Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy)/Archive 26

3698:

accumulate and every article would have ten of them. On the other side, nothing wrong with adding a naked or even erotic picture to an article if the point is encyclopedic interest, illustration, and completeness rather than titilation or making a point. That could imperil Knowledge (XXG) in schools, with the workplace filters, etc., but we've made the decision not to bow down to that. That should be an editorial decision for the best outcome of the article, not somebody's agenda. Also, when you're in the territory of a wikiproject it's good form to honor their article standards. I think there are good reasons for an adult entertainment centered project to use clothed pictures. Most adult performers are clothed in their within-the-industry publicity shots. And despite the occasional act of exhibitionism in the afterparties and convention lobbies, they pretty much stay clothed for the business meetings, award ceremonies, etc. Think of it like a pop singer or opera star - their head shots don't all show them singing. So it is with performers in the sex industry, the bio pieces are usually clothed. It's just a matter of being a little more formal and businesslike in my opinion.

3202:. However Mwalcoff's assertion can be plainly seen on-its-face to be a false characterization of the evidence. The link does not state that republication of libel is libel, rather it asserts that it might possibly be and after reading the entire article based on numerous cases by the way, we arrive at the final issue. A single, yes a single case, yes just one, where the US Supreme Court rejected without comment, a case submitted for docket. Since they rejected without comment, we will never know why, to turn and now assert that this proves that they are skeptical of the neutral reportage protection is surely a gross overstatement. To assert that some journalists might suspect the possibility that.... is pointless. Many state courts have asserted that neutral reportage is protected. I would conclude that the particular case was of a newspaper who reported the defamation of one public official by another, making the point just that much narrower. 3900:, maybe I am confused, as I often am but do you mean that illustrations can never be pornographic and all photographs showing people having sex are pornographic? As a cultural/visual historian that's a new one to me, but admittedly I am not really into porn. I don't even know if I know it when I see it! That just seems like a weird division because I've seen some hentai illustrations that are much more graphic and seemingly explicit than some photos of two people touching each other's naughty bits! Does it depend on how unattractive the people in the demonstrative image are? This is all silly! We are human beings that do things. If there is an article about the things we do there shouldn't be hang-ups about showing people doing those things. Now I guess I will go find out what a Cleveland steamer is... 2400:

my life living in the US I have not experienced it as a problem of understanding when used in context. Also wikipedia is not a static written page, words are wikilinked, if a user is confused clarity can be obtained in one click. What you give up by creating this policy is well written gramatically correct articles where the prose flows well. Having said that I will labour the point no longer. So far I have not seen any support for this policy from any other users, and several users who have raised concerns. I will step back and see if there is any support from the wider community and/or a good counterpoint to any of the points I have raised, which may change my mind.

3779:-like" just because that is the best way to illustate the concept. If it is a problem for *you*, then you can set your browser to always ask you before displaying images on *your* computer. Some of us, medical professionals, artists, visual historians, cultural critics, etc. look at images with a different frame of reference. We are not so easily disturbed or titilated (sp?) and thus see "information" where other people, for whatever reason, see "horrible porn." The Knowledge (XXG) cannot be redesigned to protect such easily disturbed or titilated people from their own subjective interpretations and perceptions. 2352:

after the word so people know what you are talking about. Language is about more than just words, it has grammer and context. There is already a mechanism in place to deal with the multiple meanings of a word, it's context. If you believe that the context is insuffecient, then you should improve the sentance with further explanation or add a footnote. This way you do not stop the normal flow of a sentance by interupting the prose. This is also likely to be contentious in both types of football articles and result in many an edit war when people don't understand or disagree with the policy. So in summary.

3183:

still libel. But with so many media outlets already accepting all of Societe Generale's accusations as fact, I'm sure Knowledge (XXG) editors will be averse to waiting before publishing ourselves. So the best we can do is make sure we are simply following the lead of the world's media. That may ensure that other media, not us, are the people who would bear the brunt of any defamation action taken by Kerviel's lawyers. (And that any future plaintiff with a libel case against Knowledge (XXG) couldn't establish a pattern of behavior of failing to address potentially libelous statements.) --

2265:, and they are both native English speaking countries so there is no language barrier to them understanding context. In the world in general football is considered to be Association football, you may need to qualify the other types of football since the majority of the world understands football to be Association football, however I do not think you need to qualify Association football as football(soccer). The second largest sporting event in the world is teh Football World Cup and they find no need to qualify it as the Football(soccer) World Cup. 1824:

summaries from the more detailed articles below it and have the history section of the US article be a "super master page" of summaries from the lower US History master page? It's already getting confusing and it's already taking the Wiki aspect of the encyclopedia out of the equation. Contradictions may be inevitable but are easily fixable and I think everyone benefits from reading similar information from different perspectives with different levels of summary and detail. In short, my first impression of your idea is I don't like it much.

3880:

drawing meets our objectives without the need for "graphic" and hence possibly verging on pornographic images. I do however think rules on individuals bio's need to be watched carefully - for instance, some of the sports related articles show some athletes in skimpy/not a lot of clothing. I would imagine it difficult to source a good encyclopaedic picture of a high-diver for instance without showing them doing their thing - dressed in an Armani suit just wouldn't do it or meet our encyclopaedic objectives. Rgds, -

3409:

known. It's a null paper. It collects together various cases where the status quo was upheld, and where it was not. We, as fellow journalists, are certainly in the same boat, as other publications. We, have no reason not to follow the same standards as other publications. If an article in the Los Angeles Times, on Britney Spears can state that she was "thrashing about wildly when arrested" then we can certainly quote it, standing on the same legal ground, as that initial publisher.

2567:

disdaining. What is absurd about your example is not the grammar but the idea that there is a need to qualify the word "mom." Certainly, everyone with even the slightest grasp of English knows what "mom" means, and there is no other meaning to the word. On the other hand, perhaps a majority of the 320 million English speakers in North America think "football" always refers to something other than the round-ball game. Thus the reason for saying "football (soccer)" on first reference. --

1362:. The coverage of romantic novelists on wikipedia was absolutely awful, and we had an overwhelming sea of red links on the list before. Now that we've separated out the names with articles and those without we are better able to identify which of the more prominent authors are missing and try to create those articles. We've also made it easier for the reader. I really like this method and think it would be useful for other groups at all. 4219:-- bedroom activities, warp core plasma flow, Irish sea shipping lanes -- would tend more to be obscured by the details of a concrete "real life" example, and are better suited to a line drawing or other diagram that can better abstract and elucidate the concept. Sometimes you can make a case for a photographic image even of this more abstract category, of course, when there's some facet of it that a diagram simply can't do justice to. -- 4158:

very disturbing. I also think warnings of upcomming offensive material will scare more people off the entire article. I am not completley against censorship like most of the .... well people on here. I don't think a bit of censorship is bad if it is what we need to keep a G rating. I like to know I won't see certain things on wikipedia while browsing around and I will see things on my porn sites when browsing around (just kidding).--

3985:

can start to have NSFW image pages for explicit content. I don't agree to the reasoning that people would come to Knowledge (XXG) to take a look at porn (what would happen to all the books books on reproductive anatomy if we go by this line of reasoning?), but I definitely care about people trying to surf pages at work, shared space, academies (yes, you may need the article to write a classroom assignment, too) an so forth.

2322:

appropriate for the audience. In US, Canadian or Australian/NZ articles, the local form of football should be preferred and used without qualification. It seems that from the evidence, UK and international articles can follow the same principle, to use football without qualification as 'soccer'. This may be debatable for international articles, were full qualification might be desired.

4068:

until David Shankbone posted his comment above, but in my opinion (based on over five years of participation here), he did describe how Wikipedians handle the matter accurately. If you can find a way to change the situation -- either through education or by formulating a better rationale that is accepted as a guideline -- you are welcome to do so, as long as it is not disruptive. --

2299:. That doesn't mean 77.6 of English Knowledge (XXG) users are from those countries, but it does mean a significant number of English Knowledge (XXG) users are from places where "football" means something other than the roundball game. Adding the word "soccer" on first reference is so easy and unobtrusive that I can't think of a single reason why not to do so. -- 3814:

it or hearing it. i dont think this kind of information should be censored; it should be treated as any other kind of information. ppl should be able to put watever they want whenever wherever in the net, trying also to preserve functionality. and if ppl dont want to see those images, they just shouldnt see them but not try to prevent someone else to see it

3386:), are those who (1) occupy positions of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figures for all purposes or (2)have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved, and are public figures with respect to comment on those issues." That's from the 4002:" which happens to have photographs of...a clitoris, then I think a person should not reasonably assume that the clit page would not have clits on it. Generally, graphic photos are found on relevant articles, whose titles themselves would not be "safe for work" - we can't hold everyone's hand for safety; let's not be that American about it. -- 1904:? Attempting to use a wiki to implement a hierarchical knowledge structure is likely to lead to nothing more than endless arguments over what parent should "own" what child. If we want to keep using a wiki, we'd probably best stick with a flexible, non-hierarchical network structure with all its risks of duplication. I simply don't see how 2215:

people who are perceived to need such help are not stupid and they will rapidly learn that, in particular contexts, football means Association Football. Thus in time, everyone will know what 'football' means in a given context. And the function of an encyclopaedia, to disseminate knowledge, will have been achieved at least in this case. -

2875:

see no problem with football (soccer), athlough Association Football would be a viable alternative. In New Zealand articles I tend to use soccer alone, since that is the most common name for the sport here (indeed, the main problem seems to be rugby league fans simply writing "rugby", which a majority would assume to mean rugby union).

