views happen to correspond to the reliable sources, and the article. the conduct on this page does not. when editors boast of their GAs, that is a sure sign of battleground; when you template regulars, that is not
153:
1292:
is on those seeking inclusion. Without an independent source demonstrating some encyclopedic reason for including it, I don't know how we can have any confidence that it doesn't violate NOT to include it.
1235:
Also, you're correct that this is not how consensus works, but that's because while a consensus is established - through discussion - the original version of an article stays in place - not the proposed
1010:
848:
1777:"Not all legally obtained photographs of individuals are acceptable. The following types of image are normally considered unacceptable: Those that unfairly demean or ridicule the subject"
1710:
I know
Knowledge is not censored, and I don't like censorship myself. But, can we just tone down the image part a bit? We can do that without losing the informational value, of course.
1446:"Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted."
1865:
759:
749:
1870:
1860:
206:
1130:. After twice removing it he has twice reverted. It is always disappointing to see an administrator engage in edit-warring rather than follow the guidelines outlined at
725:
147:
1885:
1011:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080213192038/http://www.islamonline.net:80/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1126012472670
311:
1652:
1648:
1634:
1062:
1058:
1044:
1274:
does simply adding that "someone wrote a book" improve our understanding of the topic? I have asked this question three times now and it is yet to be answered.
1880:
838:
1620:
716:
677:
1391:
the same vein - I don't see any voting, nor even any suggestion of it - apart from you that is. Can you clarify where you think voting has played a part?
1014:
361:. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them.
1875:
79:
1543:- Fuzheado's beaviour in a nutshell. Although as Fuzzy points out, as BRD is not a policy we can disregard it at will and yar boo sucks to you all.
1840:
1825:
545:
535:
1850:
1830:
814:
654:
644:
348:
1539:
If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version.
1835:
1383:
change are discussed - but it is clearly not the logical decision to keep those proposed changes in situ whilst their validity is considered.
85:
44:
1855:
1845:
887:
1521:
805:
782:
511:
1630:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
620:
404:
261:
to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to
1213:
process" on this editor, the dysfunction is crystal clear. you might want to drop it, he has a little more wiki-cred than you.
391:
364:
352:
251:
99:
30:
1378:
interpretation of consensus and BRD on
Knowledge. There has been no "blocking" of further work - or rather the blocking that
1503:: If your reversion is reverted, then there may be a good reason for it. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted."
400:
104:
20:
168:
1450:
I see no reason to continue this; I've learnt all I can from this topic - and it wasn't much. It could even be deleted as
1621:
https://web.archive.org/web/20121023074402/http://blogs.ajc.com/better-health/2009/03/19/a-ban-on-brazilian-bikini-waxing/
502:
463:
319:
266:
135:
74:
1614:
1015:
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1126012472670
1695:
1105:
942:
935:
930:
925:
607:
568:
438:
327:
262:
258:
202:
198:
194:
190:
1722:
We only need at most one image for each style. I have spaced out the images as well because the layout was atrocious.
975:
65:
214:
185:
1624:
1357:
1651:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1061:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
954:
225:
1436:
878:
412:
129:
426:
1686:
1598:
1548:
1517:
1459:
1396:
1343:
1245:
1096:
1002:
370:
109:
244:
1127:
708:
125:
1806:
1727:
1670:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1658:
1569:
1279:
1203:
1173:
1139:
1080:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1068:
444:
1597:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1227:
You probably see a lot of it because that's how
Knowledge works - as Betty explained. Your summary of
1001:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1802:
1723:
1565:
1275:
1199:
1169:
1135:
407:. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about
1035:
175:
702:
692:
671:
1497:
I get tired of people abusing BRD as Betty does here. That page includes (emboldening in original:
323:
161:
55:
813:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
724:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
619:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
510:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1785:
1608:
1544:
1508:
1488:
1455:
1392:
1353:
1339:
1241:
1159:
960:
315:
230:
70:
1655:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1065:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1671:
1081:
1737:
1711:
1426:
1365:
1315:
1262:
1218:
1188:
358:
51:
956:
908:
227:
1678:
1417:
1411:
1088:
141:
1451:
721:
290:
1637:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1298:
1289:
1047:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
494:
330:
exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
1677:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1615:
http://www.essortment.com/different-types-bikini-wax-application-techniques-59434.html
1288:
I agree with the removal, and that the information is tangential and promotional. The
1087:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
583:
562:
1819:
1781:
1590:
1484:
1476:
1155:
1151:
1131:
1120:
994:
599:
408:
396:
24:
1759:
If you think I'm overthinking this, look at the equivalent page for male grooming:
1454:
as it clearly has no relevance to the article itself, nor would I care if it was.
