| Revision as of 17:34, 1 February 2006 editWynler (talk | contribs)582 edits archived← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:20, 3 February 2006 edit undoWynler (talk | contribs)582 edits thoughts...Next edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| ==Ants - Subfamilia== | ==Ants - Subfamilia== | ||
| Added back the sub-family specifier. I'm working on compiling all the information I can find on this subfamily (man there's a lot of species). Having this tag on the taxobox helps me keep track. But I'll take it off if there is a consensus against it.] 17:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | Added back the sub-family specifier. I'm working on compiling all the information I can find on this subfamily (man there's a lot of species). Having this tag on the taxobox helps me keep track. But I'll take it off if there is a consensus against it.] 17:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == ] Thoughts == | |||
| :'Comment' Misplaced Pages is not ]. Period. End of discussion. We don't need to worry about offending people. The only debate to this image should be whether or not it has encyclopedic merit (should exist/be deleted) or if its legal/illegal in Florida. Then discuss whether or not it's the most important image for the article(placed at top). There are some other articles that I have some serious censorship issues with that I may or may not approach in the future. But for some reason, this one has just irked me. Why does everyone these days get so offended? Big deal. There are tons of religions offended by wikipedia articles. I don't come to wikipedia to feel good about myself. I come here to learn. I want uncensored, straight information. If uncensored information is against your religion, then you should not be part of the wikipedia community, as per ] ] 04:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:20, 3 February 2006
Ants - Subfamilia
Added back the sub-family specifier. I'm working on compiling all the information I can find on this subfamily (man there's a lot of species). Having this tag on the taxobox helps me keep track. But I'll take it off if there is a consensus against it.Wynler 17:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy Thoughts
- 'Comment' Misplaced Pages is not censored. Period. End of discussion. We don't need to worry about offending people. The only debate to this image should be whether or not it has encyclopedic merit (should exist/be deleted) or if its legal/illegal in Florida. Then discuss whether or not it's the most important image for the article(placed at top). There are some other articles that I have some serious censorship issues with that I may or may not approach in the future. But for some reason, this one has just irked me. Why does everyone these days get so offended? Big deal. There are tons of religions offended by wikipedia articles. I don't come to wikipedia to feel good about myself. I come here to learn. I want uncensored, straight information. If uncensored information is against your religion, then you should not be part of the wikipedia community, as per Misplaced Pages:What_Wikipedia_is_not Wynler 04:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)