2007:. We have a small group of tax experts who routinely patrol these articles to prevent them from being used as founts of nonsense, but that makes us particularly susceptible to charges of bias. Therefore, I'd appreciate if some folks who have heretofore been uninvolved in these matters could evaluate this RfC. Cheers! 4067:

Nydas, the reason is a practical one, rather than the product of reasoned thinking: those Wikipedians who defend the use of images in sex-related articles have received more support for keeping body part photos than for sex photos from the rest of Knowledge (XXG). I haven't seen this policy set forth

3875:

involves. We apply the same "what in context, not how" procedure to many drugs related articles - we don't need to describe the detailed process of turning poppies into heroin! I'd add a note that the "how" issue gets rightly suppressed when it comes to health advice - quite often, for example on the

3687:

censor their images, when it's very clear what the topic is. Some say that diagrams are more illustrative, which I disagree with - I think both photos and diagrams illustrate the subject differently and should both be included. And finally, I think it's entirely appropriate to include naked photos of

3430:

In this case, many sources have printed the accusations against the suspect, so it would seem overly conservative not to quote those sources. (The original In the News item did not quote anyone but just said Kerviel "is alleged" to have committed fraud -- a statement with zero libel protection.) That

2890:

I would agree with the above. The main objections seem to be to the term "football (soccer)" (which is naturally parrallelled with "football (gridiron)" rather than "American football" - I suppose this could be an alternative solution). If, instead of this, we put "association football", would it be

2764:

Knowledge (XXG) is not a crossword puzzle either. There's no point in forcing readers to scout around looking for clues to figure out what something is when we can just tell them. Your opinion that readers' failure to understand a word "is not the remit of Knowledge (XXG)" is all too reflective of an

2636:

derived from rugby). However given that people speak English they can understand context and therefore understand the difference without reverting to adding slang terms in brackets. This is my last post on this for five days I promise. Let's let others discuss it, you have stated your case and I have

2543:

OK, I'll try and help, the analogy you use is not accurate to the situation we are talking about, it would be more accurate if it was written as "Sheila Jones, my mom(mother), is the PTA president" which is not grammatically correct. A book I find very useful for grammer and what is correct or not is

2399:

You have not convinced me on that any of the main points I have raised in objection are incorrect (those being, problem already solved by use of language correctly, that it won't result in edit wars and that you have provided no evidence that it actually is a problem). Having spent a large portion of

2384:

Knowledge (XXG) readers to whom football=something other than soccer. Many of those people have no idea the word "football" means something other than the pointy-ball game. I agree that they will be able to figure it out eventually, but why make them do that when the solution is as simple as a single

2351:

The statistic sited is not relevant, since it cannot be extrapolated in any way to the English speaking (native or not) population that use Knowledge (XXG) as a resource. There are many words in the English language that have more than one meaning, you do not place the meaning you want in parenthesis

1437:

used in blogging that makes it an unreliable source. The fact that a source is a blog, by itself, does not necessarily make it unreliable. What makes a blog an unreliable source is the same as with other independent news sources: the nature of the editorial process and the credibility of the editors.

3182:

We need to decide what to do about Kerviel across the encyclopedia. Obviously, we should ensure that every word of material is attributed to widely read media sources and that the source of every accusation is prominently mentioned. That won't provide 100% protection, since republication of libel is

3044:

I have created a new project space essay on non-admin closure. This was in response to a few delrevs that resulted in relisting some AFD's due to non-admin closure out-of-process, followed by an editor asking me where to find policy/guideline/instructions for it. Not finding any, I made this essay

1217:

Quite. But it could be said that they (or some of them) do deserve the articles that they haven't yet got, and even that listing them in this way encourages people to write those articles. To which my own response would be: Fine, then list them in a WikiProject page or similar. However, others might

4035:

Having looked at that articles history, I can't see where a "censorship" issue over an image has been raised? May be I am being slow here, but a direct example of what you see as bias or censorship on a specific article is normally better enabling for others to see your point. However, putting that

3813:

Censorship is a most dangerous business for a free society and is the basis of fascist, represive entities. for some reason sexual acts and similars are a taboo for humanity in general mostly -i believe- because it triggers maybe unwelcomed basic instinctual mechanisms in the person tat is watching

3697:

You must be upset half the time then. That picture of simulated analingus keeps getting taken out and put back in about twice a day. As long as the motivation is encyclopedic value, proper tone, and perhaps good taste rather than censorship. If we simply couldn't remove naked pictures they would

2874:

This discussion is having difficulty keeping on track. The simple matter is that there are seven major codes of "football" (and probably still some minor ones), and they are all often called "football" by their players and followers. It therefore makes sense to disambiguate them at first mention. I

2693:

Let's say there's a country somewhere where motorcycles are called "bicycles." You have no idea this is the case. One day, "Today's featured article" begins: "The Victory Vision Street is a luxury touring bicycle with engine displacement of 1,600 cc, a wet multiplate clutch and an aluminum swingarm

2336:

Hi Lina. I'm aware of the consensus that we generally use British English for British articles and American English for articles about American topics. I'm not contesting that. I'm just saying that we should use a qualifier on the first reference and first reference only, just to make it easier for

2030:

I'm uninvolved. I despise Libertarians, but I'm an independent-minded Liberal who recently somewhat came to the conclusion that, yes, taxation is theft. Still, though, a lot of tax-protesters are like 9/11 twoofers, totally off-the-wall. Saying "there is no law requiring me to pay taxes" is insane.

1330:

Thanks! No redlinks whatsoever is certainly the pragmatic approach - it's the same on the "births" sections of articles for days of the year, which are even more plagued by teenagers inserting themselves. I suppose the counter-argument is that the list of photographers can afford to take that view,

1232:

People confusing Knowledge (XXG) with Facebook and adding themselves to articles like this is a constant niggling problem. Being notable enough for their article should be regarded as an absolute minimum for including someone this sort of section. In fact, even genuinely notable people don't always

4157:

I think if you really want to produce these sort of articles we should create, a placement picture of not suitable for general audiences and then click on that to get the picture, though that might be a stupid idea. I think like most people the idea of getting an eye full when reading a article is

3984:

Is it possible to put a link (yes, a highly visible link... though may be at the bottom of the page) that leads to an image on a separate image page (not like the image description page which describes copyright status and stuff, but describing the content of the image... based on the article)? We

3879:

article, we don't go into much detail about the act but do go into "how" detail on health and clean up issues. If we place pictures in the encyclopaedic context of wiki, then I think in general we get it right - a picture can summarise 1,000 words, but even in these days of multi-media a good line

3734:

I don't think every photo of a porn star should show them naked, or that no naked picture should be removed - just that where they help to convey information about the subject they should be retained. For example, if a particular porn star is known for her large breasts, the article should explain

3682:

Largely the lack of free images for the purpose, and the controversy that tends to arise when people add explicit images to articles. It's difficult to find free images because amateur photographers don't frequently have access to subjects who are willing to give up their sexual privacy. I find it

3408:

The problem MWalcoff with your unsourced assertions is that you are not an authority in this area. Neither am I. That is why we use sources. The source your provided does not, in fact, back up your claim, in fact it says the opposite, or rather it presents the case that the case is not actually

2651:

It's worth noting for the record that, amongst all that I have met or heard the opinions of, virtually no-one in the UK would ever use 'football' to refer to any of the types of Rugby. Even though the sports share the same historical basis, they are now seen as entirely distinct and something that

2627:

is used in proper context then I am sure most readers would understand what it meant. That being the whole point of what we are discussing. BTW even in countries outside of the US there is more than one type of football. For example in the UK there are three main types; Association football (slang

2830:

Well, there you go, that's the difference between your philosophy and mine. You think Knowledge (XXG) is there to show the world what you know. I think it's to help people seeking knowledge to find it and to help spread knowledge. Your view is editor-centric and mine is reader-centric. That's the

1912:

describes a process for creating articles, not a command that articles stay that way following creation. Child articles, like human children, move away from their parents following creation and develop a wide network of potentially duplicative (but potentially rewarding) associations. Nothing in

1278:

To Hoary: Sorry, I misread exactly what you'd done - when I said "notable enough for their own article" I didn't necessarily mean having their own articles already. I've reinserted some people whose entries made a reasonable claim of notability - our coverage of Indian topics is far less complete

2784:

You are incorrect, I would also like to preface this with I did not make any of wikipedia's policies, and its not my opinion its wikipedia policy. Knowledge (XXG) is not here to appeal to the widest possible audience, it is supposed to be an encylopedia. Please read up on what Knowledge (XXG) is

2214:

The problem is that people who understand 'football' to mean 'Association Football' don't see any real need to qualify the word with a trailing (soccer). The only purpose for that, as they see it, is to help USAmericans understand that Association Football is being referred to. The point is that

3828:

This has nothing to do with censorship. The reason why most articles relating to sex don't have sexual explicit or pornographics photos is simple. They serve no encylopaedic purpose. Nearly every case which I've seen a diagram does a much better job of illustrating a concept then a pornographic

2905:

Mwalcoff, chill! The fact that, as you referenced above, 77.6% of native English speakers live in the U.S., Canada or Australia can't be allowed to stand in the way of the other 22.4% prevailing in any discussion/argument. Rule Britannia! By the way, I'm saying this tongue in check to try to

2705:

I think if you read newspapers or mass-market books you'll see how everything is be spoon-fed to readers. For instance, American newspapers will say "Democratic presidential candidate Barak Obama," when you'd think everyone knows who Obama is by now. It's about writing for the broadest possible

3019:

as a "joint workshop" for people to work together on any suggestions for the IAR page while keeping the main policy page stable throughout the work, since it seems there is some controversy (it is protected currently anyway). Hopefully if people want to work towards gaining consensus for some

2482:

Using a qualifier on the first reference seems simple. Mwalcoff doesn't seem to be saying editors should use International or US English - Mwalcoff seems to be saying that either use of the word football should be qualified the first time it's mentioned. It seems easy enough to say 'American

2581:

Glad you love it, there is a whole chapter on brackets. BTW I simply corrected your analogy, I also think it is silly to put mom(mother), but it is analagous to what you are requesting be policy. Your original analogy would translate in a football sense to Miami Dolphins(American Football) or

2414:

I'm not sure that the proposal is really necessary except in places where there are other sports regularly referred to as football. I mean in places like Argentina, Brazil and many other countries, there is not really much scope for confusion about which code we are talking about. The risk of

1823:

already makes this point become clear because the US History article isn't really a child of the US article. The US History article is a parent article in itself branching off into even more detailed articles. Are you suggesting the US History article also be a "master page" simply made up of

1335:

be on the list if it's not to look silly has an article by now. That doesn't seem to be true even of the upper echelons of Indian society - looking through that list I was shocked to see just how many prominent Indian people (up to and including former cabinet ministers) we don't seem to have

1258:

and so they will have the thousands, when the relatively few people here interested in academic articles do the job properly. We can deal with lists of that length: usually, we divide them into groups by occupation. Anyone with a WP article qualifies to be listed as a notable alumnus of their

3874:

I'll hence defend its inclusion on that basis. The words describe that act sufficiently for an encyclopaedia - ie: describe what is it, in context. We don't need to go into more detail, as we are not instructing individuals on how to do it - just what it is, and in its sexual context what it

3170:

Until a few minutes ago, our main page (on "In the News") said that Kerviel "is alleged" to have committed this massive fraud. It didn't mention who was doing the alleging. Now anyone who knows the first thing about media law in the U.S. knows that using empty terms like "is alleged" offers

2785:

before declaring it should be something else. A certain amount amount of basic language skills are assumed by an encyclopedia, it is not supposed to be dumbed down, or use broken English to make it more likely to be understood, which is unproven supposition on your part. Again stepping away

2321:

favoured in formal writings, but that football has become a loanword for soccer in a number of different languages (the notable exception being the german translation). As for the debate here, I feel that the standard wikipedia rules on language apply - the words used should be the one most

2092:

It's pretty rare to include the day of the week; that might be useful for scheduled events that are about to occur (say, an election next Tuesday), but generally it's unnecessary. The American style is to put a comma after the date, and I suggest you follow that unless the norm elsewhere is

2566:

does and says that parentheses "set off explanatory or other additional material not needed in the main sentence. Stylistically, parentheses are a way of setting off an aside in a syntactic structure." That page gives several examples of parentheses used in a similar manner to what you are

2226:

But that's not how an encyclopedia should work. The reader should not be expected to do the work. It's no different than an editor who simply wikilinks rather than defines a term necessary to understand an article, thinking that the reader can just go to the wikilinked article. That's not

4087:, but let's draw the line at every amateur shot of people in mid-coitus. But if you think this should be different, by all means spearhead a community effort to re-open the question. Otherwise, I think people with fucking photos are going to find themselves reverted every time. -- 2515:

Agreed. I also find it disingenuous to be assuming that because a reader is used to one form of football that he will not understand others exist. The context of the article will make it readily apparent that the it is related to Association/Australian/Canadian/American football.

