Template:Did you know nominations/Pricasso

193: 1342:

reliable secondary source I have read. As it stands, this is the only reliable secondary source Small seems to be able to provide to even conceivably support the first part of the assertion, but it isn't all that explicit in context. Given his comments about "rocking the system" and "not knowing how to judge me" in the context of discussing whether his work is considered art by critics, the mention of porn there should not be treated as some sort of admission to being a porn star.--

507:

recent past. The Jimbo issue is not resolved (though I am pleased that the suggested image is not the Jimbo portrait). Russavia is likely to face further sanction, to judge from NYB's talk page, and this article will not be stable for a while. This nomination should not be approved until the furore over Jimbo's image, the commons deletion debate, and the controversy over NYB's and Russavia's actions are all resolved, and then the article has time to stabilise.

444:. The article should presumably have been moved with the history of its creation intact, which is not the case. Given that previous content in the incubating article has already resulted in a topic ban for Russavia, any decision about placing a link to it on the main page with an image should have a delay of at least a week (or possibly longer) to allow other editors to express their opinions. It is unclear whether this article was created to make a 1996: 1610: 748: 503: 1232:"I have just finished a 4 day Sexpo in Australia and I will be going to Macau in a few days to paint at the Asian Adult Expo and then to Taiwan for another 4 day show then one in South Africa Spain and Germany I am pretty busy. And I have spent the past 7 years doing this so it feels really natural to be the only person naked holding my penis in a hall with 5 or 10 thousand other fully clothed normal people." 1119: 896: 598: 2197: 1532: 649: 416: 432:

flickr's own safe viewing and protection policies. Those policies are far more careful and finely judged than those of Commons. Because of that I believe that if there is a hook (possibly with less "in your face" wording), there should be no accompanying image. It is unclear how stable the article will be, since at one stage it contained an image and content related to

831:, he was in a men's bathroom when he had the idea of sliding his penis across the dry stainless steel urinal and made a smiley face. After this, he bought some easels and paint, dipped his penis into the paint, and then started painting. He noted that after 30 seconds, due to the motion of moving his penis over the rough surface of the canvas, he gained an 1939:

Given the back-and-forth above. What would the protocol be for an April 1 nomination. Do I make that before the three days or after. I am not sure if there are policy issues to be addressed or if this is just an issue regarding the propriety of the subject. I am on record saying that simply reopening

1889:

I just know that this has been around a while and been through extensive discussions. If you don't feel like it can attain support for a regular nomination you should go for April 1. If you want someone else to handle that nomination, I will do it. If this is not going to be a regular DYK nom, go for

1770:

Not at all. This nom almost got closed out the other day. At the DYK talk page I was suggesting that this be reopened as a discussion about an April 1 nomination. It seems to be unable to get support for a regular nomination, but this type of topic would fit right in with the main page on April 1, if

1296:

article is very short, full of smutty puns. But the use of "adult shows" by Patch himself is in an indication that this is not safe material for DYK. Most of the "meticulous sourcing" claimed by Russavia does not bear close scrutiny. It is a BLP cobbled or patched together from interviews. That makes

1291:

there is a short entry: "Patch, Tim (Australia). Contemporary builder and painter based in Brisbane. He has been called 'Pricasso' because he creates paintings of landscapes, portraits, and female nudes using his penis as a brush." There are no proper independent recent sources. The BBC source relied

506:

Supplementary rule D6 states "The article is likely to be rejected for unresolved edit-warring or the presence of dispute tags. (Removing the tags without consensus does not count.)" Once the history is restored, it will be clear that there has been edit warring and protection of this article in its

1822:

I think Mathsci is correct. After 7 or 8 weeks with no consensus, there is little reason to resume the same discussion. That is why I proposed reopening the discussion as a consideration of this article for April 1 when WP avails a host of odd subjects on the main page. Reopening the prior stalemate

1336:, I have never been awarded a grant and have entered many art compertitions but never won any . I have sold thousands of paintings but probably would not have sold to much without also becoming a soft porn star which might be a contributing factor of why I feel they dont really know how to judge me. 1092:

No one is going to ignore the preponderance of reliable sources describing him as an artist and relabel him a porn star as that would violate WP:BLP. Your evidence of him being a "porn star" or "porn star wannabe" is a poem and a misrepresented quotation. That is nowhere near enough. I asked you to

944:

I would note that the editor who added the tag insists, based off a single misrepresented comment in a source, that the subject is a porn star and not an artist, ignoring the multitude of other sources that plainly state he is an artist. Anyone can tag an article with any absurd excuse, and this is

1425:

Just to be clear A) Russavia's "vote" doesn't count, in fact somebody needs to step up to fill his place as the nominal "nominator" - who is that? B) It's this page that counts for DYK, there are discussion on this spread across at least 3 pages. Anybody who wants to weigh in on the DYK can do it

1144:

a porn star or stop bringing it up. Should you assert again that he is a porn star without providing such a source, then I will report you at ANI for violating WP:BLP. You are free to your opinion, but your opinion is not fact and you have not shown any indication that said opinion is supported by

866:

Unless we are talking about someone with a paint fetish, then this doesn't qualify as "pornography" by any means. Given that his whole method is built around his penis, it is relevant and informative to note certain foreseeable issues he encounters. Whether the wording could be further improved, I