1422:
1361:
1311:
1258:
1214:
1184:
810:
1535:
nor do you consider it poor form that the page includes (emboldening in original:
1229:"i reverted you, now prove to me it is a good edit, or i will continue to revert"
1771:
1644:
1054:
1625:
http://blogs.ajc.com/better-health/2009/03/19/a-ban-on-brazilian-bikini-waxing/
478:
457:
1643:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1053:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
869:
698:
589:
484:
1797:
1294:
1530:
And yet you don't think it abuse when Fuzheado does exactly the same thing,
373:
when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
1421:
keeping in mind a good student can raise by one level in an hour or two.
958:
616:
229:
1770:
UPDATE #2: Please see this stipulation in Knowledge's Image Use Policy (
1483:
So to quote it as if it was canon or mandatory behavior is off base. --
507:
1810:
1789:
1742:
1731:
1716:
1700:
1573:
1552:
1525:
1491:
1463:
1430:
1400:
1369:
1347:
1319:
1302:
1283:
1266:
1249:
1222:
1207:
1192:
1177:
1162:
1143:
1110:
279:
612:
1501:
If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle
1479:
is an "explanatory supplement," and the page clearly states that,
1356:- there are many books on the subject, but you could start here
304:
1751:
ETHICAL REVIEW REQUIRED: Gratuitous images of female genitalia
1444:
example of "I didn't hear that", or as the section explains:
961:
902:
864:
420:
378:
335:
299:
274:
239:
231:
15:
1760:
1020:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
1601:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1005:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
322:. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If
1541:
If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD."
1594:
1533:
1531:
1123:
998:
1481:"It is not one of Knowledge's policies or guidelines."
160:
1386:
Pointing me to an article does not explain what your
1475:
Perhaps this is a good time to remind everyone that
1388:"views of what consensus is, and how to collaborate"
809:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
720:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
611:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
506:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1772:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy
1647:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1057:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1756:here about which, if any, should be put back in.
1439:. Betty responded about her GA submissions when
265:regarding potentially objectionable content and
257:Images or details contained within this article
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1866:Mid-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
1633:This message was posted before February 2018.
1043:This message was posted before February 2018.
969:This page has archives. Sections older than
318:while commenting or presenting evidence, and
174:
8:
734:Knowledge:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality
1871:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
1861:Start-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
737:Template:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality
424:
1589:I have just modified one external link on
993:I have just modified one external link on
771:
666:
557:
452:
259:may be graphic or otherwise objectionable
1780:Let's clean this up and grow up, fellas.
1886:Knowledge pages referenced by the press
1796:to convey the content the article. The
773:
668:
559:
454:
1536:
1498:
979:when more than 4 sections are present.
1032:to let others know (documentation at
7:
1881:Low-importance Anthropology articles
1761:https://en.wikipedia.org/Male_waxing
803:This article is within the scope of
714:This article is within the scope of
605:This article is within the scope of
500:This article is within the scope of
443:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
823:Knowledge:WikiProject Anthropology
717:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality
14:
1876:Start-Class Anthropology articles
1593:. Please take a moment to review
997:. Please take a moment to review
973:may be automatically archived by
888:"50 things not to do this summer"
879:mentioned by a media organization
826:Template:WikiProject Anthropology
1435:Right, I see the problem. It's
907:
868:
796:
775:
701:
691:
670:
592:
582:
561:
487:
477:
456:
425:
382:
339:
303:
278:
243:
213:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
1841:Mid-importance fashion articles
1826:Knowledge objectionable content
843:This article has been rated as
754:This article has been rated as
740:Sexology and sexuality articles
649:This article has been rated as
540:This article has been rated as
363:Content must be written from a
347:The subject of this article is
267:options for not seeing an image
1851:Mid-importance nudity articles
1831:Knowledge controversial topics
263:Knowledge's content disclaimer
1:
1811:18:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
1790:16:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
890:. The Observer. July 9, 2006.