2415:

confusion to people that may think that Gridiron or Aussie rules are played in Argentina is mitigated by the fact that the first usage of the word football in an article should be wikilinked to the correct context. The problem with the idea of including the full link is that both

4082:

I concur with Llywrch. I'm not saying that the general consensus is enshrined, but more what I have gleaned through arguments on individual pages, and in general discussion. I think most people think this is an adequate line to draw: non-sexual photographs of testicles are fine

1496:

In general, blogs should be avoided, but in some cases (i.e., experts who run their own blogs), a "good blog," is not really a blog at all, but simply a mainstream news source that's being provided with a new form of technology, though it's still just as reliable and verifiable.

3236:

Look, it's nearly 2 a.m., and I'm not going to go scour my bookshelf and the Internet for sources to prove to you the basic tenets of media law. Yes, it's more complicated than "republication of libel is libel." What is undoubtable, though, is that each repetition of libel is

1949:

You are correct. Smithsonian Institute is a redirect to Smithsonian Institution for the benefit of people who don't know the correct name. You can edit Taj Mahal to correct those links. If you are really energetic you could correct the 200 other links that are misspelled.

2596:

The "mom" thing is not anything like the "football" issue. As I said above, all English speakers know what the word "mom" means, and there is no other definition of it. You seem not to understand that millions of English speakers think "football" means something else. --

1642:. Readers are confused, editors are waisting their time, contradictions are inevitable. This mess could be corrected with the generous use of soft redirects to channel everyone to a common article. Is there a policy against duplication and/or repetition? If not, why not? 2528:

The use of a parenthetical is completely grammatical. Take, for instance, the following sentence: "Sheila Jones (my mom) is the PTA president." Perfectly acceptable, if not ideal. I don't quite understand Peanut4's objection; I'd appreciate some further explanation. --

3869:

as a case where words, images, ethics and censorship were closely interwoven on an article to establish consensus. Personally like him, I wish the article weren't here (ethics), but I'm glad it is because it shows we live the Wiki ethos (no censorship), and having

2769:

No, it's not their problem; it's our problem, or at least our fault. We don't have to be exactly like newspapers, but newspapers are a good benchmark for how we should write because they are aimed at the widest possible audience, like Knowledge (XXG) should be. --

2637:

stated mine, I am not sure we are adding anything to them. If you want to debate it with me further, feel free to post to my talk page and if we have any more valid info, rather than tit for tat, to contribute following these discussions we can copy it back here.

2243:

Are we to be believe that the unqualified word 'football' in different contexts really presents some people with a reading difficulty? That does seem very hard to believe. Even so, familiarity with the different contexts will soon enlighten any persons with such

1756:

A certain amount of duplication is IMO a good thing. Certainly there's an overhead in duplicating data, but there are also overheads in attempting not to. So there's an optimum amount of duplication - which might be zero as you suggest, but I doubt it.

3670:

images, but explicit ones should indeed be banned. They may be missing because free images of that could be hard to come by, especially encyclopedic ones. And even though we aren't censored, those who want it to be could have some influence there.

3774:

the most "encyclopaedic" image, meaning that it conveys the most descriptive visible information clearly and in focus/context. Knowledge (XXG) is not censored. Sometimes it is necessary to allow images to exist that you find personally "horrible" or

3498:: "One who repeats the defamatory statements of another is liable for that republication even if he attributes the statement to the original publisher. The republisher, however, may have privileges that are unavailable to the original publisher." ( 2118:

The naming convention for monarchs has previously been an exception to Knowledge (XXG)'s general naming conventions. Efforts are now being made to bring them in line, with a propoasl for the most common name for a monarch to take precedence. (eg.

3735:

this and show a picture of her breasts. This is particularly relevant to sexual acts where it's difficult to describe in words the relative position and orientation of things. And yes, redundant photos are to be avoided in any context - I think

3459:: "(I)f publication A reports “Jones murdered Smith” and publication B reports “Publication A reported that Jones murdered Smith,” B is liable for libel even though the statement is literally true—that A reported the allegation against Jones." ( 2498:. Football (soccer) is non-sensical grammar wise in an ordinary sentence. How do we explain the term footballer? Footballer (soccer player)? Context is key not the word itself. Otherwise we would have thousands of qualifying words in brackets. 3465:

Intellectual property office of the University of Texas system: "The fact that material has already been printed somewhere else is not a defense except in the narrow fair report circumstance. Republication of a libel creates another libel."

2317:- the issue is one of if we are native-speaker-centric (and hence it is soccer and football refers to the country's predominant form of football), or if we serve all English readers, in which case the article makes it clear that not only is 3436:

If you're asking me to prove that the common-law republication rule exists, you might as well be asking me to prove that gravity exists. Most sources I've found assume the reader already is aware of the rule. The libel section of the

4142:

and then edit warring to keep them in articles. Knowledge (XXG) is not for exhibitionists and such things should be discouraged extremely strongly-- there's plenty of medical diagrams and so forth that would serve the same purpose.

4138:(undent) While we're on this subject, you want to know what I find upsetting? I find it upsetting that people jerk off on a table and take a picture of it just so they can put it on wikipedia. I find it upsetting that people are 3314:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -- FREEDOM OF THE PRESS -- PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT DECLINES TO ADOPT NEUTRAL REPORTAGE PRIVILEGE. -- Norton v. Glenn, 860 A.2d 48 (Pa. 2004). Harvard Law Review, Apr2005, Vol. 118 Issue 6, p2029-2036,

2963:

Thanks Until(1==2)! In actual fact, that particular edit was not so important. What we're actually trying to do is to use such a particularly suited page to figure out how to solve the issues found in this discussion:

3424:

You are right. Although I have worked in the media and been instructed in libel law, I am not a lawyer. However, media outlets can and do get sued for libel, and Knowledge (XXG) needs to make sure not to repeat their

3928:

No, I raise no such argument. I am simply stating that when this issue has been broached (repeatedly) community consensus has come down to graphic illustrations for sexual acts; photographs for body parts (such as

3441:, for instance, discusses when potentially libelous material can be republished under the "fair report" doctrine but assumes the reader already knows he or she can't go reprinting defamation. (You may want to try 3472:

New Jersey Press Association: "Question: The newspaper has received a letter to the editor accusing a local business of bigotry. If the newspaper prints the letter will it be open to a libel suit? Answer: Yes.

2698:??? I know a lot about bicycles, but I have no idea what they're talking about." Eventually, by reading through the article and clicking on wikilinks, you figure out that the "bicycle" is really a motorcycle. 3245:

reprints the libelous statement. Now the person's reputation is damaged because a million people have read the statement. The plaintiff can sue the high school newspaper, but he'll be far better off suing the

2701:

The alternative is for the article to say on first reference that the "bicycle" may also me known as a "motorcycle." This way, there is no "WTF" reaction, and the newbie reader is welcomed into the article.

1410:

article. His objection was because "the sources were blogs." Technically, though, they seemed reliable at the time. I mean, Wired is just as reliable as postings made by the Gamespot company, right? Why not?

1259:

university or universities. As for the ones who dont have articles and are listed, the advice is to make the articles & see if they stick--or, as Hoary suggests, ask for help doing it in a wikiproject.

3167:. He has not been charged with a crime. All of the accusations against him are coming from the company. That said, it seems that every media outlet in the world, it seems, is assuming he is guilty of fraud. 3267:. I don't know if neutral reportage would cover what an employer says about an employee. I wouldn't count on it. I know that in 1996, NBC News aired a defamatory story about Olympic Park bombing suspect 2444:

Yeah, but how do you know who's reading the article? You can't assume that just because an article is about something about Argentina that only people familiar with Argentina will read the article. --

2385:

word? It shouldn't result in edit wars if it becomes official policy. It's all about writing to make it easy on the reader, not the editors -- a practice all too often ignored on Knowledge (XXG). --

1665:) should be summaries of more detailed subarticles. In theory it works out pretty well - readers can get a broad overview of a topic, then read progressively more detailed articles if they want. -- 3541: 1793:

of sub-articles, with the titles as paragraphs. This would keep the summary short, up-to-date, would eliminate duplications and would ensure that readers & editors go to the sub-article.

2060:

This is a pretty trivial thing to bring up but I was wondering what is the correct punctuation to use when you mention the day of the week at the beginning of the date (do you use a comma)?

50: 2361:

I see no compeling reason to change the way it is currently handled since it does not seem to cause any confusion (is their any evidence that people are confused, such as incorrect edits?)

3504:"Under the republication rule, one who repeats a defamatory statement is as liable as the original defamer, Lee,849 F.2d at 878, unless, of course, the repetition is a privileged one." 3532: 2690:

People seem to be failing to grasp why you can't just say, "Let the readers rely on the context." Well, you can, but not if you're thinking about what would be easiest for the reader.

4105:

David, I hope by "fucking photos" you mean photos showing their subjects engaged in sexual intercourse, & not that you are upset with people who upload scans of photographs. ;-)

2501:

I don't want to guess at the number of disambig pages. Each one has a similar article. Are we suggesting that each time we use one of them we have to put the qualifier in brackets?