1810:

The close was correct. Reopening discussion will only waste more volunteer time. The intention of the original DYK has not altered: it was to bring en.wikipedia into disrepute. Not only has the original creator Russavia been indefinitely blocked, but, because of inappropriate comments on his user

1225:

The Devil's Advocate is pretty aggressive in saying he's not a porn performer. He's seen this before but denies that it (and Pricasso) says that Pricasso is a porn performer. "I have sold thousands of paintings but probably would not have sold to much without also becoming a soft porn star which

374:

is not relevant here, due to there not being a distasteful image as part of the hook, and the article is about an artist, who just happens to paint with his penis. I have NO DOUBT that if this article is made the lead hook that it could possibly be one of the highest viewed DYKS of all time. I'll

1539:

even if he is a "porn star"? Don't porn stars also deserve their right to notability? And certainly this "porn star' would qualify as notable... Look at the media coverage this "porn star" has got! I see no problem with the neutrally written and reliably referenced biography of this "porn star".

1341:

Mind you, Small is not only insisting Pricasso is a porn star, but that he is not even an artist. However, the very source being cited starts out by calling Pricasso an artist and he explicitly refers to himself as an artist and calls his work art with that being the description favored by every

619:

His site contains videos and such. The only adult imagery in the article is him holding his penis so that he can paint, but the paint obscures his genitals to the point where you can only really tell if you look at the enlarged versions of the image. Not an issue in my opinion. You can find more

1408:

It's the 2nd time you've asked this, so I think you deserve an answer, but also deserve to know why this question could be seen as offensive. You're asking whether I will follow policy - do you have any reason to believe that I won't? AGF, please. You also seem to be asking whether the other

1333:

A lot of Artists only exist from being awarded grants paid for by the tax payer because their work is considered exceptional by a small number of Art experts which I guess is fine as it’s all part of the system as I do believe Art is a business dependent mainly upon rising prices and I rock the

431:

I do not see how the image can be used on the main page. Clicking on the image, uploaded by Russavia, leads to the Commons file page with its link to the original on flickr. But on flickr an account is required to view this image and possibly any image related to Pricasso, presumably because of

1630:

Despite pruning, the article is still poorly written and poorly sourced. There is too much reporting of non-events in the article (e.g. unsuccessful entries in competitions, Patch's activities as a builder). A lot of the content is not neutrally written, with uncritical and direct reporting of

1272:

I cannot see any particular consensus at the moment. I see Newyorkbrad suggesting that pushing this article as a DYK os not a good idea. One problem with the article is that the novelty of Patch's artworks seems to have dwindled lately. Outside the world of Australian Sexpo and other soft porn

1074:

Since the nominator has been indefinitely blocked, who is taking his place? there is almost always some back-and-forth between the nominator and commenters usually resulting in some adjustments in the article or hook. I'd like the responsible person to make adjustments to 1) the name of the

1122:

Google search "Pricasso Porn" 185,000 hits, "Pricasso artist" 53,000 hits. Essentially all the articles on him are about Sexpo or similar exhibitions. He performs for 20 minutes for $ 50-100, includes a video, and btw includes a canvas with paint on it. No way he is an artist and nobody is

839:

that he could see himself getting paid to create art if he was able to get better and quicker, and liked the idea of being paid for doing the three things he liked most: creating art, being naked and holding his penis, noting that he would have to control his erections to achieve his goal.

604:, which is linked to in the article. The first thing you see there is: "STOP By entering my website you agree you're 18+". I believe the artist would not be comfortable with being featured on Knowledge's main page, which is visited by millions of school kids much younger than 18 years old. 1487:

It isn't even a huge dispute. The whole thing is terribly petty at this point as the link to the Commons cat doesn't even have the image pictured. You have to go through another link to get to the image. As this is the only issue, it should be given time to be sorted out. We aren't going

423:

adults, writing on behalf of the straw man 8-yearold. This article is undoubtedly educational, and the subject, amusingly notable. Really, let's not get out of whack over this. It's quite mild, comparing to what else an 8-yearold might encounter on Knowledge.

390:

doesn't say it, but I don't personally think that anything blatantly offensive (say, um, an article of a picture of a guy painting with his p*n*s) should be linked to from a main page (imagine some 8-year-old clicks on it (many will, no doubt), and encounters

660:(and a green flag for those looking at DYK and seeing this thing that wouldn't look too out of place if the date were 04/01/2014). Aside from that, and this Jimbo portrait controversy that I've been reading about, I see nothing wrong with the article in its 436:. The creation history of the file is not accessible to non-administrators, since Russavia requested that the two pages in his user space be deleted. None of that history is viewable. Nor the fact that at a certain stage the article was fully protected by 1811:

talk page, talk page access has very recently been revoked. The nomination was opened two months ago so the close was timely. The many problems with the article have not gone away. It was not dropped as a possible DYK because of some small technicality.

1861:

A big reason the discussion has lasted as long as it has is because we had to wait for the RfC to establish something with regards to the Commons link. Since it is a clear stalemate on that point we can move on and address other concerns about the

1706:

The RfC has failed to get a consensus on the link, which means the link to Commons is staying out for now. So, the main reason for editors objecting to the nomination has been addressed. I will try to begin resolving the concerns BM raised

1470:

the article is really not going anywhere. Per criterion D6, we don't feature articles with huge disputes, and the dispute on Pricasso is apparently so huge that the article got full-protected. So can someone maybe close this?

