725:
which is why when we go to the page dedicated to the Tate murders (perpetrated by the Manson Family) we do not see the crime scene photos in which the pregnant Sharon Tate lies naked, bloodied, and stabbed. If
Knowledge's aim was as simple as the revelation of the explicit truth of all things encyclopedic, why let public preference stand in the way at all? Can you universalize your own maxim? My guess is that you yourself have a line which you do not want Knowledge to cross. I do appreciate your use of the word "object" as an attempt to suggest that an object in and of itself is never offensive, but I must disagree with the objectivity of such a statement. When it comes to "offensive material", all that you or I (or anyone) can bring to the discussion is our preferences. Offensiveness is a construct, and no objective reality can be realized, regardless of how much you wish to add the weight of objectivity (science!) to your opinion. It is still just an opinion, or preference - in this case, a lack of offense on your (and also my) part as regards the lead image. You also rather crudely decided to conflate offense with squeamishness (perhaps to utilize your snake trivia - which, I grant you, was an interesting figure). The latter is akin to walking in upon your naked grandmother, whereas the former is akin to being flashed at Target. Oftentimes, offensive material is regarded as such based primarily on where and how it is encountered (e.g., non-requested nudity in public vs. late-night pornographic internet quests). What is at issue here is the public's expectation of this resource, and the fact that the users arguing for the lead image's presence do not seem to appreciate their own cultural biases behind their feelings of non-offense, preferring instead to claim for themselves a scientific point of view that is culturally immune, and casting upon the image's dissenters a stigma of social repression (i.e., lacking wisdom, enlightenment, sensibility). The philosophical missteps here are what I find offensive.
977:
it can be broken down into many different articles. I would have liked to see a little more detail all on the same page making it easier to connect all the information. Most of the facts in this article are referenced and from the looks of each they seem reliable. There are 43 total references showing a good variety and making sure not all information came from the same source. Some facts even have more than one reference listed. There are still some facts without references so going through and finding ways to back up the information is one suggestion I can give. The section on development just has a link to the main article of Human
Development. It would be nice if it at least briefly talked about this topic on this page. I believe the development of the human body from fetus to grown adult is very important regarding this topic. The topic on Health and Disease distracted me a little bit. Yes, human bodies do acquire diseases but this section seemed too vague. It tells us about risk factors and cancer, but it doesn’t relate those to how they affect the human body. Meghangrossmann (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
497:(not active editors)". When approaching a subject that carries with it a clear risk of being offensive to a good deal of readers, it makes sense to be as encyclopedic about the subject as possible while keeping potential offensiveness to a minimum. As concerns this article, there is nothing about the photograph which cannot be communicated by a non-photographic depiction. Indeed, the latter accomplishes just as much and with less potential for offending readers. It seems instead that the users herein are arguing that the photograph is not offensive because they do not find it offensive, or that the photograph is not offensive because it is not inherently offensive (an impossible statement). If either of these approaches were tenable, then what maxim prevents a user from uploading images of blow-jobs and coprophilia to their respective article pages? Or is it sexuality which exists as your line of offense? As if such could even be divorced in its entirety from any notion of "human" or the portrayals thereof.
571:
objective manner, divorced from subjective, popular opinion, is (thus far) not possible. Indeed, the quote I included from
Knowledge's policy on offensive images states just that - that offensiveness should be determined by the majority of the readers using this encyclopedia. And this, in the end, is the only reason why you and I do not find sexually explicit images acceptable herein; the majority of the public (and Knowledge readership) finds them obscene. I do not, personally, find the human body obscene, but I wonder if the defense to keep this image up has more to do with users trying to push their personal acceptance of human (strangers') nakedness on those who are bothered by it, which I find problematic for assessing what is best for Knowledge. "Lead images should be selected to be of least shock value; if an alternative image exists that still is an accurate representation of the topic but without shock value, it should
274:. There is nothing inherently offensive about the human body, and other articles on the anatomy of specific organisms also lead with 'naked' photos of their respective animals. If you've never seen a naked person before and it offends some personal sensibility of yours, you should not expect something objective like an encyclopaedia to cater to your irrational aversion. As for the chosen images being 'non-representative', you could say that about literally any models that could replace them. But our biodiversity as a species is quite low compared to other animals that have achieved a similarly vast distribution, so any two anatomically normal/healthy humans will provide a sufficient representation of the species as a whole.