1789:

Another idea : the WP code could be changed so that summary articles would be a) transformed into a "master page" that would b) be locked, and c) be a code-generated display of the

3289:

I'm off to work, but the source that you cite is a business journal. Someone should cite a reference in a legal journal, as that really is the bare minimum for legal discussions.

1344:" is equally useful whether we have an actual article on him or not. Anyway, there are some disordered thoughts... as for me, I think I feel an evening of writing stubs coming on. 3250:, which is really responsible for the damage to his reputation. That's what the republication rule means -- he can sue the Times, not just the first newspaper to print the libel. 1786:

Knowledge (XXG) has grown so bloated it is becoming too much for the average hight school student. Is it the time to make WP:SUMMARY more prominent? Is it time for a six pillar?

3568: 3141: 1275:

A never-ending argument of course, but personally I think categories work as well in many cases. But I don't plan to go on any of blue-link deletion crusades at the moment.

2186:

Current policy seems to be that a qualifier is not necessary, even on first reference, if the meaning is "clear from the context." There are two problems with this view:

3218:

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue, and I submit that the rule on neutral reportage was *created* by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the first place.

3198:

On the talk page of this article, Mwalcoff again asserted a claim that repeating libel offers no libel protection,etc, and I asked for a source which Mwalcoff provided

3045:

up, and am seeking input from others to improve it. I hope it will be promoted to guideline status after careful review and collaboration. The essay is located at

3843:

I concur with Nil above. It has long been settled by community consensus that we use illustrations to depict sexual acts, and photographs to depict body parts. --

2859:

and change it or add an explanation? All content is supplied by editors. Nothing is fixed. Everything is subject to revision and anything can be improved. Best, --

3171:

absolutely no libel protection. I reworded the In the News entry to eliminate Kerviel's name and had an administrator make the change. I also made changes to the

2190:

Some Knowledge (XXG) readers will be unfamiliar with the use of the word "football" to mean anything other than the variety of football popular in their country.

1147: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1003: 999: 995: 991: 987: 983: 979: 975: 971: 967: 963: 959: 955: 951: 947: 943: 939: 935: 931: 927: 923: 919: 915: 911: 907: 903: 899: 895: 891: 887: 883: 879: 875: 871: 867: 863: 859: 855: 851: 847: 843: 839: 835: 831: 827: 823: 819: 815: 811: 807: 803: 799: 795: 791: 787: 783: 779: 775: 771: 767: 3941:). The arguments have been many, and in the end, this has been the "truce" of the community consensus. The question comes up regularly on individual pages. -- 3395: 1298:

Still less a post-doc who insistently deposits his CV on Knowledge (XXG), most lately in an article that you have rightly prodded. (Have these people no shame?)

763: 759: 755: 751: 747: 743: 739: 735: 731: 727: 723: 719: 715: 711: 707: 703: 699: 695: 691: 687: 683: 679: 675: 671: 667: 663: 659: 655: 651: 647: 643: 639: 635: 631: 627: 623: 619: 615: 611: 607: 603: 599: 595: 591: 587: 583: 579: 575: 571: 567: 563: 559: 555: 551: 547: 543: 539: 535: 531: 527: 523: 519: 515: 511: 507: 503: 499: 495: 491: 487: 483: 479: 475: 467: 463: 459: 455: 451: 447: 443: 439: 435: 431: 427: 423: 419: 415: 411: 407: 365: 361: 357: 353: 349: 345: 341: 337: 333: 329: 325: 321: 317: 313: 309: 305: 301: 297: 293: 289: 285: 281: 277: 273: 269: 265: 261: 257: 253: 249: 245: 241: 237: 233: 229: 225: 221: 217: 213: 209: 205: 3483: 2434: 3586:

There wasn't much discussion on this, for it to be a sitewide guideline there should really be some more comments on the talk page to indicate a consensus.

3114: 403: 399: 395: 391: 387: 383: 379: 375: 371: 201: 197: 193: 189: 185: 181: 177: 173: 169: 165: 161: 157: 153: 149: 145: 141: 137: 133: 129: 125: 121: 117: 113: 109: 105: 101: 2941:

Since this is a major change to core policy I think it important to get many points of view. We are having difficulty finding agreement, so please drop by

2706:

audience. Never make the readers do the work to understand something. It's our job to make things clear, not their job to sort out all of our content. --

1815:

I'm going to have to agree with Shirahadasha's comment below mine. Making a hierarchical structure is a bad idea. Just using the two examples you gave of

1305:

has got on pretty well with an absolute rule of "no article yet means no listing". This in turn means that a number of extremely deserving people -- e.g.

1158:

Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey pops up in various articles (together with people having the same surname), though he doesn't yet have an article of his own. (See

2098:

So no, we don't have a rule for everything; given that this question relates to a pretty unusual situation, feel free to just use your best judgment. --

2721:

Since you have started a sub topic about the central core of this discussion which you seem to not understand, I will jump back in and try to clarify

1395: 67: 3475:

As the re-publisher of the libel the newspaper is open to litigation the same way it would be if the newspaper made the statement in a news article.

2364:

Its current existance in the namespace is simply to solve the problem that you cannot have two things in Knowledge (XXG) with exactly the smae name.

1704:

the titles to point at the merged page. (In my history example, the last two titles both redirect to the first one.) Hope that clears things up,

3549: 3271:

that was based on information provided by his former boss. Jewell sued and obtained settlements from both the network and his former employer. --

3105: 1336:

articles for. And I suppose the main argument for having a list of notable alumni is to show the influence of the university... in this respect "

2132: 3241:. That means the plaintiff can sue the republisher. Think of it this way -- let's say a high-school newspaper in Nebraska libels someone. Then 2004: 1997: 3016: 4036:

aside, I can't see how an additional picture (photo or line drawing) would add to the current encyclopedic content of that article. Rgds, -

2652:

should not be similarly named. Most people seem to generally be of the opinion that American Football is a soft version of Rugby, anyhow :P

1562: 45: 40: 3380:

case only applies to "public figures," as the article on the case clearly states. "Public figures, the (U.S. Supreme) Court reiterated (in

2907: 3564: 3137: 2965: 2380:

As I said, I'm not suggesting that 77% of Knowledge (XXG) users speak American English. What I am saying is that there is a huge chunk of

57: 4050:

It's just an example of a typical photo-free sex article. Around half of them have had photos removed, though this is not one of them.

3053:. I am also attempting to usurp the infrequently-used shortcut WP:NAC, which two users are currently linking-to from their userspace. 2093:

different, and the article pertains to a topic of that (other) country. (This is the way spelling differences are handled, in general.)

83: 35: 17: 4211:-- body parts, famous people, pokémon -- can be easily represented with a photograph of an example or two. Images of more abstract 3712:

The workplace filters are capable of selectively filtering Knowledge (XXG) articles. A classic example is the user who created the

3618: 94: 3020:

changes to this page (which I think we all agree is a pretty important one!) then this will be helpful to them. Happy editing! --

3324: 3297: 3263:, like any libel defendant, has some possible defenses. This is a separate issue. As Wjhonson points out, one defense is that of 2429: 4246: 3819: 3431:

said, editors need to know that just because something defamatory has been published somewhere doesn't mean they can repeat it.

3509: 62: 3648:

has a rule that explicit images of porn stars are completely forbidden; perhaps this is creeping into general sex articles.--

3387: 3334: 1845: 3046: 1595:

I know there are differences between some British and American words (colour/color). Which is standard on Knowledge (XXG)?

3122: 4228: 3029: 2984:

Interesting. IAR is a very simple thing, so a very simple explanation (like the one that is there) is sufficient, IMO. -

1697: 2929: 2155: 4054:

is one where a photo was removed. I'd still like an explanation of why body part photos are OK, but sex photos aren't.--

2197:

The inclusion of a single word to make things easier on the reader is so simple that it should not be controversial. --

1820: 1681: 1639: 1245:

on this, just discuss on the relevent talk page if anyone reverts you; I suspect that most editors will agree with you.

1207: 2747:. The fact that people do not understand the meaning of words when used in context is not the remit of Knowledge (XXG). 1693: 1541: 3761: 3087: 3068: 2424: 1730:, reducing the duplicate material and moving non-duplicated material to the relevant child article? You might want to 1726:

has too much information in the summary sections and some of the information should be in the child articles, why not

4233: 4167: 4152: 3656: 2802:. You don't think an encyclopedia is supposed to reach the widest possible audience? What do you think it's for? -- 1185:, I decided to be BOLD, simply removing every redlinked and nonlinked person (as well as miscellaneous other junk). 4242: 3815: 1857: 1779:. This is the first time I hear of it; this policy is clearly not discussed enough. It certainly is not one of the 1680:

avoid is articles covering the same identical material under different titles. For example, we don't want to have

1676:

Per W.marsh, it's normal to have parent articles that summarize (and link to) detailed daughter articles. What we

1355: 1310: 2948: 2179: 2548:, I would recommend it to anyone wanting to gain a better understanding of grammer, I refer to it almost daily. 1780: 29: 3641: 2257:

There are only two countries in the world that use football to mean something other than Association football,

2104: 1709: 3645: 2911: 3489:: "The media can be liable for the republication of a libelous statement made by another person or entity." ( 1600: 2744: 2724:

The example you yourself have provided above is a great example to illustrate the point. The fact that the

2193:

Knowledge (XXG) should be as easy to read as possible, and we should not rely on the reader to do the work.

2133:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Proposals to change Monarchal naming conventions

3725: 3382: 3364: 2864: 2545: 2082: 1922: 1829: 1743: 1341: 1284: 1159: 2998:

Which is not a topic anyone is really discussing there atm. (sorry about the misleading title earlier) --

1731: 4220: 4163: 3703: 3460: 3021: 3003: 2973: 2657: 2327: 2120: 1942: 1685: 1523:

person is going to say oh well they goofed on that one little snit and so the whole thing is thrown out.

1359: 1302: 3958: 3739:

strikes a good balance (demonstrating a flacid and erect penis and ejaculation, all pretty different).

3662:

Although WP is not censored, it should not become a horrible pace for people to come to look at porn.