535:

Russavia, did you at any point in your correspondence with the artist promise him with (or strongly hint at) an appearance of his article on the main page, perhaps in exchange for the creation of freely licensed media?

1297:

the article hard to distinguish from a promotional piece—free publicity through wikipedia. Several sources, including the dictionary above, describe Patch as a builder. That is not properly discussed in the article.

1308:

Mathsci, I meant on the question of artist v. porn star, though of course consensus will also determine whether or not a main page appearance happens. I think the consensus on the artist question is pretty clear.

1284:. He has posted the Jimmy Wales video there and writes, "I started painting naked using my Penis as a brush in 2005 and now travel around the world performing at adult shows, parties and clubs." His entries for the 848:

So of course there's some pornography in the article. Besides that kind of painting is an unsafe sexual practice, and I am almost positive there will be a backlash, if this "Fucking article" as Newyorkbrad

254:

Please note that I am still working some on the article, but in mainspace, but as with all of my articles they are meticulously sourced so please do not worry about this aspect of it still being worked on.

1367:

If you can't understand 2 direct quotes from the subject or the obvious reality of his videos, then there is no point discussing it further. As far as me approving this for inclusion in DYK, no way.

1970:

Some of the issues Blue Moonset raised were actually addressed before this closed. I have handled the close paraphrasing I could identify and have made an effort to balance the article a bit.--

766:) with the edit summary "One of the images has caused an editor here to claim that it constitutes Hostile environment sexual harassment. Don't become a part of that," been re-added by 1823:

is not likely to lead anywhere. If people agree that the prior close was valid, then I think it would be best to open a new discussion regarding making this article an April 1 hook.--

126: 440:. Jimmy Wales found the content relating to himself offensive and harassing. As a consequence, per BLP policies, Russavia was topic banned from all matters related to Jimmy Wales by 1075:

article, which has been changed; 2) the use of the term "artist" when he is clearly a porn show performer; and 3) "gained fame" in the hook, when it should be "gained notoriety."

1631:

Patch's own statements in interviews. Much of the tone seems promotional. The quality of the prose is very variable, with some parts perhaps reflecting too closely the original

459:

The editing history of the article, together with the deleted drafts, has now been restored by The ed17. The article itself currently has the template {{underconstruction}}.

694:, you'll note that I am not commenting on whether the image should be removed from the article and the policy has nothing to do with the main page. I will also point you to 796:) with the edit summary "we're not linking to the problematic image that started this mess in the first place." This article is not presently stable. There is debate at 2086:

The Devil's Advocate, How about you give yourself a reasonable deadline and then just resubmit this as an April Fools only nomination. Maybe even close this out and open

1999:

I personally find it a waste of time to have such a long nomination period over one fact on the main page, but a new reviewer is needed to identify any other problems.

1288:(2011-2013) do not seem to have received any significant media coverage. On page 231 of the Dictionary of Erotic Art: Painters and Sculptors by Eugene C. Burt (2010), 867:

improved upon it a bit from what it was previously, is a separate issue. I think some of the prose could be developed further before considering a front page entry.--

1571: 900: 267: 2222: 2138: 2073: 1984: 1876: 1721: 1683: 1502: 1356: 1211: 1159: 1107: 959: 881: 733: 634: 82:

Closer's note: I changed the hook wording of penis and scrotum to genitals because I want to avoid a big controversy over having those words on the main page.

121: 192: 1123:*seriously* calling him an artist. He is a porn performer. Presenting him in the article and in the hook as an artist is just misleading our readers. 2152: 2087: 763: 1011:

He's a porn star wanabee and has said so directly more than once. He works almost exclusively at Sexpo's and similar venues. Don't ignore reality.

2201: 751:

Supplementary rule D6 relates to "unresolved edit-warring." Within the last six hours, the contentious link to the Jimbo image has been removed by

2011:

I am not associating myself with this nomination anymore because of this reason and because I don't want to be hounded about an April Fools hook.

419:

You know, it is not the children who get bent out of shape when they see a penis, especially a penis put to use as a painting brush, but rather

695: 1570:

The point about the claims about this person being a pornstar is that the article presents him as an artist, which is misleading. Also, see

656:. I think the mere mentioning of "penis, scrotum, and buttocks" should be enough of a red flag about not clicking on this article if you're 307:

from 2013, he states he is 63. I've still got more sources to scour for information, but I don't recall any giving an actual date of birth.

1591: 1478: 1184: 920: 706: 405: 349: 2090:

as a special case asking for support/oppose from all concerned. It could point to here and to the prior RFC wherever that is archived.--

1059: 854: 605: 800:

about notability and an AfD is possible. I think the article is likely to run at some point, but it is not ready to be promoted yet.

2165: 2100: 1950: 1927:

I am giving this three more days for any remaining concerns to be addressed. If they are not addressed, I will close this nomination.