941:
Besides, I believe that the paragraphs of article are very well related to the topic of human body and I liked it especially, the paragraphs of the society and culture of human body. It is because it was about the history of human body cultures with the necessary sources were used. Nevertheless, I would like to suggest several things to improve on the article. Firstly, I think it would be better if the composition paragraph in the article move to another topic that relates with the topic of science. Also, some of the citations in this paragraph are unnecessary, for instance it cited a word of 'water' which everyone would know what it means. Lastly, the lengths of each paragraph are not equally divided with important key words.
1157:
921:
body also plays the role of host to trillions of cells which reside in the gastrointestinal tract and on the skin” needs a citation and also is out of context given. The next statement reads “Not all body parts are made of cells” but then does not give examples and jumps to the next sentence, which is confusing because stated in the first paragraph or the page, the author said the body was compromised of cells. There are also sections dedicated to the history of physiology and the history of anatomy but these seem a unrelated to the human body topic.
610:
out to be. They get the point across well enough, with examples. If they were useless, we wouldn't still defer to them. As for the rest of what you stated, I see no need to respond since I already addressed matters above. For example, I already made it crystal clear that, per WP:Offensive material, I commonly opt for the least offensive image and would not mind at all if the previous diagram was used. I stated there was no need to change the lead image back to the disputed one.
576:
prohibiting such reflect a majority preference. Now, if you want to get into false consciousness and theories that this is all just socioreligious brainwashing keeping us from the majesty and paradise of a full and explicit humanism, then that's a topic for another day. My position holds - the image should be replaced, but I have no intention of doing so myself, only to bring up a point you folks seem to be overlooking.
1249:
1108:
1001:
840:
1049:
335:
should be careful to select appropriate images. But at least one photograph of the naked human body, in a non-sexual way, is appropriate for this article. And some educational diagrams of the human body consist of realistic-looking artwork of the genitalia anyway; so they wouldn't necessarily be less offensive.
527:
is about something the readers wouldn't expect. They would not expect sexual images in this article, and they shouldn't expect them. They don't belong in this article. A picture of a naked human body being shown in the way the two people are shown in the disputed image is not sexual unless the reader
393:
You would need a close-up to see the male member. Indeed the dimensions are not there. Definitely not representative of the whole species. Nevertheless a good picture for the article. Strange to see nudity offend people looking for human anatomy. But then again, everything offends somebody somewhere.
976:
This article has a lot of basic information about the human body. If you wanted to go in more detail you would have to click on the links provided within the article to get more explanation of each part of the human body. The human body is a very detailed and complicated thing so it makes sense that
960:
I think you have analysed the article well. As you can imagine it's difficult to cover a topic as rich and complex as the human body which has so many different aspects (historical, artistic, scientific) in adequate detail without being too excessive. I couldn't however find this instance of "water"
724:
You receive the level of seriousness that you bring to the conversation. You chose to overlook the policies I cited - principally, that
Knowledge's readership (which happens to be the public) ultimately determines the definition of "offensive material" - such is already in play all across this site,
334:
and the WP:Offensive material guideline. But showing what human anatomy actually looks like is very important. This doesn't mean that we need to have a bunch of photographs of naked people in the article; after all, educational diagrams of the human body are common. And per WP:Offensive material, we
609:
are shown in anatomy books and this is an anatomy article. Both types of visuals (the naked photograph type and diagrams) are shown in anatomy books and doctors offices. And the
Knowledge policy WP:NOTCENSORED and the Knowledge guideline WP:Offensive material are not as vague as you are making them
575:
be preferred" . Also, as a quick and easy means of gauging the public (and your typical Wiki reader) on this topic, consider the simple fact that, worldwide, full nudity in public is illegal. Yes, I know that
Knowledge is "not censored" (or at least so goes the chant/mantra), but the real-life laws
492:
I think everyone here can agree that "offensive material" is an utterly subjective term; that statements such as, "There is nothing inherently offensive about the human body" are horrifically (from a logical and philosophical point of view) amateur and untenable from the moment they are conceived;
1139:
Change "The human body is the entire structure of a human being" to "The human body is the entire PHYSICAL structure of a human being." The former seems to assert a purely materialist interpretation of what makes up the entire human being whereas the latter is a much more broad definition that is
920:
Under the composition headline, it includes how many liters of blood a male body contains, but does not state how much a female body contains. If you’re going to include the male body average, you must include the female body average to keep the article well rounded. Some statements such as: “The
570:
Why should link-clickers expect a photograph of naked individuals as opposed to a diagram and textual information pertaining to the human body? The guidelines you and I are both referencing are vague - and for a good reason (which may be intentional or not): defining "offensive material" in an
940:
To be related to our week 3 assignment topic, I have chosen the article of ‘human body’ because I was interested in the visual culture of human body. Then, I focused on the human body more deeply. Generally, the article is covered by reliable sources and neutral sources with proper citations.
528:
makes it sexual. And yet I still stated, "This doesn't mean that we need to have a bunch of photographs of naked people in the article; after all, educational diagrams of the human body are common. And per WP:Offensive material, we should be careful to select appropriate images."
661:
Why would a page about an object not include an unobstructed, clear photograph of said object? The squeamishness of the general populace? 51% of
Americans fear snakes (according to a Gallup poll), should we remove all the photographs from the snake pages?
800:
Right. I have re-reverted to the edited article. Am happy to discuss any aspect. If the issue is about the use of a source then we wlll remove that source but please don't hold the entire article hostage without a good reason. This is not the wiki way.
195:
I don't see how a picture of two human bodies (one male and one female) is "unnecessary" on an article about the human body. And it makes more sense if the bodies are naked: clothes don't have anything to do with the article topic or any content in it.
770:
was a lot more visually appealing and removed duplication. If we were going to keep the previous large image (which will be difficult to display on mobile devices) we should perhaps put it either in a gallery or move it to another relevant article.
329:
were a sexual image, I'd be against it in this article. If it were a sexual image in a sexual article, I'd suggest a less offensive alternative (meaning an image that is not a real-life image), such as a drawing or a painting (if available), per
1275:
until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
1140:
capable of accommodating disputes about the human person that happens in disciplines like philosophy or theology. Nothing wrong with having a materialist interpretation per se, just want to make sure the page is being as neutral as possible.
870:
I just removed an illustration that, among other major shortcomings, did not state the units used. I then saw that this is true of the statement about water, too. Can we determine which it is - weight, volume or molarity? Cheers,
823:, but it comes down to the fact that we have a large amount of editors on anatomy articles that add facts sourced to very poor sources. About.com is pretty much one of the worst possible sources available and often engages in
63:
98:
355:
Furthermore, the image in question is small; it is far from a closeup look of the genitalia. The dimensions are not there. For a closeup look of such anatomy on
Knowledge, readers would need to go to the
241::-). If the idea is to illustrate humans as biological beings, more naturally looking people might be better; while if you take dominating culture features into account, they actually ought to be clad.
1226:
section says, "The adult male body is about 60% water for a total water content of some 42 litres." However, it doesn't say what the percentage and number of litres are for the adult female body. --
493:
and that the basis for any decisions regarding potentially offensive material should defer to
Knowledge policy - specifically, that offensiveness should be gauged by the "majority of the website
1279:
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page.
833:
Also I happen to like the figures that signify the systems, because they give a broader idea of which parts of the body are involved in each system, so I feel they should be kept.
830:
I've been a little strapped for time lately and couldn't look through all the edits immediately, but I have no reason to believe that you can't take part in developing this page.