2942: 1917:

prohibits this. It may seem untidy, but it's actually a big source of Knowledge (XXG)'s value. Best, --

1701: 1666: 86:. Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either 4250: 4195: 4114: 4098: 4077: 4062: 4045: 4030: 4013: 3991: 3973: 3952: 3923: 3889: 3854: 3838: 3823: 3802: 3765: 3743: 3729: 3707: 3692: 3677: 3630: 3606: 3580: 3520: 3418: 3367: 3345: 3280: 3227: 3211: 3199: 3192: 3153: 3091: 3072: 3034: 3007: 2993: 2977: 2957: 2915: 2900: 2884: 2868: 2840: 2825: 2811: 2794: 2779: 2759: 2750:

How US (or any other countries) Newspapers choose to write articles has no bearing on this discussion

2715: 2661: 2646: 2606: 2591: 2576: 2557: 2538: 2523: 2510: 2489: 2453: 2439: 2409: 2394: 2375: 2346: 2331: 2308: 2274: 2236: 2206: 2144: 2107: 2086: 2047: 2022: 1986: 1977: 1959: 1926: 1833: 1802: 1766: 1747: 1713: 1669: 1651: 1623: 1604: 1585: 1553: 1532: 1513: 1371: 1350: 1325: 1293: 1270: 1251: 1227: 1212: 1197: 4092: 4007: 3946: 3895: 3848: 3626: 3442: 3352: 3321: 3294: 2416: 2128: 1983: 1234: 1182: 1914: 1909: 1905: 1794: 1776: 1643: 4203:

I'm coming a bit late to the party here, but I think this comes down to a general issue; images of

4041: 4019: 3885: 3834: 3699: 3576: 3341: 3149: 3054: 2821: 2790: 2755: 2642: 2587: 2553: 2405: 2371: 2270: 2100: 1798: 1722:

You're always welcome to improve articles in collaboration with other editors. If you believe that

1705: 1647: 3829:

image. As you youself mentioned, the primary purpose of pornography is to excite, not to educate.

2483:

Football' -or to say 'football (soccer)'- once and then use football. Why is that controversial?

1611: 1188:

Nobody's yet complained or reverted, but did I overstep myself? (Is there any policy on this?) --

4148: 3901: 3780: 3757: 3594: 3516: 3499: 3414: 3310:

Barring the bar. By: Leslie, Gregg. News Media & the Law, Winter2005, Vol. 29 Issue 1, p16-16

3276: 3223: 3207: 3188: 2880: 2836: 2807: 2775: 2711: 2602: 2572: 2534: 2520: 2484: 2449: 2390: 2342: 2304: 2232: 2202: 2124: 1973: 1955: 1735: 1596: 1528: 1367: 1238: 3467: 2855:

If you think "motorcycle" would more clearly explain the subject to a general audience, why not

1520: 1242: 3391: 4191: 4110: 4073: 3986: 3866: 3721: 3360: 3264: 2989: 2896: 2860: 2506: 2420: 2171: 2167: 2078: 2043: 1918: 1825: 1762: 1739: 1634:

Knowledge (XXG) is filled with data duplication. Look, for example, at the History section of

1619: 1581: 1549: 1509: 1279:

than our coverage of western ones, and there's a big difference between having a redlink for "

3050: 2856: 2074: 1790: 1727: 1427: 4159: 3176: 2999: 2969: 2653: 2323: 2296: 2140: 2017: 1689: 1337: 1280: 1210: 3716:

article during his lunch break at work and then was immediately blocked from viewing it by

3058: 2632:

derived from assoc.) along with both codes of Rugy Football, union and league, (slang term

2070: 4060: 4028: 3971: 3654: 3622: 3527:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Universities/Article guidelines has been marked as a guideline

3402:

opinion, but as our article on the topic makes clear, the law in this area is not settled.

3317: 3290: 2623:. I do not presume to know what people do or do not understand a word to mean. However if 2318: 2314: 1321: 1306: 1223: 1193: 3871: 3478: 3335:

Repeating libel is legal so long as there is no malice, but anyone can sue anyone anyway.

1696:

result in needless duplication of effort. Wherever possible, we deal with such forks by

1658: 1423: 1419: 1309:, let alone people I can't think of or have never heard of -- don't appear. That's what 4037: 3881: 3865:

I remember a previous debate on such a point, which one editor used the example of the

3830: 3572: 3337: 3268: 3172: 3164: 3145: 2817: 2786: 2751: 2638: 2583: 2549: 2495: 2401: 2367: 2266: 1566: 1415: 1398:) and it occurred to me that this misunderstanding was what led me to butt heads with 4144: 3753: 3740: 3689: 3684: 3673: 3588: 3512: 3410: 3272: 3219: 3203: 3184: 2876: 2832: 2803: 2771: 2707: 2598: 2568: 2530: 2517: 2445: 2386: 2355:

You are trying to solve a problem that is already solved using the English Language.

2338: 2300: 2228: 2198: 1969: 1951: 1853: 1816: 1723: 1662: 1635: 1524: 1363: 1266: 1241:

would contain lists of hundreds or thousands of names. Don't think we have or need a

4186: 4106: 4069: 3961:? At the moment, it fails to mention the 'no sex photos' policy, and wrongly cites 3438: 2985: 2892: 2502: 2038: 1901: 1849: 1758: 1615: 1576: 1545: 1504: 1399: 4022:

are censored. Wouldn't one reasonably assume that it would have a photo as well?--

1331:

because our coverage of photographers is presumably good enough that everyone who

3962: 3938: 2136: 2008: 1346: 1289: 1247: 1204: 3355:, it was established that, in the US, repeating libel on the Internet is legal 2003:

I'd like to get a broader swath of community input on the articles at issue in

1402:

a while back over whether to include the info about Gerstmann being fired from

1203:

If they are not notable enough for an article, how can they be notable alumni?

4056: 4024: 3967: 3713: 3650: 3082: 3063: 1893: 1881: 1317: 1219: 1189: 2615:

is an American slang term, different countries use other slang terms such as

2562:

I love that book, but I don't remember it discussing parentheses (brackets).

2077:. So does Knowledge (XXG) have a preference for this punctuation question? -- 3666:, etc. is already one of the most popular articles. I have no objection to 2906:

lighten the atmosphere. All the best to all of you in this matter. Thanks.

2258: 1938: 1873: 1869: 3644:. Is there any particular reason why almost none of them have photographs? 3490: 1287:" and one for a post-doc who decided to deposit his CV on Knowledge (XXG). 3080:

I have usurped the WP:NAC shortcut now and updated the list of shortcuts.

2563: 4241:

For my opinion please see item 56.Censorship (look in contents table). --

4051: 3999: 3876: 3717: 1897: 1885: 1861: 1407: 1403: 1261: 1174: 4084: 3998:

I think NSFW tags are a bad idea. If one is going to a page entitled "

3930: 3776: 3749: 2582:

Manchester City(fottball(soccer)) which is not what we are discussing.

2063:

For example: Thursday, January 24, 2008 OR Thursday January 24, 2008 ?

1945:. THIS IS INCORRECT - IT IS INSTITUTION, NOT INSTITUTE. Jim Froehlich 1865: 3100:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkusership has been marked as a policy

2297:

77.6% of native English speakers live in the U.S., Canada or Australia

4176: 2175: 1877: 3688:

porn stars, particularly ones who are known for remarkable anatomy.

3748:

I think that only encyclopedic images should be allowed. We're not

3057:

has already made some improvements, and will be adding this to the

3934: 3736: 1169:

Not wanting either to be or to appear vindictive to Dr Pandey, in

1537: 4181: 3663: 2695: 2262: 2166:, do not use the word "football" without a qualifier. Call it 2066:

Also: Thursday, 24 January 2008 OR Thursday 24 January 2008 ?

2033: 1889: 1571: 1499: 1473:(freerepublic, dailykos, digg, little green footballs, etc.) 90:

a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

4140:

taking pictures of their own assholes and crapping on plates

3450:

Nonetheless, here are some websites that discuss the matter:

1519:

Yes but change "always accurate" because you know that some

82:

This page contains discussions that have been archived from

3533:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Universities/Article guidelines

2423:

are unwieldy compromises that are rarely used in reality.

1783:

and, as we all know, it is neither respected nor enforced.

1233:

merit mentioning; otherwise the articles for places like

3770:

I can imagine instances where the "pornographic" image

3557: 3553: 3545: 3537: 3163:

I'm concerned about the information being posted about

3130: 3126: 3118: 3110: 2936: 2933: 2182:, etc. Subsequent references can simply say "football." 2135:

so we can get wide consensus on this matter. Thanks.

1178: 1170: 1163: 87: 3965:

as an article which contains objectionable content.--

1982:

Fixed. None remaining outside userspace + talkpages.

3179:

articles to eliminate the most obvious libel risks.

2966:

Wikipedia_talk:Disruptive_editing#Blocking_consensus

3359:of malice. Still, anyone can sue for anything. — 1968:I just fixed ten of them. Someone else's turn now. 1390:I saw this over at the RS noticeboard in somebody 3957:Shouldn't this alleged consensus be mentioned on 3617:A proposal to analyse the block logs can be seen 2765:attitude I see way too often on Knowledge (XXG): 2728:(which means it is a two wheeled vehicle) has an 2767:If readers don't get it, that's they're problem. 2564:The Columbia Guide to Standard American English 2056:Manual of Style - punctuation of dates question 1489:They copy and paste stuff from CNN and Fox News 1775:Thanks everyone for mentioning and discussing 1414:I propose the following (either to include at 3396:Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act 3040:New project space essay for non-admin closure 1941:. In it there are several references to the 1738:and seeing what other editors think. Best, -- 1561:Ah, nevermind. Looks like it's already there 8: 3484:Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press 2932:should be expanded from its current version: 2358:It is likely to result in edit wars (IMHO). 2069:I didn't see any mention of this in either 1630:Is there a policy against data duplication? 1463:They're journalists who do original stories 3106:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkusership 2694:rear suspension." You look at it and go, " 1444:(wired.com, mainstream media blogs, etc.) 3563:has recently been edited to mark it as a 3136:has recently been edited to mark it as a 3017:Knowledge (XXG):Ignore all rules/Workshop 2732:(in this case a 1,600 cc one) makes it a 3621:. Comments and suggestions are invited. 2150:Varieties of football on first reference 1700:all the content into one page, and then 3394:. We're probably on safer ground under 2736:(a two wheeled vehicle with an engine). 3508:, 925 F.2d 703 (4th Cir. 02/05/1991) ( 2619:and may not be familiar with the term 1998:Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment 2131:.) Please consider the proposals at 1698:Help:Merging and moving pages#merging 18:Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy) 7: 2739:The point you seem to be missing is 1734:first by proposing such a change on 1702:Knowledge (XXG):Redirect#redirecting 1316:That's a lovely sig, by the way. -- 3640:Take a look at the articles in the 3496:The Missouri bar Media Law Handbook 2741:Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary 2158:has led me to propose a guideline: 3049:, and a shortcut has been made at 1492:It's an editorial\opinion\advocacy 24: 3720:, presumably based on a keyword. 3506:Reuber v. Food Chemical News Inc. 3308:Here are two sources to look at: 3047:Knowledge (XXG):Non-admin closure 1657:I think think this is covered by 1542:United States journalism scandals 3636:No sex please, we're Wikipedians 2935:to a version with a story in it: 2930:Knowledge (XXG):Ignore all rules 2156:Knowledge (XXG):Main Page/Errors 1732:discuss this with other editors 1610:This is covered pretty well at 1486:Prone to having incorrect facts 3457:New York University Law Review 3388:Congressional Research Service 2800:/me bats head against the wall 1846:Christianity and homosexuality 1538:http://www.regrettheerror.com/ 1426:, or as an original policy at 1: 3803:15:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC) 3766:00:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 3744:23:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 3730:04:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC) 3708:23:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 3693:22:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 3683:upsetting that articles like 3678:22:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 3657:21:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 1460:Usually accurate on the facts 78:Village pump (policy) archive 4251:12:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 4234:10:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC) 4196:18:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 4168:15:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 3635: 3631:02:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 3607:00:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 3581:18:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC) 3521:03:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 3419:00:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC) 3368:15:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC) 3346:15:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC) 3328:2008 January 25, 12:51 (UTC) 3301:2008 January 25, 12:46 (UTC) 3281:07:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC) 3228:05:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC) 3212:05:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC) 3193:05:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC) 3154:18:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC) 3092:21:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC) 3073:16:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC) 3059:Knowledge (XXG) editor index 3035:22:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC) 3008:00:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 2994:23:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 2978:18:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 2958:15:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 2928:There is a discussion on if 2916:04:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC) 2901:17:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC) 2885:00:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 2869:03:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC) 2841:02:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC) 2826:01:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC) 2812:01:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC) 2795:01:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC) 2780:01:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC) 2760:00:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC) 2716:00:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC) 2662:00:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 2647:00:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 2607:23:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC) 2592:01:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC) 2577:01:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC) 2558:01:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC) 2539:00:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC) 2524:20:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC) 2511:19:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC) 2490:13:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC) 2454:00:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC) 2440:12:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC) 2410:00:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC) 2395:00:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC) 2376:11:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC) 2347:02:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC) 2332:01:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC) 2309:00:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC) 2275:22:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC) 2237:20:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC) 2207:19:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC) 2145:22:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC) 2114:Naming Conventions: Monarchs 2108:23:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC) 2087:05:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC) 2048:06:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC) 2023:18:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 1987:16:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC) 1978:04:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC) 1960:18:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 1927:05:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC) 1834:15:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC) 1821:History of the United States 1803:20:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 1767:08:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 1748:02:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC) 1714:15:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 1682:History of the United States 1670:14:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 1652:14:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 1640:History of the United States 1624:13:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 1605:13:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 1586:09:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 1554:05:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 1533:05:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 1514:02:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 1372:04:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC) 1351:18:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 1326:23:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 1294:23:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 1271:22:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 1252:12:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 1228:11:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 1213:11:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 1198:11:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 4153:22:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 4115:21:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 4099:18:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 4078:18:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 4063:18:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 4046:17:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 4031:17:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 4014:17:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 3992:13:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 3974:10:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 3953:23:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 3924:23:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 3890:16:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 3855:16:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 3839:16:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 3824:17:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 3613:Block log analysis proposal 2816:documentation of knowledge 1661:. Top-level articles (like 1565:and the fifth reference on 1358:is doing the same thing as 4269: 1858:Religion and homosexuality 1483:Editors are average people 1356:List of romantic novelists 1311:Talk:List of photographers 3398:(the legal basis for the 2180:Australian rules football 1386:Good blogs and bad blogs. 1301:I see your point. Still, 3642:Category:Human sexuality 3487:First Amendment Handbook 3159:Jerome Kerviel and libel 2945:and give your opinions. 