1900: 1833: 1781: 1740: 36: 1669:

on the Commons link issue. When that concludes, presumably resolving the main problem, I will be happy to handle the other issues.--

555:

to the picture... I did not think that he would actually smear paint on those parts. But I have to admit, it's very well-written. ☯

17: 2133: 2068: 1979: 1871: 1716: 1678: 1497: 1351: 1206: 1154: 1102: 954: 876: 728: 629: 448:, but its deleted history, the BLP related problems with Jimmy Wales, the topic ban and the previous page protection raise doubts. 1394: 1140:

Ok, let me make this perfectly clear, either you provide a reliable secondary source that explicitly and unequivocally says he

437: 1229:

Do you often visit shows and events to paint pictures in front of the audience. You do not feel embarrassed about it ?

1540:

Seriously, the guys who want to fail this are just pissed off at Pricasso for painting a majestic portrait of Dear Founder

756: 2125: 2060: 1971: 1863: 1708: 1670: 1489: 1343: 1198: 1168: 1146: 1094: 946: 868: 720: 621: 1289: 2124:

Not sure what the point of that would be as I believe I have done sufficient work to address the remaining concerns.--

1559: 778: 570: 519: 44: 1193:

He does not even say he is a porn star in the poem, which shouldn't be taken literally in the first place as it is a

1273:

conventions, there seems to be very little recent coverage in reliable sources. He advertises his services on vimeo,

397:

Note: I'm not saying the article itself should be censored, just that maybe it shouldn't really be on the main page.

793: 176: 1254:

Smallbones, if the consensus here and at the article talk page is different from your view, will you accept it?

2059:

Proposing this as an alternative to make it more hooky and reflect something beyond a simple "x is y" factoid.--

1648:

I don't see how an article with this many problems in its current version can be approved at the present time.

1585: 1472: 1293: 1178: 914: 752: 700: 399: 370:

Youtube is not the source, the source is Metropolis TV, which is reliable, it's just that it's a video source.

343: 116: 2205: 1063: 858: 671: 609: 93: 71: 2161: 2096: 1946: 1896: 1829: 1777: 1736: 1614: 1545: 1277: 556: 146: 1639:

sources: "one celebrity was OK with it," "Pricasso hit back," "a canvass which concealed his brush," etc.

1653: 1397:), if the consensus here and at the article talk page is different from your view, will you accept it? 828: 653: 292: 151: 698:. While not exactly the same thing, the subject of that thread and this controversy are fairly similar. 1455: 1432: 1415: 1387: 1373: 1243: 1129: 1081: 1017: 590: 387: 371: 325: 1578: 1409:

editors on this page can understand 2 direct quotes - I see no reason to believe that they can't.

1324:

Here is what the source says with the important parts Smallbones has consistently left out in bold:

392: 304: 1267: 797: 691: 666: 380: 312: 275: 260: 243: 85: 63: 375:

report back in a day or two on progress, as I am still adding information, etc to the article.

29:

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below.

2173: 2156: 2108: 2091: 1958: 1941: 1908: 1891: 1841: 1824: 1816: 1789: 1772: 1748: 1731: 1520: 1302: 938: 657: 479: 464: 453: 136: 1330:

Art Critics consider your work seriously ? They consider your painting as an Art ?

2177: 2112: 2037: 1962: 1912: 1845: 1793: 1752: 1730:

If this fails to get a regular nomination, I encourge you to pursue an April 1 nomination.--

1649: 1402: 1314: 1285: 1259: 1043: 805: 527: 512: 441: 285: 210: 1692:

I have re-opened the discussion because of what The Devil's Advocate said on my talk page.

1237:

Or just google "Pricasso porn" - half the sites say they are selling Pricasso porn videos.

815:

is the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual gratification.

1764: 1450: 1427: 1410: 1383: 1368: 1238: 1124: 1076: 1012: 771: 586: 540: 445: 1233: 2169: 2104: 2016: 2004: 1995: 1954: 1932: 1904: 1837: 1785: 1744: 1697: 786: 2216: 1666: 1226:

might be a contributing factor of why I feel they dont really know how to judge me."

582: 425: 376: 308: 271: 256: 239: 131: 40: 1609: 747: 502: 1812: 1636: 1632: 1618: 1516: 1298: 934: 907: 578: 475: 460: 449: 1118: 1033:

Well, let me put it this way: I just do not think that posting the hook "... that

895: 597: 551:

Before reading the source, I thought he painted paintings with a little something

1541: 1398: 1310: 1255: 973: 814: 801: 523: 508: 433: 2196: 1531: 648: 415: 35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as

1761: 767: 537: 2200:

Let's get it over and done with, new hook cited and online, all reference to

2012: 2000: 1928: 1760:

I honestly cannot figure out whether that was a sarcastic comment or not. --

1693: 782: 471: 156: 696:

Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_34#Pornography-related_articles_on_DYK

2049: 2029: 1281: 1055: 1035: 832: 685: 222: 202: 2045: 1051: 719:

See my comment above. That image is not even close to being an issue.--

218: 47:), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. 2041: 1449:

The article is now locked down, following apparent edit-warring.