786:
In fact I just want to reiterate how frustrating and disheartening this is. Why has the entire article been reverted? Edit summary seems to suggest only the image was at issue --
256:
Why not show outline charts of the human body instead of actual naked humans? It may not be good for younger readers of the article. Charts would serve the purpose quite well.
1272:
605:"Why should link-clickers expect a photograph of naked individuals as opposed to a diagram and textual information pertaining to the human body?" Um, because pictures like
99:
http://intranet.tdmu.edu.ua/data/kafedra/internal/normal_phiz/classes_stud/en/med/lik/2%20course/2%20Cycle%20Physiology%20of%20blood/01%20Physiology%20of%20red%20blood.htm
124:(which is between cells). Please feel free to improve the article by adding these sources (and more while you're at it!). Lastly, the final source is probably not as
763:
How can we improve the article if we are essentially reverting to the previous status quo? Please at least leave a talk message here so we can discuss this change.
376:
articles. And, yes, the buttocks aspects are clearly visible in the photograph, but people usually don't make such a big deal about butt imagery these days.
1171:
is ever used to indicate both the physical and possible psychic or spiritual components. Body is only ever used to indicate the physical in most usages.
1261:
635:
524:
1164:
1088:
289:
257:
56:"The average adult body contains between 5 and 5½ litres of blood and approximately 10 litres of interstitial fluid." (first under heading
401:
222:
583:
504:
732:
684:
639:
548:
That restoration was completely unnecessary and now we have this image used twice in the article. If it wasn't clear, I agree with
519:
As seen above, I went by the
Knowledge policy WP:NOTCENSORED and the Knowledge guideline WP:Offensive material. Go ahead and read
1207:
331:
1178:
827:. What concerned me is that the distribution was cited to CNX previously — which you removed and then replace with about.com.
237:
Yes. To begin with, they are so extremely clean-shaven in different parts, that you would almost suspect them of being US
40:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
163:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1063:
520:
322:
238:
1145:
523:
and what it states about images of a naked body in an article such as this; it is something readers should expect.
200:- not liking pictures of naked bodies or potentially objectionable material is not a reason to remove the picture.
1265:
1084:
982:
1230:
647:
615:
557:
533:
456:
435:
293:
261:
226:
1167:
that support the change you want to be made. Specifically, any sources that support the idea that the human
1114:
1055:
1007:
405:
1141:
1080:
853:
587:
508:
30:
info shown by sources pertaining to sentence : "... body contains between 5 and 5½ litres of blood ... "
1281:
946:
736:
688:
279:
1256:
1240:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1076:
978:
728:
680:
579:
500:
397:
218:
106:
1227:
1175:
643:
611:
606:
553:
529:
477:, where I added similar images with different skin colour. I think that is of educational interest.
468:
452:
431:
326:
182:
147:
86:
of blood (Atlas of Microscopic Anatomy: A Functional Approach ... - Page 70 - Ronald Arly Bergman)
1033:
966:
926:
890:
824:
820:
806:
791:
776:
767:
271:
246:
133:
121:
1037:
760:
I have always enjoyed working with you, but this sort of reversion is not productive at all.
482:
381:
340:
79:
of blood. (Human Anatomy and Physiology Laboratory Manual - Page 266 - Elaine Nicpon Marieb)
957:
942:
908:
275:
205:
197:
427:
125:
102:
17:
702:
Well, that answers how seriously we should take your position then. Discussion closed.
116:
These would support between 5 and 5 1/2 litres. Also note there is a difference between
1172:
850:
174:
143:
962:
922:
886:
802:
787:
772:
707:
667:
308:
242:
129:
872:
549:
478:
423:
377:
336:
93:, although the more recent sources state the volumeof blood in an average adult as
904:
756:
OK, we have been "bold" by editing this article and now had it reverted, twice.
357:
288:
You don't get my idea. What do you think about my suggestion of outline charts?