817:and see a list of open tasks.
728:and see a list of open tasks.
623:and see a list of open tasks.
520:Knowledge:WikiProject Fashion
514:and see a list of open tasks.
395:for general discussion about
42:Put new text under old text.
1836:Start-Class fashion articles
1743:14:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
1732:17:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
1717:03:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
1574:01:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
1553:15:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
1526:14:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
1492:18:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
1464:19:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
1431:18:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
1401:20:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
1370:19:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
1348:21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
1320:19:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
1303:21:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
1284:21:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
1267:19:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
1250:19:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
1223:18:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
1208:22:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
1193:17:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
1126:which I believe contravenes
1111:05:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
629:Knowledge:WikiProject Nudity
523:Template:WikiProject Fashion
320:do not make personal attacks
1856:WikiProject Nudity articles
1846:Start-Class nudity articles
1706:A little toned down may be?
1178:23:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
1163:22:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
1144:22:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
632:Template:WikiProject Nudity
357:When updating the article,
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
1902:
1664:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1586:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1074:(last update: 5 June 2024)
990:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
760:project's importance scale
655:project's importance scale
546:project's importance scale
1701:03:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
1358:Consensus decision-making
842:
791:
753:
686:
648:
577:
539:
472:
451:
359:be bold, but not reckless
252:Knowledge is not censored
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
1116:Edit-warring by Fuzheado
806:WikiProject Anthropology
1582:External links modified
986:External links modified
1410:0.0018393105140065643
1338:you prefer. Cheers.
976:Lowercase sigmabot III
877:This article has been
731:Sexology and sexuality
709:Human sexuality portal
678:Sexology and sexuality
433:This article is rated
351:and content may be in
75:avoid personal attacks
829:Anthropology articles
365:neutral point of view
207:Auto-archiving period
100:Neutral point of view
1645:regular verification
1055:regular verification
399:. Any such comments
105:No original research
1635:After February 2018
1045:After February 2018
1024:parameter below to
503:WikiProject Fashion
1689:InternetArchiveBot
1640:InternetArchiveBot
1354:user:Chaheel Riens
1099:InternetArchiveBot
1050:InternetArchiveBot
608:WikiProject Nudity
439:content assessment
394:
86:dispute resolution
47:
1665:
1437:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
1075:
983:
982:
948:
947:
899:
898:
863:
862:
859:
858:
855:
854:
770:
769:
766:
765:
665:
664:
661:
660:
556:
555:
552:
551:
419:
418:
390:
377:
376:
334:
333:
298:
297:
273:
272:
238:
237:
66:Assume good faith
43:
1893:
1740:
1714:
1699:
1690:
1663:
1662:
1641:
1612:
1524:
1515:
1511:
1374:No, I asked for
1109:
1100:
1073:
1072:
1051:
1039:
978:
962:
922:
921:
911:
903:
891:
872:
865:
849:importance scale
831:
830:
827:
824:
821:
800:
793:
792:
787:
779:
772:
742:
741:
738:
735:
732:
711:
706:
705:
695:
688:
687:
682:
674:
667:
637:
636:
633:
630:
627:
602:
597:
596:
595:
586:
579:
578:
573:
565:
558:
528:
527:
526:fashion articles
524:
521:
518:
497:
492:
491:
490:
481:
474:
473:
468:
460:
453:
436:
430:
429:
421:
386:
385:
379:
343:
342:
336:
326:is not reached,
307:
306:
300:
287:Important notice
282:
275:
247:
240:
232:
218:
217:
208:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
1901:
1900:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1892:
1891:
1890:
1816:
1815:
1753:
1738:
1712:
1708:
1693:
1688:
1656:
1649:have permission
1639:
1606:
1599:this simple FaQ
1584:
1513:
1507:
1506:
1128:WP:NOTPROMOTION
1118:
1103:
1098:
1066:
1059:have permission
1049:
1033:
1003:this simple FaQ
988:
974:
963:
957:
916:
895:
894:
886:
882:
828:
825:
822:
819:
818:
785:
739:
736:
733:
730:
729:
722:human sexuality
707:
700:
680:
635:nudity articles
634:
631:
628:
625:
624:
598:
593:
591:
571:
525:
522:
519:
516:
515:
493:
488:
486:
466:
437:on Knowledge's
434:
383:
340:
328:other solutions
294:
234:
233:
228:
205:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1899:
1897:
1889:
1888:
1883:
1878:
1873:
1868:
1863:
1858:
1853:
1848:
1843:
1838:
1833:
1828:
1818:
1817:
1814:
1813:
1752:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1707:
1704:
1683:
1682:
1675:
1628:
1627:
1619:Added archive
1617:
1583:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1448:
1419:
1413:
1407:
1406:collaboration.