1047: 577:

Just to notify you all at DYK: Russavia has just been indeffed by

214: 2151:

O.K. if this gets closed out unsuccessfully, then you can create

1274: 688:? Do we want to link to something with that from the main page? 658:

supposed to be tabulating your company's profits for this month

2052:, studied furniture design after failing to get an art degree? 820: 620:

explicit depictions of genitalia in sex education textbooks.--

2153:

Template:Did you know nominations/Pricasso (April Fools' Day)

2088:

Template:Did you know nominations/Pricasso (April Fools' Day)

998:

I'd never take a sickly and I’d work for very little pay ...

1058:?" to the Knowledge Main page will do Knowledge any good. 1426:

here. I'll deal with the article page when I have time.

899:

Regardless of whether it's pornography or not, it fails

474:

and some of the borderline pornographic prose removed.

318:

I will not do a full review, but here are two comments:

266:

Somewhere I am suppose to note what article I reviewed:

994:

I'd love to be a porn star --now that would make my day

850: 601: 181: 1940:

the same nomination was not likely to lead anywhere.--

1584:

on the article indicates a dispute if anything does.

1093:

stop repeating this accusation and yet you continue.--

1621:'s review of the article's current state on June 30: 1046:

who has gained fame for painting portraits with his

321:

Is YouTube a reliable source (especially for a BLP)?

213:

who has gained fame for painting portraits with his

141: 246:). Self nominated at 23:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC) 945:just an instance of that ability being misused.-- 470:The article is not stable. It has been moved to 1327: 986: 268:Template:Did you know nominations/Darrell Tryon 781:) as an unexplained revert, and re-removed by 1617:approval, especially in light of how damning 1177:he's a pornstar. See the quoted poem above. 974:http://www.pricasso.com/pricassos_poetry.html 283:Is there any source for the age of this man? 8: 684:What about the apparently explicit image at 49:No further edits should be made to this page 1572:WP:Did_you_know/Supplementary_guidelines#D6 652:This entire article is a clear-cut case of 386:OK, maybe I'm going out on a limb here as 104: 1771:it can't get support for a regular run.-- 107: 2223:Passed DYK nominations from June 2013 602:Here's the link to the artist website 7: 520:Knowledge talk:Did you know#Pricasso 817:" Here's a quote from the article: 24: 1613:I am very uncomfortable with the 18:Template:Did you know nominations 2195: 1994: 1890:April 1. It will fit right in.-- 1608: 1530: 1117: 894: 746: 647: 596: 581:and there's now a discussion on 501: 414: 191: 2204:seems to have been removed. -- 32:Please do not modify this page. 2007:) 04:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC) 1935:) 23:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC) 1819:) 04:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC) 1292:on the Sydney Morning Herald. 686:Pricasso#Works and appearances 438:User:Future Perfect at Sunrise 1: 2019:) 04:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC) 1700:) 22:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC) 1405:) 00:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC) 1305:) 06:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC) 1262:) 04:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC) 861:) 01:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC) 515:) 04:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC) 467:) 05:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC) 456:) 03:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC) 383:) 01:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC) 102:10:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC) 2208:03:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC) 2182:17:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC) 2144:15:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC) 2117:06:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC) 2079:05:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC) 1990:04:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC) 1967:00:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC) 1917:05:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC) 1882:05:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC) 1850:05:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC) 1798:01:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC) 1767:23:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC) 1757:23:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC) 1727:22:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC) 1523:) 02:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC) 1317:) 06:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC) 1066:) 22:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC) 941:) 14:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC) 808:) 00:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC) 612:) 15:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC) 593:) 14:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC) 574:☯ 13:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC) 530:) 04:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC) 482:) 10:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC) 315:) 00:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC) 278:) 00:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC) 263:) 23:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC) 80:10:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC) 45:Knowledge talk:Did you know 37:this nomination's talk page 2239: 1656:) 18:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC) 1563:☯ 13:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC) 1484:12:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC) 1462:04:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC) 1422:03:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC) 1380:17:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC) 1250:04:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC) 1190:22:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC) 1165:22:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC) 1136:21:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC) 1088:13:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC) 933:The tag has been removed. 901:supplementary criterion D6 428:02:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC) 411:01:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC) 300:00:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC) 1515:the request for closure. 1508:17:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC) 1439:03:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC) 1362:05:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC) 1217:23:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC) 1113:16:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC) 1024:13:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC) 965:16:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC) 926:12:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC) 887:04:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC) 739:18:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC) 712:17:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC) 677:17:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC) 640:17:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC) 543:12:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC) 518:I have begun a thread at 355:01:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC) 152:Find sources (notability) 127:Earwig's Copyvio Detector 1689:16:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 1597:13:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC) 827:Some weeks after seeing 753:Delicious carbuncle 522:. Comment is invited. 