201:
1285:
1233:
1211:
1181:
1149:
1092:
1067:
1041:
986:
970:
950:
930:
912:
894:
875:
857:
810:
795:
780:
740:
711:
692:
671:
651:
619:
591:
561:
537:
512:
486:
460:
439:
409:
385:
344:
312:
297:
283:
265:
250:
230:
209:
186:
151:
137:
110:
1223:
1118:
1011:
474:
215:
That may be true, but those are some un-representative people. Weird lookin'
882:
844:
839:
757:
48:
703:
663:
369:
325:
has more information on how to approach potentially offensive images. If
304:
361:
885:
can provide an answer and help with updating the picture if needed. --
373:
642:, does not have the same weight as a Knowledge policy or guideline.
365:
117:
72:
of blood (Genetics Classical To Modern - Page 2-22 - P. K. Gupta)
1102:
995:
426:
changed the lead image. He shouldn't have marked the edit as
303:
Why would we use an inferior copy instead of actual images?
1192:
The thumbnails aren't aligned anymore and it looks weird.
75:
The circulatory system of the average adult contains about
545:
448:
419:
1260:
is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge according to
836:
Let's hope we can collaborate better in the future.
1273:
Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Human body
866:
Missing units: 60% water by weight, volume or mols?
270:As it says right at the top of this talk page,
1099:Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2017
321:Yes, in this case, the naked imagery is fine.
992:Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2017
128:as the other sources, which are textbooks. --
8:
1254:A discussion is taking place as to whether
1193:
1074:
726:
678:
577:
498:
395:
332:WP:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images
1032:add knowyourbody.net as external links.
819:I'm sorry for any perceived hostility
881:Thanks that is a good point. Perhaps
473:. I moved the initial image to a new
7:
36:The following discussion is closed.
1262:Knowledge's policies and guidelines
903:Replaced with image used earlier --
636:WP:Principle of least astonishment
525:WP:Principle of least astonishment
24:
1247:
1155:
1106:
1047:
999:
838:
172:. . . it is unnecessary nudity.
159:The discussion above is closed.
142:Many thanks for the sources! --
1271:The page will be discussed at
386:07:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
345:07:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
313:02:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
298:01:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
284:16:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
1:
1234:20:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
1212:04:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
1093:18:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
895:22:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
876:10:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
858:17:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
811:10:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
796:07:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
781:07:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
266:19:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
210:13:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
187:10:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
1182:14:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
1150:12:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
987:19:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
971:11:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
951:01:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
931:01:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
913:21:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
546:restored the disputed image.
410:19:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
1133:to reactivate your request.
1121:has been answered. Set the
1068:20:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
1042:07:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
1026:to reactivate your request.
1014:has been answered. Set the
741:00:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
712:14:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
693:05:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
672:16:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
652:22:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
620:22:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
231:05:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
1301:
640:WP:Policies and guidelines
592:04:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
562:01:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
544:I just noticed that an IP
538:01:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
513:20:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
487:06:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
461:04:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
451:my initial comment above.
440:04:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
251:18:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
272:Knowledge is not censored
1286:14:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
1264:or whether it should be
766:I think the approach by
161:Please do not modify it.
152:02:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
138:02:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
111:00:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
68:A healthy young man has
38:Please do not modify it.