1384:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1237:
1233:
1117:
1114:
1093:
1092:
1085:
1018:
1017:
1009:Added archive
987:
984:
981:
980:
968:
965:
964:
959:
955:
953:
950:
949:
946:
945:
939:
938:
933:
928:
918:
917:
912:
906:
897:
896:
893:
892:
883:
876:
875:
873:
861:
860:
857:
856:
853:
852:
845:Low-importance
841:
835:
834:
832:
815:the discussion
801:
789:
788:
786:Low‑importance
780:
768:
767:
764:
763:
756:Mid-importance
752:
746:
745:
743:
726:the discussion
713:
712:
696:
684:
683:
681:Mid‑importance
675:
663:
662:
659:
658:
651:Mid-importance
647:
641:
640:
638:
621:the discussion
604:
603:
587:
575:
574:
572:Mid‑importance
566:
554:
553:
550:
549:
542:Mid-importance
538:
532:
531:
529:
512:the discussion
499:
498:
495:Fashion portal
482:
470:
469:
467:Mid‑importance
461:
449:
448:
442:
431:
417:
416:
413:Reference desk
401:may be removed
387:
375:
374:
344:
332:
331:
308:
296:
295:
285:
283:
271:
270:
256:
248:
236:
235:
226:
224:
223:
220:
219:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1898:
1887:
1884:
1882:
1879:
1877:
1874:
1872:
1869:
1867:
1864:
1862:
1859:
1857:
1854:
1852:
1849:
1847:
1844:
1842:
1839:
1837:
1834:
1832:
1829:
1827:
1824:
1823:
1821:
1812:
1808:
1804:
1799:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1778:
1775:
1773:
1768:
1764:
1762:
1757:
1750:
1744:
1741:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1729:
1725:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1715:
1705:
1703:
1702:
1697:
1692:
1691:
1680:
1676:
1673:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1660:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1636:
1631:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1616:
1610:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1591:Bikini waxing
1587:
1581:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1545:Chaheel Riens
1542:
1540:
1534:
1532:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1514:Pigsonthewing
1510:
1504:
1502:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1456:Chaheel Riens
1453:
1449:
1447:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1418:
1414:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1393:Chaheel Riens
1389:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1340:Chaheel Riens
1321:
1317:
1313:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1291:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1242:Chaheel Riens
1238:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1152:Janea Padilha
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1124:added content
1122:
1115:
1113:
1112:
1107:
1102:
1101:
1090:
1086:
1083:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1070:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1046:
1041:
1037:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1004:
1000:
996:
995:Bikini waxing
991:
985:
977:
972:
967:
966:
952:
951:
944:
941:
940:
937:
934:
932:
929:
927:
924:
923:
920:
919:
915:
910:
905:
904:
901:
889:
885:
884:
880:
874:
871:
867:
866:
850:
846:
840:
837:
836:
833:
816:
812:
808:
807:
802:
799:
795:
794:
790:
784:
781:
778:
774:
761:
757:
751:
748:
747:
744:
727:
723:
719:
718:
710:
704:
699:
697:
694:
690:
689:
685:
679:
676:
673:
669:
656:
652:
646:
643:
642:
639:
622:
618:
614:
610:
609:
601:
600:Nudity portal
590:
588:
585:
581:
580:
576:
570:
567:
564:
560:
547:
543:
537:
534:
533:
530:
513:
509:
505:
504:
496:
485:
483:
480:
476:
475:
471:
465:
462:
459:
455:
450:
446:
440:
432:
428:
423:
422:
414:
410:
409:Bikini waxing
406:
402:
398:
397:Bikini waxing
393:
389:This page is
388:
381:
380:
372:
368:
366:
360:
356:
354:
350:
349:controversial
345:
338:
337:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
302:
301:
292:
288:
284:
281:
277:
276:
268:
264:
260:
254:
253:
249:
246:
242:
241:
222:
221:
216:
212:
204:
200:
196:
192:
189:
187:
183:
182:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
25:Bikini waxing
22:
18:
17:
1779:
1776:
1769:
1765:
1758:
1754:
1709:
1687:
1684:
1659:source check
1638:
1632:
1629:
1588:
1585:
1538:
1522:Andy's edits
1518:Talk to Andy
1509:Andy Mabbett
1500:
1480:
1474:
1445:
1440:
1387:
1379:
1375:
1336:
1228:
1119:
1097:
1094:
1069:source check
1048:
1042:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1019:
992:
989:
970:
913:
900:
844:
820:Anthropology
811:Anthropology
804:
783:Anthropology
755:
715:
650:
606:
541:
501:
445:WikiProjects
362:
346:
310:Please stay
286:
250:
210:
184:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
1803:Betty Logan
1724:Betty Logan
1566:Betty Logan
1276:Betty Logan
1232:discussion.