1276:giving his location as 41:the article's talk page 1641: 1338: 1278:Gold Coast, Queensland 1145:any reliable source.-- 1000: 1628: 913:tag on the article. 829:Puppetry of the Penis 813:@DA, Pornography is " 142:A Simple Word Counter 122:Reviewer instructions 2128:The Devil's Advocate 2063:The Devil's Advocate 2040:who paints with his 1974:The Devil's Advocate 1866:The Devil's Advocate 1711:The Devil's Advocate 1673:The Devil's Advocate 1492:The Devil's Advocate 1346:The Devil's Advocate 1201:The Devil's Advocate 1169:The Devil's Advocate 1149:The Devil's Advocate 1097:The Devil's Advocate 949:The Devil's Advocate 871:The Devil's Advocate 723:The Devil's Advocate 624:The Devil's Advocate 238:Created/expanded by 147:Reviewers' template 1560:Nonsensical Babble 1044:Australian painter 903:as there is now a 571:Nonsensical Babble 211:Australian painter 2181: 2116: 2038:Australian artist 1966: 1916: 1849: 1797: 1756: 1665:I have initiated 1615:Bonkers The Clown 1271: 847: 846: 699: 398: 247: 165: 164: 101: 79: 2230: 2206:Hillbillyholiday 2199: 2159: 2141: 2136: 2130: 2094: 2076: 2071: 2065: 1998: 1987: 1982: 1976: 1944: 1894: 1879: 1874: 1868: 1827: 1775: 1734: 1724: 1719: 1713: 1686: 1681: 1675: 1612: 1594: 1588: 1583: 1577: 1553: 1534: 1505: 1500: 1494: 1481: 1475: 1458: 1435: 1418: 1376: 1359: 1354: 1348: 1286:Bald Archy Prize 1265: 1246: 1214: 1209: 1203: 1187: 1181: 1162: 1157: 1151: 1132: 1121: 1110: 1105: 1099: 1084: 1020: 962: 957: 951: 923: 917: 912: 906: 898: 884: 879: 873: 835:. Pricasso told 821: 750: 736: 731: 725: 709: 703: 689: 676: 674: 673: Talk 669: 651: 637: 632: 626: 600: 564: 505: 442:User:Newyorkbrad 418: 408: 402: 396: 352: 346: 299: 297: 290: 237: 195: 105: 99: 98: 96: 91: 88: 77: 76: 74: 69: 66: 56:The result was: 34: 2238: 2237: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2143: 2139: 2134: 2126: 2078: 2074: 2069: 2061: 1989: 1985: 1980: 1972: 1881: 1877: 1872: 1864: 1726: 1722: 1717: 1709: 1688: 1684: 1679: 1671: 1596: 1592: 1586: 1581: 1575: 1546: 1507: 1503: 1498: 1490: 1483: 1479: 1473: 1461: 1456: 1438: 1433: 1421: 1416: 1379: 1374: 1361: 1357: 1352: 1344: 1332: 1331: 1249: 1244: 1216: 1212: 1207: 1199: 1189: 1185: 1179: 1164: 1160: 1155: 1147: 1135: 1130: 1112: 1108: 1103: 1095: 1087: 1082: 1023: 1018: 995: 993: 989: 964: 960: 955: 947: 925: 921: 915: 910: 904: 886: 882: 877: 869: 853:, is featured. 738: 734: 729: 721: 711: 707: 701: 672: 667: 665: 639: 635: 630: 622: 557: 541:User talk:Conti 410: 406: 400: 354: 350: 344: 293: 286: 284: 197: 188: 186: 182:Article history 170: 161: 137:Character count 94: 92: 86: 83: 81: 72: 70: 64: 61: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2236: 2234: 2226: 2225: 2215: 2214: 2210: 2209: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2146: 2145: 2132: 2119: 2118: 2081: 2080: 2067: 2054: 2053: 2021: 2020: 1992: 1991: 1978: 1968: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1884: 1883: 1870: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1715: 1701: 1690: 1677: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1590: 1565: 1564: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1509: 1496: 1477: 1453: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1430: 1413: 1371: 1364: 1363: 1350: 1339: 1325: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1241: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1205: 1183: 1153: 1127: 1115: 1114: 1101: 1079: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1015: 985: 984: 983: 982: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 967: 966: 953: 942: 928: 927: 919: 889: 888: 875: 845: 844: 841: 825: 819: 818: 810: 809: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 727: 714: 713: 705: 679: 678: 654:WP:NOTCENSORED 644: 643: 642: 641: 628: 614: 613: 594: 575: 545: 544: 533: 532: 531: 499: 498: 497: 496: 495: 494: 493: 492: 491: 490: 489: 488: 487: 486: 485: 484: 483: 404: 361: 360: 359: 358: 357: 356: 348: 336: 335: 334: 333: 332: 331: 330: 329: 322: 316: 305:this interview 280: 279: 264: 235: 234: 233: 232: 227: 226: 189: 185: 184: 179: 177:Back to T:TDYK 173: 171: 169: 166: 163: 162: 160: 159: 154: 149: 144: 139: 134: 129: 124: 119: 113: 110: 109: 54: 53: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2235: 2224: 2221: 2220: 2218: 2207: 2203: 2198: 2194: 2193: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2163: 2158: 2154: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2142: 2137: 2131: 2129: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2077: 2072: 2066: 2064: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2032: 2031: 2026: 2023: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2006: 2002: 1997: 1988: 1983: 1977: 1975: 1969: 1964: 1960: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1943: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1934: 1930: 1914: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1893: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1880: 1875: 1869: 1867: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1826: 1821: 1820: 1818: 1814: 1809: 1806: 1795: 1791: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1774: 1769: 1768: 1766: 1763: 1759: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1733: 1729: 1728: 1725: 1720: 1714: 1712: 1705: 1702: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1682: 1676: 1674: 1668: 1664: 1663: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1640: 1638: 1634: 1620: 1616: 1611: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1595: 1589: 1580: 1573: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1562: 1561: 1557: 1554: 1552: 1549: 1543: 1538: 1533: 1529: 1528: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1506: 1501: 1495: 1493: 1486: 1485: 1482: 1476: 1469: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1459: 1452: 1436: 1429: 1424: 1423: 1419: 1412: 1407: 1406: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1382: 1381: 1377: 1370: 1366: 1365: 1360: 1355: 1349: 1347: 1340: 1337: 1335: 1326: 1323: 1316: 1312: 1307: 1306: 1304: 1300: 1295: 1290: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1269: 1268:edit conflict 1264: 1263: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1247: 1240: 1235: 1234: 1230: 1227: 1215: 1210: 1204: 1202: 1196: 