634:Also keep in mind that
1224:Human body#Composition
638:is an essay and, per
521:WP:Offensive material
327:the image in question
323:WP:Offensive material
1188:Pictures not aligned
607:File:Human Body.jpg
64:see sources in here
122:interstitial fluid
39:
1257:Portal:Human body
1241:Portal:Human body
1214:
1198:comment added by
1142:Michael.gruber173
1137:
1136:
1095:
1079:comment added by
1065:
1030:
1029:
743:
731:comment added by
695:
683:comment added by
594:
582:comment added by
515:
503:comment added by
412:
400:comment added by
221:comment added by
37:
1292:
1284:
1251:
1250:
1165:reliable sources
1159:
1158:
1128:
1124:
1110:
1109:
1103:
1064:
1061:
1058:
1051:
1050:
1021:
1017:
1003:
1002:
996:
856:
847:
843:
842:
472:
233:
185:
180:
177:
91:4.7 and 5 liters
82:human has about
52:
1300:
1299:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1280:
1252:
1248:
1245:
1220:
1190:
1163:please provide
1156:
1126:
1122:
1107:
1101:
1081:Historyking5151
1059:
1056:
1048:
1019:
1015:
1000:
994:
979:Meghangrossmann
961:being cited? --
938:
868:
849:
845:
837:
754:
475:gallery section
466:
216:
181:
178:
173:
170:
165:
164:
46:
42:
32:
22:
21:
20:
18:Talk:Human body
12:
11:
5:
1298:
1296:
1246:
1244:
1239:Nomination of
1237:
1228:Metropolitan90
1219:
1216:
1189:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1135:
1134:
1111:
1100:
1097:
1073:Right things
1071:
1070:
1028:
1027:
1004:
993:
990:
974:
973:
937:
934:
918:
917:
916:
915:
898:
897:
867:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
834:
831:
828:
814:
813:
798:
753:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
717:
716:
715:
714:
697:
696:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
644:Flyer22 Reborn
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
612:Flyer22 Reborn
598:
597:
596:
595:
565:
564:
554:Flyer22 Reborn
541:
540:
530:Flyer22 Reborn
490:
489:
469:Flyer22 Reborn
453:Flyer22 Reborn
432:Flyer22 Reborn
391:
390:
389:
388:
350:
349:
348:
347:
316:
315:
290:68.100.116.118
258:68.100.116.118
254:
253:
213:
212:
191:
169:
166:
158:
157:
156:
155:
154:
54:
53:
43:
34:
33:
31:
28:
26:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1297:
1288:
1287:
1283:
1282:North America
1277:
1274:
1269:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1258:
1242:
1238:
1236:
1235:
1232:
1229:
1225:
1217:
1215:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1187:
1183:
1180:
1177:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1132:
1129:parameter to
1120:
1116:
1112:
1105:
1104:
1098:
1096:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1069:
1066:
1062:
1054:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1025:
1022:parameter to
1013:
1009:
1005:
998:
997:
991:
989:
988:
984:
980:
972:
968:
964:
959:
955:
954:
953:
952:
948:
944:
935:
933:
932:
928:
924:
914:
910:
906:
902:
901:
900:
899:
896:
892:
888:
884:
880:
879:
878:
877:
874:
865:
859:
855:
852:
848:
841:
835:
832:
829:
826:
822:
821:Chiswick Chap
818:
817:
816:
815:
812:
808:
804:
799:
797:
793:
789:
785:
784:
783:
782:
778:
774:
769:
768:Chiswick Chap
764:
761:
759:
751:
742:
738:
734:
730:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
713:
709:
705:
701:
700:
699:
698:
694:
690:
686:
682:
676:
675:
674:
673:
669:
665:
653:
649:
645:
641:
637:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
621:
617:
613:
608:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
593:
589:
585:
581:
574:
569:
568:
567:
566:
563:
559:
555:
552:'s solution.
551:
547:
543:
542:
539:
535:
531:
526:
522:
518:
517:
516:
514:
510:
506:
502:
496:
488:
484:
480:
476:
470:
465:
464:
463:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
441:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
417:
413:
411:
407:
403:
402:201.131.148.4
399:
387:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
354:
353:
352:
351:
346:
342:
338:
333:
328:
324:
320:
319:
318:
317:
314:
310:
306:
302:
301:
300:
299:
295:
291:
286:
285:
281:
277:
273:
268:
267:
263:
259:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
235:
234:
232:
228:
224:
223:70.71.241.101
220:
211:
207:
203:
199:
194:
193:
192:
189:
188:
184:
176:
167:
162:
153:
149:
145:
141:
140:
139:
135:
131:
127:
123:
119:
115:
114:
113:
112:
108:
104:
100:
96:
92:
87:
85:
80:
78:
73:
71:
70:5 to 6 litres
66:
65:
61:
59:
50:
45:
44:
41:
29:
27:
19:
1278:
1270:
1255:
1253:
1243:for deletion
1221:
1194:— Preceding
1191:
1168:
1160:
1138:
1130:
1115:edit request
1075:— Preceding
1072:
1052:
1031:
1023:
1008:edit request
975:
939:
919:
869:
846:Carl Fredrik
765:
762:
755:
727:— Preceding
679:— Preceding
660:
584:71.88.53.178
578:— Preceding
572:
505:71.88.53.178
499:— Preceding
494:
491:
444:
443:
415:
414:
396:— Preceding
392:
287:
269:
255:
217:— Preceding
214:
190:
171:
160:
94:
90:
88:
83:
81:
76:
74:
69:
67:
62:
57:
55:
35:
25:
1218:Composition
958:Hyojungsong
943:Hyojungsong
936:Suggestions
825:WP:Circular
733:71.88.52.80
685:71.88.52.80
358:Human penis
276:Trilobright
58:Composition
1200:Jordf32123
1123:|answered=
1119:Human body
1016:|answered=
1012:Human body
430:, though.
