This site uses cookies. By continuing, your consent is assumed. Learn more

130.4m shares

Crystal clear xxx proposal

opinion

Please Crystal clear xxx proposal this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals. Recently a single user moved figure skating pages that had xxxx—xx year in title to xxxx—xxxx without discussion.

I requested they be moved backbut was Crystal clear xxx proposal I should start a discussion on village pump first. To focus the discussion, I'm particularly interested in titles of sports articles that have a two consecutive years range in the title.

For consistency, I feel all these articles should use the same format, either xxxx—xx or xxxx—xxxx. Currently, from my searches, xxxx—xx is the preferred format. I believe for consistency and since it's okay with the MOSthe figure skating should be reverted to their original page names.

Alternatively, all other pages with this issue presumably several thousand pages should be Crystal clear xxx proposal to xxxx—xxxx format.

Thus I'm asking everyone what format should be used? Thank you all, 15zulu talk Should sports articles use xxxx—xxxx or xxxx—xx date format for two consecutive years? I noticed that not all events that span two years have the second year in their articles. At what point do we include the second year in the title?

I'm under the impression that it's included if a significant portion of the event takes place in the second year. In other words, "Crystal clear xxx proposal" event that starts in October and ends in January would probably do with just the first year. Would I be correct? Majority agree that the move should have been discussed first. Not counting myself, 5 editors stated articles should be xxxx—xx, 4 Crystal clear xxx proposal stated articles should be moved to xxxx—xxxx, 3 editors stated titles should be based on RS which from my observations of figure skating news articles would mean xxxx—xx1 editor stated titles should be go back to stable state i.

From that I conclude: Thanks, 15zulu talk There is an issue currently with the proposed deletion policy PROD which is causing some confusion and ambiguity. In January this year, user Green Giant boldly edited the policy to simplify the wording, but in doing so, changed the suggestion to notify article creators to a requirement.

It appears as though this was not compelled by any discussion to make that change, and it was also certainly in good faith and possibly not intended to have changed the meaning in this way.

Up until this change, our various deletion policies all suggested notifying article creators and significant contributors as a courtesy, but did not require it and requiring AfD notification is a perennial proposal. The change has also not been well publicized or recognized - this post is inspired by an editor reported to ANI for failing to notify, and several editors and administrators responding that they were not aware of the change.

Please comment in one of the sections below.

more porn videos starring vanessa...

Also, just because it's come up a few times already, note that WP: PRODwith different criteria and different processes. I'm not saying anyone shouldn't talk about that other policy, I'm just making a note of it to avoid what might end up being a confusing discussion.

The editor nominating an article for proposed deletion is required to notify the article's creator or any significant contributors. I won't talk about BLP prods here again. If the prodded article is new created within a week or so I believe that notifying the creator should be mandatory because at that point they are more attached to the article than they would be if they had created 10 years ago.

However if the article is like 5 years old for example and has many many contributors who did more work on the article than the creator or if the creator is gone, then it makes no sense to be required to contact the article's creator. Users who PROD an article should use a case by case basis for deciding whether to notify the creator of the article and not have to officially notify them.

Twinkle users can still notify the creator automatically "Crystal clear xxx proposal" some users can still do it because they want to not because they have to. JC7V -constructive Crystal clear xxx proposal The editor nominating an article for proposed deletion should attempt to notify the article's creator and any significant contributors, as Crystal clear xxx proposal courtesy.

The proposed deletion process is deprecated and marked historical; all nominations for article deletion are done through articles for deletionexcept in cases where one of the criteria for speedy deletion apply. This is an attempt to capture that:.

Either in an edit summary or on the talk page. Voting "oppose" on an already withdrawn proposal is evidence enough that it was a user problem, with a user actively engaged in trolling "the deletionists", so I guess MelanieN's advice regarding how to deal with such user problems applies.

Thank you to whoever closed the above, anyway. I'd like to toss this out for what it's worth. As nothing seems to have consensus yet, I'll suggest this formally.

Editors who cannot or do not use Twinkle are encouraged to used the WP: AFD process to propose deletions. The PROD notice should include the requirement that de-PRODding requires a policy-based rationale asserting notability, with appropriate links to educate unaware editors.

Merely removing the tag with no explanation could be reverted on-sight, with a gentle warning to the infringing de-prodder.

If a rationale is provided in the de-prod action, that constitutes a good basis to either keep the article, or to start an AfD with stronger arguments for and against.

Editors in this thread appear to be of the opinion that is is permitted to link to websites which violate copyright so long as it is the official website of the subject of the article. In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site. This is at odds with WP: These links are normally exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking.

Furthermore, copyright violations is part of the TOU and is therefore not an issue which is subject to consensus.