1200:Betty Logan
1170:Betty Logan
1136:Betty Logan
1036:Sourcecheck
435:Start-class
392:not a forum
148:free images
31:not a forum
1820:Categories
1696:Report bug
1106:Report bug
405:refactored
1798:Hairstyle
1679:this tool
1672:this tool
1609:dead link
1183:quality.
1089:this tool
1082:this tool
943:Archive 4
936:Archive 3
931:Archive 2
926:Archive 1
371:citations
324:consensus
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1782:Zedembee
1736:Thanks.
1685:Cheers.—
1485:Fuzheado
1452:WP:FORUM
1240:weird.
1156:Fuzheado
1121:Fuzheado
1095:Cheers.—
971:365 days
914:Archives
617:naturism
369:Include
211:365Â days
186:Archives
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1613:tag to
1595:my edit
1423:Beatley
1362:Beatley
1312:Beatley
1259:Beatley
1236:change.
1215:Beatley
1185:Beatley
1022:checked
999:my edit
847:on the
758:on the
653:on the
544:on the
517:Fashion
508:Fashion
464:Fashion
411:at the
353:dispute
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
1739:Aditya
1713:Aditya
1605:Added
1477:WP:BRD
1132:WP:BRD
1030:failed
626:Nudity
613:nudity
569:Nudity
441:scale.
126:Google
1801:are.
316:civil
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
1807:talk
1786:talk
1728:talk
1570:talk
1549:talk
1489:Talk
1460:talk
1427:talk
1397:talk
1376:your
1366:talk
1344:talk
1316:talk
1299:talk
1295:Ronz
1290:onus
1280:talk
1263:talk
1246:talk
1219:talk
1204:talk
1189:talk
1174:talk
1160:Talk
1140:talk
1026:true
615:and
314:and
312:calm
291:here
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
1774:):
1653:RfC
1623:to
1516:);
1441:you
1380:has
1063:RfC
1040:).
1028:or
1013:to
839:Low
750:Mid
645:Mid
536:Mid
403:or
176:TWL
1822::
1809:)
1788:)
1730:)
1666:.
1661:}}
1657:{{
1611:}}
1607:{{
1572:)
1551:)
1520:;
1505:.
1487:|
1462:)
1429:)
1399:)
1368:)
1346:)
1318:)
1301:)
1293:--
1282:)
1265:)
1248:)
1221:)
1206:)
1191:)
1176:)
1158:|
1142:)
1076:.
1071:}}
1067:{{
1038:}}
1034:{{
209::
201:,
197:,
193:,
156:)
54:;
1805:(
1784:(
1726:(
1698:)
1694:(
1681:.
1674:.
1568:(
1547:(
1537:"
1512:(
1499:"
1458:(
1425:(
1395:(
1364:(
1342:(
1314:(
1297:(
1278:(
1261:(
1244:(
1217:(
1202:(
1187:(
1172:(
1138:(
1108:)
1104:(
1091:.
1084:.
881::
851:.
762:.
657:.
548:.
447::
415:.
367:.
355:.
293:.
269:.
255:.
203:4
199:3
195:2
191:1
188::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