168:Lead image
103:Whalestate
95:4.7 liters
77:5.5 liters
1179:(contrib)
1173:Eggishorn
1161:Not done:
1060:Pessimist
1057:Sparkling
449:I altered
420:this edit
198:WP:CENSOR
144:Spyder212
1208:contribs
1196:unsigned
1089:contribs
1077:unsigned
963:Tom (LT)
923:Korhornp
887:Tom (LT)
803:Tom (LT)
788:Tom (LT)
773:Tom (LT)
729:unsigned
681:unsigned
580:unsigned
501:unsigned
428:WP:Minor
398:unsigned
370:Clitoris
243:JoergenB
219:unsigned
130:Tom (LT)
126:reliable
89:between
84:5 liters
1266:deleted
1034:Aaa0007
873:Samsara
752:Discuss
550:Jmarchn
495:readers
479:Jmarchn
424:Jmarchn
418:: With
378:Flyer22
362:Scrotum
337:Flyer22
1231:(talk)
1176:(talk)
905:Iztwoz
677:Yes.
573:always
416:Update
374:Vagina
202:Bilorv
1127:|ans=
1113:This
1020:|ans=
1006:This
366:Vulva
239:WASPs
183:Dutta
118:blood
16:<
1222:The
1204:talk
1169:body
1146:talk
1085:talk
1053:Done
1038:talk
983:talk
967:talk
947:talk
927:talk
909:talk
891:talk
883:CFCF
807:talk
792:talk
777:talk
758:CFCF
737:talk
708:talk
689:talk
668:talk
648:talk
616:talk
588:talk
558:talk
534:talk
509:talk
483:talk
457:talk
445:Note
436:talk
406:talk
382:talk
372:and
341:talk
309:talk
294:talk
280:talk
262:talk
247:talk
227:talk
206:talk
175:Tito
148:talk
134:talk
120:and
107:talk
49:CFCF
1125:or
1117:to
1018:or
1010:to
956:Hi
704:HCA
664:HCA
305:HCA
1268:.
1210:)
1206:•
1148:)
1131:no
1091:)
1087:•
1040:)
1024:no
985:)
969:)
949:)
929:)
911:)
893:)
854:📧
851:💌
809:)
801:--
794:)
779:)
771:--
739:)
710:)
691:)
670:)
650:)
618:)
590:)
560:)
536:)
511:)
485:)
459:)
447::
438:)
422:,
408:)
384:)
368:,
364:,
360:,
343:)
311:)
296:)
282:)
264:)
249:)
229:)
208:)
150:)
136:)
109:)
101:)
60:)
1202:(
1144:(
1083:(
1036:(
981:(
965:(
945:(
925:(
907:(
889:(
805:(
790:(
775:(
735:(
706:(
687:(
666:(
646:(
614:(
586:(
556:(
532:(
507:(
481:(
471::
467:@
455:(
434:(
404:(
380:(
339:(
307:(
292:(
278:(
260:(
245:(
225:(
204:(
179:☸
146:(
132:(
105:(
97:(
51::
47:@
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.