4175:We're Wikipedians, not 3646:Wikiproject Pornography 1692:all in parallel. Such 1454:All editors are experts 4018:And yet articles like 3392:Annotated Constitution 3383:Hutchinson v. Proxmire 2546:Eats Shoots and Leaves 1342:Chief Justice of India 1285:Chief Justice of India 1154:"Notable alumni", etc. 95:< Older discussions 4243:WonderingAngel-aesc78 3816:WonderingAngel-aesc78 2494:I totally agree with 2121:William the Conqueror 1943:Smithsonian Institute 1686:United States history 1360:List of photographers 1303:List of photographers 84:Village pump (policy) 3443:Restatement of Torts 3353:Barrett v. Rosenthal 2924:Discussion about IAR 2417:Association Football 2227:reader-friendly. -- 2129:Mary, Queen of Scots 1466:Value-free reporting 1451:A handful of editors 1235:University of Oxford 1183:Allahabad University 1164:a rather unusual way 4020:missionary position 3477:" (emphasis mine) ( 1848:the sub-article of 1591:British vs American 1480:Hundreds of editors 1448:Closed registration 4059: 4027: 3970: 3653: 3571:of the change. -- 3243:The New York Times 3144:of the change. -- 2125:Napoleon Bonaparte 1937:I just referenced 1736:Talk:United States 1477:Open registrations 1239:Harvard University 4055: 4023: 3966: 3867:Cleveland steamer 3649: 3265:neutral reportage 2956: 2686:The context issue 2421:Football (soccer) 2172:football (soccer) 2168:American football 1166:into a category. 1162:.) He even found 4260: 4231: 4226: 4189: 4184: 4095: 4090: 4010: 4005: 3989: 3949: 3944: 3920: 3919: 3917: 3915: 3913: 3898: 3851: 3846: 3799: 3798: 3796: 3794: 3792: 3762:Report a mistake 3676: 3605: 3602: 3599: 3591: 3569:automated notice 3562: 3561: 3455:Keith C. Buell, 3177:Societe Generale 3142:automated notice 3135: 3134: 3032: 3027: 2953: 2946: 2487: 2437: 2432: 2427: 2154:A discussion on 2103: 2041: 2036: 2015: 1690:American history 1579: 1574: 1507: 1502: 1338:Ranganath Mishra 1281:Ranganath Mishra 79: 54: 4268: 4267: 4263: 4262: 4261: 4259: 4258: 4257: 4229: 4224: 4221: 4185: 4180: 4093: 4088: 4008: 4003: 3987: 3947: 3942: 3911: 3909: 3907: 3905: 3903: 3896: 3849: 3844: 3790: 3788: 3786: 3784: 3782: 3672: 3638: 3615: 3600: 3595: 3589: 3587: 3535: 3531: 3529: 3445:(Second) 577A.) 3327: 3300: 3161: 3108: 3104: 3102: 3090: 3071: 3042: 3030: 3025: 3022: 3015:Hi! I created 2955: 2949: 2926: 2831:difference. -- 2688: 2486:Dan Beale-Cocks 2485: 2435: 2430: 2425: 2319:British English 2315:Football (word) 2313:Have a read of 2164:first reference 2152: 2116: 2099: 2058: 2037: 2032: 2009: 2001: 1935: 1728:cut the summary 1632: 1593: 1575: 1570: 1503: 1498: 1388: 1307:Eugene Richards 1156: 1151: 80: 77: 74: 48: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4266: 4264: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4222: 4201: 4200: 4199: 4198: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4132: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4128: 4127: 4126: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4117: 3982: 3981: 3980: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3976: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3805: 3710: 3680: 3637: 3634: 3614: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3528: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3502: 3493: 3481: 3470: 3463: 3452: 3451: 3447: 3446: 3433: 3432: 3427: 3426: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3371: 3370: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3320: 3303: 3302: 3293: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3269:Richard Jewell 3254: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3231: 3230: 3215: 3214: 3173:Jerome Kerviel 3165:Jerome Kerviel 3160: 3157: 3101: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3086: 3067: 3055:John Broughton 3041: 3038: 3023: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 2981: 2980: 2947: 2925: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2908:204.111.110.55 2872: 2871: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2748: 2737: 2722: 2687: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2499: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2366: 2365: 2362: 2359: 2356: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2195: 2194: 2191: 2184: 2183: 2151: 2148: 2115: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2101:John Broughton 2095: 2094: 2057: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2000: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1963: 1962: 1934: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1787: 1784: 1770: 1769: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1717: 1716: 1706:TenOfAllTrades 1673: 1672: 1631: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1592: 1589: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1494: 1493: 1490: 1487: 1484: 1481: 1478: 1468: 1467: 1464: 1461: 1455: 1452: 1449: 1433:It is not the 1387: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1353: 1314: 1299: 1276: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1155: 1152: 92: 76: 75: 73: 72: 71: 70: 65: 60: 55: 43: 38: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4265: 4252: 4248: 4244: 4240: 4239: 4238: 4237: 4236: 4235: 4232: 4227: 4218: 4214: 4210: 4206: 4197: 4193: 4188: 4183: 4178: 4174: 4173: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4169: 4165: 4161: 4155: 4154: 4150: 4146: 4141: 4116: 4112: 4108: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4097: 4096: 4086: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4075: 4071: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4061: 4058: 4053: 4049: 4048: 4047: 4043: 4039: 4034: 4033: 4032: 4029: 4026: 4021: 4017: 4016: 4015: 4012: 4011: 4001: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3993: 3990: 3983: 3975: 3972: 3969: 3964: 3960: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3951: 3950: 3940: 3936: 3932: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3922: 3921: 3899: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3887: 3883: 3878: 3873: 3868: 3864: 3856: 3853: 3852: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3836: 3832: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3821: 3817: 3812: 3804: 3801: 3800: 3778: 3773: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3763: 3759: 3755: 3751: 3747: 3746: 3745: 3742: 3738: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3727: 3723: 3719: 3715: 3711: 3709: 3705: 3701: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3691: 3686: 3685:anal-oral sex 3681: 3679: 3675: 3669: 3665: 3661: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3655: 3652: 3647: 3643: 3633: 3632: 3628: 3624: 3620: 3612: 3608: 3604: 3603: 3598: 3592: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3578: 3574: 3570: 3567:. This is an 3566: 3559: 3555: 3551: 3547: 3543: 3539: 3534: 3526: 3522: 3518: 3514: 3510: 3507: 3503: 3500: 3497: 3494: 3491: 3488: 3485: 3482: 3479: 3476: 3471: 3468: 3464: 3461: 3458: 3454: 3453: 3449: 3448: 3444: 3440: 3435: 3434: 3429: 3428: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3416: 3412: 3401: 3397: 3393: 3390:'s excellent 3389: 3385: 3384: 3379: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3369: 3366: 3362: 3358: 3354: 3351:Actually, in 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3343: 3339: 3336: 3326: 3323: 3319: 3316: 3311: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3304: 3299: 3296: 3292: 3288: 3287: 3282: 3278: 3274: 3270: 3266: 3262: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3249: 3244: 3240: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3229: 3225: 3221: 3217: 3216: 3213: 3209: 3205: 3201: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3190: 3186: 3180: 3178: 3174: 3168: 3166: 3158: 3156: 3155: 3151: 3147: 3143: 3140:. This is an 3139: 3132: 3128: 3124: 3120: 3116: 3112: 3107: 3099: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3084: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3065: 3060: 3056: 3052: 3048: 3039: 3037: 3036: 3033: 3028: 3018: 3009: 3005: 3001: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2991: 2987: 2983: 2982: 2979: 2975: 2971: 2967: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2954: 2952: 2944: 2939: 2937: 2934: 2931: 2923: 2917: 2913: 2909: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2898: 2894: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2870: 2866: 2862: 2858: 2854: 2842: 2838: 2834: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2809: 2805: 2801: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2792: 2788: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2777: 2773: 2768: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2757: 2753: 2749: 2746: 2745:WP:DICTIONARY 2742: 2738: 2735: 2731: 2727: 2723: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2703: 2699: 2697: 2691: 2685: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2635: 2631: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2614: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2604: 2600: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2574: 2570: 2565: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2547: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2522: 2519: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2497: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2488: 2481: 2480: 2455: 2451: 2447: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2438: 2433: 2428: 2422: 2418: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2383: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2363: 2360: 2357: 2354: 2353: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2329: 2325: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2306: 2302: 2298: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2276: 2272: 2268: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2192: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2181: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2157: 2149: 2147: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2113: 2109: 2106: 2102: 2097: 2096: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2067: 2064: 2061: 2055: 2049: 2045: 2040: 2035: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2021: 2020: 2016: 2014: 2013: 2006: 1999: 1996: 1988: 1985: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1944: 1940: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1864:the child of 1863: 1859: 1856:, or perhaps 1855: 1854:Homosexuality 1851: 1847: 1843: 1842: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1822: 1818: 1817:United States 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1791:lead sections 1788: 1785: 1782: 1778: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1755: 1754: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1724:United States 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1694:content forks 1691: 1687: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1674: 1671: 1668: 1664: 1663:United States 1660: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1636:United States 1629: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1597:QuasiAbstract 1590: 1588: 1587: 1583: 1578: 1573: 1568: 1564: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1511: 1506: 1501: 1491: 1488: 1485: 1482: 1479: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1472: 1465: 1462: 1459: 1456: 1453: 1450: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1443: 1439: 1436: 1431: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1412: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1385: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1354: 1352: 1349: 1348: 1343: 1339: 1334: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1292: 1291: 1286: 1282: 1277: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1263: 1257: 1253: 1250: 1249: 1244: 1243:formal policy 1240: 1236: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1218:disagree. -- 1216: 1215: 1214: 1211: 1208: 1206: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1186: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1172: 1167: 1165: 1161: 1153: 1150: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1001: 997: 993: 989: 985: 981: 977: 973: 969: 965: 961: 957: 953: 949: 945: 941: 937: 933: 929: 925: 921: 917: 913: 909: 905: 901: 897: 893: 889: 885: 881: 877: 873: 869: 865: 861: 857: 853: 849: 845: 841: 837: 833: 829: 825: 821: 817: 813: 809: 805: 801: 797: 793: 789: 785: 781: 777: 773: 769: 765: 761: 757: 753: 749: 745: 741: 737: 733: 729: 725: 721: 717: 713: 709: 705: 701: 697: 693: 689: 685: 681: 677: 673: 669: 665: 661: 657: 653: 649: 645: 641: 637: 633: 629: 625: 621: 617: 613: 609: 605: 601: 597: 593: 589: 585: 581: 577: 573: 569: 565: 561: 557: 553: 549: 545: 541: 537: 533: 529: 525: 521: 517: 513: 509: 505: 501: 497: 493: 489: 485: 481: 477: 473: 469: 465: 461: 457: 453: 449: 445: 441: 437: 433: 429: 425: 421: 417: 413: 409: 405: 401: 397: 393: 389: 385: 381: 377: 373: 370: 367: 363: 359: 355: 351: 347: 343: 339: 335: 331: 327: 323: 319: 315: 311: 307: 303: 299: 295: 291: 287: 283: 279: 275: 271: 267: 263: 259: 255: 251: 247: 243: 239: 235: 231: 227: 223: 219: 215: 211: 207: 203: 199: 195: 191: 187: 183: 179: 175: 171: 167: 163: 159: 155: 151: 147: 143: 139: 135: 131: 127: 123: 119: 115: 111: 107: 103: 99: 96: 91: 89: 85: 69: 68:Miscellaneous 66: 64: 61: 59: 56: 52: 47: 44: 42: 39: 37: 34: 33: 32: 31: 27: 26: 19: 4223:tiny plastic 4216: 4212: 4208: 4204: 4202: 4156: 4139: 4137: 4091: 4006: 3945: 3902: 3847: 3781: 3771: 3722:Sarsaparilla 3668:encyclopedic 3667: 3639: 3616: 3596: 3593: 3530: 3505: 3495: 3486: 3474: 3456: 3439:AP Stylebook 3407: 3399: 3381: 3377: 3361:Arthur Rubin 3356: 3333: 3313: 3309: 3260: 3247: 3242: 3238: 3181: 3169: 3162: 3103: 3081: 3062: 3043: 3024:tiny plastic 3014: 2950: 2940: 2927: 2891:acceptable? 