Simply put, if there is a local policy that permits copyright violating links, then the local policy is wrong, and should be changed or ignored. I'm a bit late replying, Crystal clear xxx proposal thought I'd offer "Crystal clear xxx proposal" couple thoughts. First, the actual legal doctrine is nigh-impossible to do Crystal clear xxx proposal with.

todays hottest porn videos

Links like this vary by country, and the current doctrine in Europe asks questions about the specific knowledge of the person doing the linking and whether the link is for commercial purposes, among other things. I would suggest that the Foundation is not going to overrule the community if people think that specific links are appropriate and important for an encyclopedia article on "Crystal clear xxx proposal" notable topic, but there is a chance we could receive legal demands in specific cases that cause us to have to change something, which we would evaluate on a case by case basis if it came up.

Also, just as a matter of community good will, if you know that a particular Wikipedia page is being used as a hub to facilitate copyright infringement for some reason, it's probably good to make changes to prevent that, regardless of the specifics of what the law says. Foundation Legal isn't stopping us from linking, so legality isn't the issue here.

To summarize the above discussion, it seems like those opposed to linking are mostly just making moralistic arguments in favor of attempting to police the behavior of our users. If this discussion is indeed such a moral judgement, then I suppose I'd toss my vote in favor.

Crystal clear xxx proposal of course, I was under the impression that Wikipedia is not censored. One thing that has frequently happened Crystal clear xxx proposal me is that I would be looking through a user's talk page before giving a warning, lo and behold, they were given a level 4 warning and I didn't know it because they blanked their talk page.

It is extremely inefficient to browse diffs to see what warnings they were given. I would like to propose a change to that policy that allows users to remove warnings only if the warned user and issuing user come to an agreement or a set amount of time has passed lets say 6 hours which allows recent changes patrollers to see if the user is a persistent problem or just a one off incident.

Kyle Bryant talk Its my understanding that comments on talk pages should not be removed by other editors because they could abuse this priviledge. Brexit a section of comment was removed by political actors claiming to be acting out of neutrality. There should be no censorship of criticism of the British government, as it informs article development, and it seems like that is what that is, disguised as neutrality. Talk pages are for discussing an article, but what counts as article discussion is itself a political issue.

There should be other ways to deal with problematic usage of talk pages, but then this is not vandalism, and Crystal clear xxx proposal formal way to handle problematic use cannot allow for systematic bias and censorship.

These include forum style posts and can include BLP violations, copyright violations, etc. Our talk page headers often carry a message such as "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article.

XXX ProposalMaybe your in need...

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Category namesin part or in its entirety, be downgraded to a guideline from a policy? The last discussion was inand the page has remained a policy since at least April which is when the guideline tag on the page was replaced with the policy tag. Some time ago the foundation created a PageImage feature which grabs an image from the lead section of articles. If there are multiple images, it selects one.

That image is Crystal clear xxx proposal used to represent the article itself in PagePreviews, in some search results, and possibly elsewhere. It has just come to my attention that PageImage is grabbing the photo of one of the candidates in an upcoming election and using that candidate-photo to represent the article itself. This is grossly promotional of one arbitrary candidate in the election. Phabricator Task T would add some way for us to select a specific image or no image for an article.

However it does not yet exist. At the moment the only workaround I can think of is to move the infobox or images down out of the lead section. It's a pretty crappy option, but I applied it to this article as a quick fix. If there's a wikiproject or other group that handles upcoming elections they should be alerted to address this issue in other articles. Completely agree with Alsee that this is something that needs attention. I do not understand how, inanyone is arguing that displaying a single representative from among a field will have no effect.

It's why lawn signs aren't just a means of the lawn-owner's self-expression and why candidates and companies, etc. I Crystal clear xxx proposal fathom how much money we could get if we auctioned off a single photo spot, taking campaign funds. That said, if it's truly random, it's not pressing, but it's still not ideal. One approach might be to create a single image from two.

Then, of course, we leave out those other than the main candidates, Crystal clear xxx proposal in that we would simply be doing what all of the other mainstream sources do. By contrast, surely the New York Times is not going to publish a summary of a particular election and only publish one candidate's picture.

Agreed with Alsee - we need to show both all? I would likely be swayed by a demonstration that the chosen candidate was random, but it appears that the opposite is currently true. It's not fully clear how it selects an image, but it's not random after the image has been cashed. Watch Xxx Proposal Crystal porn videos for free, here on leprogres.info Discover the Young girl gets some fun with her crystal clear dildo K views. 90%.

Cristi Minaj, Cristy Lynn, Crystal Ashley, Crystal Clear, Crystal Crown, Crystal Crystal Clear - XXX Proposal Movie Clips · Crystal Clear Black Meat White. Best Crystal Clear Images On Pinterest Crystal Crystals And Curves. «prev; 51/ 65; next» Xxx Proposal Crystal Clear 1 · Black Crystal Clear Xxx 1.

MORE: Face defender clear facial powder

MORE: Novena for marriage proposal

YOU ARE HERE:
News feed