1192: 1191: 1188: 1182: 1176: 1175: 1171:, the person 1170: 1167: 1166: 1163: 1158: 1152: 1150: 1143: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1133: 1126: 1120: 1111: 1106: 1100: 1098: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1085: 1078: 1065: 1061: 1060:76.126.142.59 1057: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1038: 1037: 1032: 1031: 1021: 1014: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 999: 996: 990: 975: 971: 970: 969: 968: 963: 958: 952: 950: 943: 940: 936: 932: 931: 930: 929: 924: 918: 909: 902: 897: 893: 892: 891: 890: 885: 880: 874: 872: 865: 864: 863: 862: 860: 856: 855:76.126.142.59 852: 842: 838: 834: 830: 826: 823: 822: 816: 812: 811: 807: 803: 799: 795: 792: 788: 784: 780: 777: 773: 769: 765: 762: 758: 754: 749: 745: 737: 732: 726: 724: 718: 717: 716: 715: 710: 704: 697: 693: 687: 683: 682: 681: 680: 675: 670: 668:ViperSnake151 663: 659: 655: 650: 646: 645: 638: 633: 627: 625: 618: 617: 616: 615: 611: 607: 606:76.126.142.59 603: 599: 595: 592: 588: 584: 580: 576: 573: 572: 568: 565: 563: 560: 554: 550: 547: 546: 542: 539: 534: 529: 525: 521: 517: 516: 514: 510: 504: 500: 481: 477: 473: 469: 468: 466: 462: 458: 457: 455: 451: 447: 443: 439: 435: 430: 429: 427: 422: 417: 413: 412: 409: 403: 394: 389: 388:WP:CENSORMAIN 385: 384: 382: 378: 373: 372:WP:CENSORMAIN 369: 368: 367: 366: 365: 364: 363: 362: 353: 347: 342: 341: 340: 339: 338: 337: 327: 326:WP:CENSORMAIN 323: 320: 319: 317: 314: 310: 306: 302: 301: 298: 296: 291: 289: 282: 281: 277: 273: 269: 265: 262: 258: 253: 252: 251: 250: 249: 245: 241: 231: 230: 229: 228: 224: 220: 216: 212: 208: 205: 204: 199: 198: 196: 194: 183: 180: 178: 175: 174: 167: 158: 155: 153: 150: 148: 145: 143: 140: 138: 135: 133: 130: 128: 125: 123: 120: 118: 115: 114: 112: 111: 106: 103: 97: 90: 89: 75: 68: 67: 59: 52: 50: 46: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 2202:you-know-who 2157:TonyTheTiger 2155:or I will.-- 2127: 2092:TonyTheTiger 2062: 2033: 2028: 2024: 1993: 1973: 1942:TonyTheTiger 1926: 1892:TonyTheTiger 1865: 1825:TonyTheTiger 1807: 1773:TonyTheTiger 1732:TonyTheTiger 1710: 1703: 1672: 1637:sex industry 1633:gutter press 1629: 1582:}} 1576:{{ 1558: 1555: 1550: 1547: 1536: 1512: 1491: 1467: 1448: 1391: 1345: 1334:system a bit 1329: 1328: 1236: 1231: 1228: 1224: 1200: 1194: 1173: 1172: 1148: 1141: 1116: 1096: 1073: 1039: 1034: 997: 992:By Pricasso 991: 987: 948: 911:}} 905:{{ 870: 836: 790: 775: 760: 722: 661: 623: 579:User:Spartaz 569: 566: 561: 558: 552: 548: 420: 294: 287: 236: 206: 201: 190: 84: 62: 57: 55: 48: 31: 28: 1650:BlueMoonset 1542:Jimmy Wales 1488:anywhere.-- 692:WP:CENSORED 434:Jimmy Wales 324:What about 157:Hook length 108:DYK toolbox 2174:WP:CHICAGO 2109:WP:CHICAGO 2034:(pictured) 1959:WP:CHICAGO 1909:WP:CHICAGO 1862:article.-- 1842:WP:CHICAGO 1790:WP:CHICAGO 1749:WP:CHICAGO 1707:tonight.-- 1579:Pp-dispute 1451:Smallbones 1428:Smallbones 1411:Smallbones 1384:Smallbones 1369:Smallbones 1239:Smallbones 1125:Smallbones 1077:Smallbones 1040:(pictured) 1013:Smallbones 988:Porn star 587:Tom Morris 288:The Legend 207:(pictured) 87:Rcsprinter 65:Rcsprinter 2178:WP:WAWARD 2113:WP:WAWARD 2027:... that 1963:WP:WAWARD 1913:WP:WAWARD 1846:WP:WAWARD 1794:WP:WAWARD 1753:WP:WAWARD 1551:The Clown 1457:smalltalk 1434:smalltalk 1417:smalltalk 1375:smalltalk 1245:smalltalk 1131:smalltalk 1083:smalltalk 1019:smalltalk 562:The Clown 472:Tim Patch 393:this file 200:... that 132:QPQ check 117:DYK check 95:(chatter) 73:(chatter) 2217:Category 2050:buttocks 2030:Pricasso 1395:contribs 1282:Brisbane 1056:buttocks 1036:Pricasso 851:calls it 837:Fala Fil 833:erection 794:contribs 779:contribs 764:contribs 446:WP:POINT 426:Mareklug 377:Russavia 309:Russavia 295:of Zorro 272:Russavia 257:Russavia 240:Russavia 223:buttocks 203:Pricasso 168:Pricasso 58:promoted 2170:WP:FOUR 2105:WP:FOUR 2046:scrotum 1955:WP:FOUR 1905:WP:FOUR 1838:WP:FOUR 1813:Mathsci 1808:Comment 1786:WP:FOUR 1745:WP:FOUR 1704:Comment 1619:Mathsci 1556:\(^_^)/ 1548:Bonkers 1517:Mathsci 1513:support 1386: ( 1299:Mathsci 1294:The Sun 1052:scrotum 935:Optimom 785: ( 770: ( 755: ( 662:current 567:\(^_^)/ 559:Bonkers 549:Comment 476:Mathsci 461:Mathsci 450:Mathsci 219:scrotum 2140:cntrb. 2075:cntrb. 1986:cntrb. 1878:cntrb. 1723:cntrb. 1685:cntrb. 1667:an RfC 1504:cntrb. 1399:EdChem 1390: 1358:cntrb. 1311:EdChem 1256:EdChem 1213:cntrb. 1161:cntrb. 1109:cntrb. 1042:is an 961:cntrb. 883:cntrb. 802:EdChem 798:WT:DYK 789: 774: 759: 735:cntrb. 690:As to 664:form. 636:cntrb. 583:WP:ANI 524:EdChem 509:EdChem 209:is an 2042:penis 2036:, an 1762:Conti 1587:Jakob 1474:Jakob 1280:near 1180:Jakob 1048:penis 916:Jakob 768:Auric 702:Jakob 553:added 538:Conti 401:Jakob 345:Jakob 215:penis 16:< 2135:tlk. 2070:tlk. 2048:and 2025:ALT1 2017:talk 2013:SL93 2005:talk 2001:SL93 1981:tlk. 1933:talk 1929:SL93 1873:tlk. 1817:talk 1718:tlk. 1698:talk 1694:SL93 1680:tlk. 1654:talk 1544:. ☯ 1537:what 1521:talk 1499:tlk. 1466:And 1403:talk 1388:talk 1353:tlk. 1315:talk 1303:talk 1260:talk 1208:tlk. 1195:poem 1174:says 1156:tlk. 1104:tlk. 1064:talk 1054:and 972:see 956:tlk. 939:talk 878:tlk. 859:talk 806:talk 787:talk 783:Tarc 772:talk 757:talk 730:tlk. 631:tlk. 610:talk 591:talk 528:talk 513:talk 480:talk 465:talk 454:talk 421:some 381:talk 313:talk 276:talk 261:talk 244:talk 221:and 1635:or 1535:So 1468:now 1197:.-- 908:POV 585:. — 395:). 303:In 60:by 43:or 2219:: 2044:, 1593:C2 1574:. 1511:I 1480:C2 1186:C2 1142:is 1050:, 922:C2 843:” 824:“ 708:C2 536:-- 424:-- 407:C2 351:C2 270:. 248:. 217:, 172:( 39:, 2180:) 2176:/ 2172:/ 2168:/ 2166:C 2164:/ 2162:T 2160:( 2115:) 2111:/ 2107:/ 2103:/ 2101:C 2099:/ 2097:T 2095:( 2015:( 2003:( 1965:) 1961:/ 1957:/ 1953:/ 1951:C 1949:/ 1947:T 1945:( 1931:( 1915:) 1911:/ 1907:/ 1903:/ 1901:C 1899:/ 1897:T 1895:( 1848:) 1844:/ 1840:/ 1836:/ 1834:C 1832:/ 1830:T 1828:( 1815:( 1796:) 1792:/ 1788:/ 1784:/ 1782:C 1780:/ 1778:T 1776:( 1765:✉ 1755:) 1751:/ 1747:/ 1743:/ 1741:C 1739:/ 1737:T 1735:( 1696:( 1652:( 1519:( 1460:) 1454:( 1437:) 1431:( 1420:) 1414:( 1401:( 1392:· 1378:) 1372:( 1313:( 1301:( 1270:) 1266:( 1258:( 1248:) 1242:( 1134:) 1128:( 1086:) 1080:( 1062:( 1022:) 1016:( 937:( 857:( 804:( 791:· 776:· 761:· 608:( 589:( 526:( 511:( 478:( 463:( 452:( 379:( 328:? 311:( 274:( 259:( 242:( 225:? 187:) 100:@ 78:@ 51:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index