2873: 2861:Shirahadasha 2799: 2766: 2740: 2733: 2729: 2725: 2704: 2700: 2692: 2689: 2633: 2629: 2624: 2620: 2616: 2612: 2381: 2337:readers. -- 2196: 2185: 2163: 2153: 2117: 2079:LonelyMarble 2068: 2065: 2062: 2059: 2018: 2011: 2010: 2002: 1936: 1919:Shirahadasha 1902:Sociobiology 1850:Christianity 1826:LonelyMarble 1740:Shirahadasha 1677: 1633: 1594: 1560: 1495: 1470: 1469: 1457: 1441: 1440: 1434: 1432: 1413: 1400:User:Sceptre 1391: 1389: 1345: 1332: 1288: 1260: 1246: 1187: 1168: 1157: 471: 368: 97: 93: 81: 30:Village pump 28: 4225:Grey Knight 4160:AresAndEnyo 3963:pornography 3959:WP:CENSORED 3939:glans penis 3026:Grey Knight 3000:Kim Bruning 2970:Kim Bruning 2654:LinaMishima 2426:King of the 2324:LinaMishima 1394:case (it's 4213:techniques 3714:sex kitten 3623:Carcharoth 3357:regardless 3318:superluser 3291:superluser 3239:actionable 2734:motorcycle 2295:Actually, 1984:Algebraist 1915:WP:SUMMARY 1910:WP:SUMMARY 1906:WP:SUMMARY 1894:Philosophy 1888:belong to 1882:Child care 1876:belong to 1777:WP:SUMMARY 1442:Good blog: 1435:technology 100:Archives: 51:persistent 4217:processes 4094:Shankbone 4038:Trident13 4009:Shankbone 3948:Shankbone 3897:Shankbone 3882:Trident13 3850:Shankbone 3831:Nil Einne 3573:VeblenBot 3565:guideline 3425:mistakes. 3338:WAS 4.250 3146:VeblenBot 2818:Pbradbury 2787:Pbradbury 2752:Pbradbury 2639:Pbradbury 2611:Actually 2584:Pbradbury 2550:Pbradbury 2496:Pbradbury 2402:Pbradbury 2382:potential 2368:Pbradbury 2267:Pbradbury 2259:Australia 2244:problems. 1939:Taj Mahal 1908:applies. 1874:Parenting 1870:Slaughter 1795:Emmanuelm 1644:Emmanuelm 1612:WP:ENGVAR 1471:Bad blog: 1396:over here 1340:, former 1283:, former 1171:this edit 46:Proposals 41:Technical 4145:Jtrainor 4052:Oral sex 4000:Clitoris 3877:anal sex 3754:JetLover 3741:Dcoetzee 3718:Websense 3700:Wikidemo 3690:Dcoetzee 3674:Reywas92 3513:Mwalcoff 3411:Wjhonson 3378:Sullivan 3273:Mwalcoff 3259:Now the 3220:Wjhonson 3204:Wjhonson 3185:Mwalcoff 3088:contribs 3069:contribs 2951:(1 == 2) 2877:dramatic 2833:Mwalcoff 2804:Mwalcoff 2772:Mwalcoff 2708:Mwalcoff 2599:Mwalcoff 2569:Mwalcoff 2531:Mwalcoff 2446:Mwalcoff 2387:Mwalcoff 2339:Mwalcoff 2301:Mwalcoff 2229:Mwalcoff 2199:Mwalcoff 2005:this RfC 1970:Dsmdgold 1952:Sbowers3 1933:spelling 1898:Religion 1886:Morality 1862:Shechita 1781:big five 1525:Wjhonson 1408:Gamespot 1404:Gamespot 1364:Karanacs 1179:this one 1175:Azamgarh 58:Idea lab 4205:objects 4187:Zenwhat 4177:eunuchs 4107:llywrch 4085:scrotum 4070:llywrch 3931:scrotum 3777:Hustler 3750:Hustler 3546:history 3400:Barrett 3119:history 3051:WP:NADC 2986:Rjd0060 2893:Tevildo 2857:be bold 2726:bicycle 2503:Peanut4 2075:WP:DATE 2039:Zenwhat 1884:? Does 1872:? Does 1866:Kashrut 1759:Andrewa 1667:W.marsh 1616:barneca 1577:Zenwhat 1546:SEWilco 1505:Zenwhat 1428:WP:BLOG 1406:on the 1313:is for. 4209:things 3988:Aditya 3365:(talk) 3138:policy 2943:WT:IAR 2730:engine 2634:rugger 2630:soccer 2176:soccer 2137:Gwinva 2071:WP:MOS 2012:bd2412 1878:Family 1688:, and 1521:pointy 1458:Always 1392:else's 1347:Iain99 1290:Iain99 1248:Iain99 36:Policy 4089:David 4057:Nydas 4025:Nydas 4004:David 3968:Nydas 3943:David 3937:, or 3935:chest 3894:Okay 3872:WP:RS 3845:David 3737:penis 3651:Nydas 3554:watch 3550:links 3511:) -- 3261:Times 3127:watch 3123:links 3083:JERRY 3064:JERRY 2628:term 2431:North 1900:, or 1860:? Is 1659:WP:SS 1424:WP:OR 1420:WP:RS 1318:Hoary 1220:Hoary 1190:Hoary 88:start 16:< 4247:talk 4192:talk 4164:talk 4149:talk 4111:talk 4074:talk 4042:talk 3886:talk 3835:talk 3820:talk 3758:talk 3726:talk 3704:talk 3627:talk 3619:here 3577:talk 3558:logs 3542:talk 3538:edit 3517:talk 3415:talk 3376:The 3342:talk 3312:and 3277:talk 3224:talk 3208:talk 3200:here 3189:talk 3175:and 3150:talk 3131:logs 3115:talk 3111:edit 3004:talk 2990:talk 2974:talk 2968:. -- 2912:talk 2897:talk 2881:talk 2865:talk 2837:talk 2822:talk 2808:talk 2791:talk 2776:talk 2756:talk 2743:see 2712:talk 2658:talk 2643:talk 2603:talk 2588:talk 2573:talk 2554:talk 2535:talk 2521:lute 2518:Reso 2507:talk 2450:talk 2436:East 2419:and 2406:talk 2391:talk 2372:talk 2343:talk 2328:talk 2305:talk 2271:talk 2261:and 2233:talk 2203:talk 2141:talk 2105:(♫♫) 2083:talk 2044:talk 1974:talk 1956:talk 1923:talk 1830:talk 1819:and 1799:talk 1763:talk 1744:talk 1710:talk 1648:talk 1620:talk 1614:. -- 1601:talk 1582:talk 1567:WP:V 1563:here 1550:talk 1540:and 1529:talk 1510:talk 1416:WP:V 1368:talk 1333:must 1322:talk 1267:talk 1237:and 1224:talk 1205:Agne 1194:talk 1177:and 1160:this 4215:or 4207:or 3760:) ( 3664:Sex 3601:man 3590:Mr. 3363:| 3315:8p; 3248:NYT 2696:WTF 2625:mom 2621:mom 2617:mum 2613:mom 2263:USA 2162:On 2073:or 1890:Law 1880:or 1868:or 1844:Is 1638:vs 1544:-- 1430:). 1262:DGG 1181:to 1173:to 1148:195 1144:194 1140:193 1136:192 1132:191 1128:190 1124:189 1120:188 1116:187 1112:186 1108:185 1104:184 1100:183 1096:182 1092:181 1088:180 1084:179 1080:178 1076:177 1072:176 1068:175 1064:174 1060:173 1056:172 1052:171 1048:170 1044:169 1040:168 1036:167 1032:166 1028:165 1024:164 1020:163 1016:162 1012:161 1008:160 1004:159 1000:158 996:157 992:156 988:155 984:154 980:153 976:152 972:151 968:150 964:149 960:148 956:147 952:146 948:145 944:144 940:143 936:142 932:141 928:140 924:139 920:138 916:137 912:136 908:135 904:134 900:133 896:132 892:131 888:130 884:129 880:128 876:127 872:126 868:125 864:124 860:123 856:122 852:121 848:120 844:119 840:118 836:117 832:116 828:115 824:114 820:113 816:112 812:111 808:110 804:109 800:108 796:107 792:106 788:105 784:104 780:103 776:102 772:101 768:100 63:WMF 4249:) 4194:) 4179:! 4166:) 4151:) 4113:) 4076:) 4044:) 3933:, 3888:) 3837:) 3822:) 3772:is 3764:) 3752:. 3728:) 3706:) 3629:) 3597:Z- 3579:) 3556:| 3552:| 3548:| 3544:| 3540:| 3519:) 3417:) 3344:) 3279:) 3226:) 3210:) 3191:) 3152:) 3129:| 3125:| 3121:| 3117:| 3113:| 3061:. 3006:) 2992:) 2976:) 2938:. 2914:) 2899:) 2883:) 2867:) 2839:) 2824:) 2810:) 2793:) 2778:) 2758:) 2714:) 2660:) 2645:) 2605:) 2590:) 2575:) 2556:) 2537:) 2509:) 2452:) 2408:) 2393:) 2374:) 2345:) 2330:) 2307:) 2273:) 2235:) 2205:) 2178:, 2174:, 2170:, 2143:) 2127:, 2123:, 2085:) 2046:) 1976:) 1958:) 1925:) 1896:, 1892:, 1852:, 1832:) 1801:) 1765:) 1746:) 1712:) 1684:, 1678:do 1650:) 1622:) 1603:) 1584:) 1569:. 1552:) 1531:) 1512:) 1422:, 1418:, 1370:) 1324:) 1269:) 1226:) 1196:) 1146:, 1142:, 1138:, 1134:, 1130:, 1126:, 1122:, 1118:, 1114:, 1110:, 1106:, 1102:, 1098:, 1094:, 1090:, 1086:, 1082:, 1078:, 1074:, 1070:, 1066:, 1062:, 1058:, 1054:, 1050:, 1046:, 1042:, 1038:, 1034:, 1030:, 1026:, 1022:, 1018:, 1014:, 1010:, 1006:, 1002:, 998:, 994:, 990:, 986:, 982:, 978:, 974:, 970:, 966:, 962:, 958:, 954:, 950:, 946:, 942:, 938:, 934:, 930:, 926:, 922:, 918:, 914:, 910:, 906:, 902:, 898:, 894:, 890:, 886:, 882:, 878:, 874:, 870:, 866:, 862:, 858:, 854:, 850:, 846:, 842:, 838:, 834:, 830:, 826:, 822:, 818:, 814:, 810:, 806:, 802:, 798:, 794:, 790:, 786:, 782:, 778:, 774:, 770:, 766:, 764:99 762:, 760:98 758:, 756:97 754:, 752:96 750:, 748:95 746:, 744:94 742:, 740:93 738:, 736:92 734:, 732:91 730:, 728:90 726:, 724:89 722:, 720:88 718:, 716:87 714:, 712:86 710:, 708:85 706:, 704:84 702:, 700:83 698:, 696:82 694:, 692:81 690:, 688:80 686:, 684:79 682:, 680:78 678:, 676:77 674:, 672:76 670:, 668:75 666:, 664:74 662:, 660:73 658:, 656:72 654:, 652:71 650:, 648:70 646:, 644:69 642:, 640:68 638:, 636:67 634:, 632:66 630:, 628:65 626:, 624:64 622:, 620:63 618:, 616:62 614:, 612:61 610:, 608:60 606:, 604:59 602:, 600:58 598:, 596:57 594:, 592:56 590:, 588:55 586:, 584:54 582:, 580:53 578:, 576:52 574:, 572:51 570:, 568:50 566:, 564:49 562:, 560:48 558:, 556:47 554:, 552:46 550:, 548:45 546:, 544:44 542:, 540:43 538:, 536:42 534:, 532:41 530:, 528:40 526:, 524:39 522:, 520:38 518:, 516:37 514:, 512:36 510:, 508:35 506:, 504:34 502:, 500:33 498:, 496:32 494:, 492:31 490:, 488:30 486:, 484:29 482:, 480:28 478:, 476:27 474:, 472:26 470:, 468:25 466:, 464:24 462:, 460:23 458:, 456:22 454:, 452:21 450:, 448:20 446:, 444:19 442:, 440:18 438:, 436:17 434:, 432:16 430:, 428:15 426:, 424:14 422:, 420:13 418:, 416:12 414:, 412:11 410:, 408:10 406:, 402:, 398:, 394:, 390:, 386:, 382:, 378:, 374:, 366:BO 364:, 362:BN 360:, 358:BM 356:, 354:BL 352:, 350:BK 348:, 346:BJ 344:, 342:BI 340:, 338:BH 336:, 334:BG 332:, 330:BF 328:, 326:BE 324:, 322:BD 320:, 318:BC 316:, 314:BB 312:, 310:BA 308:, 306:AZ 304:, 302:AY 300:, 298:AX 296:, 294:AW 292:, 290:AV 288:, 286:AU 284:, 282:AT 280:, 278:AS 276:, 274:AR 272:, 270:AQ 268:, 266:AP 264:, 262:AO 260:, 258:AN 256:, 254:AM 252:, 250:AL 248:, 246:AK 244:, 242:AJ 240:, 238:AI 236:, 234:AH 232:, 230:AG 228:, 226:AF 224:, 222:AE 220:, 218:AD 216:, 214:AC 212:, 210:AB 208:, 206:AA 204:, 200:, 196:, 192:, 188:, 184:, 180:, 176:, 172:, 168:, 164:, 160:, 156:, 152:, 148:, 144:, 140:, 136:, 132:, 128:, 124:, 120:, 116:, 112:, 108:, 104:, 4245:( 4230:⊖ 4190:( 4182:☯ 4162:( 4147:( 4109:( 4072:( 4040:( 3918:7 3916:e 3914:d 3912:a 3910:d 3908:u 3906:a 3904:S 3884:( 3833:( 3818:( 3797:7 3795:e 3793:d 3791:a 3789:d 3787:u 3785:a 3783:S 3775:" 3756:( 3724:( 3702:( 3625:( 3575:( 3560:) 3536:( 3515:( 3501:) 3492:) 3480:) 3469:) 3466:( 3462:) 3413:( 3340:( 3325:c 3322:t 3298:c 3295:t 3275:( 3222:( 3206:( 3187:( 3148:( 3133:) 3109:( 3031:⊖ 3002:( 2988:( 2972:( 2910:( 2895:( 2879:( 2863:( 2835:( 2820:( 2806:( 2789:( 2774:( 2754:( 2710:( 2656:( 2641:( 2601:( 2586:( 2571:( 2552:( 2533:( 2505:( 2448:( 2404:( 2389:( 2370:( 2341:( 2326:( 2303:( 2269:( 2231:( 2201:( 2139:( 2081:( 2042:( 2034:☯ 2019:T 1972:( 1954:( 1921:( 1828:( 1797:( 1761:( 1742:( 1708:( 1646:( 1618:( 1599:( 1580:( 1572:☯ 1548:( 1527:( 1508:( 1500:☯ 1366:( 1320:( 1265:( 1222:( 1209:/ 1192:( 404:9 400:8 396:7 392:6 388:5 384:4 380:3 376:2 372:1 369:· 202:Z 198:Y 194:X 190:W 186:V 182:U 178:T 174:S 170:R 166:Q 162:P 158:O 154:N 150:M 146:L 142:K 138:J 134:I 130:H 126:G 122:F 118:E 114:D 110:C 106:B 102:A 98:· 53:) 49:(

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Village pump (policy)/Archive 26 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index