Talk:Man
What's up with the leaf? Is this a man of a forest elf?--Ezhiki 12:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
No, no! I think he looks like Noldor from the House of Feanor!
Photo of a man
[change source]
In an article about "Man" we should include a photo where you can see the whole man, not only his face. I tried to include this photo, but I was reverted by User:Microchip08. Any opinions? --92.229.180.78 (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Disgusting
[change source]Get this freaking porn off of here. (I'm not referring to Michaelangelo's David, I'm referring to the idiot on the right) Please. I know the whole "Wikipedia isn't censored" charade, but is it really necessary to show a fully nude guy that just showered or something?? Move this image to Wikipornia or whatever stupid site would host this trash. Show a CLOTHED man, please, if we have to have a live human picture. Michaelangelo's "David" does plenty of justice for what a naked man looks like. I've seen this guy's pictures on the regular English Wikipedia, and none of them offended me until this one. Please discuss.
As this is simple wikipedia it will be regularly used by children, who don't need access to an image of a naked man. Everybody knows what a naked man looks like, how does this photo aid education and knowledge?
24.10.181.254 (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the article is overcrowded with two images. So I wouldn't have a probelm with one being removed. Exert 18:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Women are shorter than men
[change source]They cant be Taller
- Yes they can be. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Removal of trans men section
[change source]@Web domain source: I have gone ahead and added some references; could you please elaborare on why you are removing this section? KonstantinaG07 (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- While anyone can edit articles, ensuring the quality and accuracy of content is crucial. Here’s why getting edits approved matters:
- Vandalism Prevention: Wikipedia is susceptible to vandalism, where individuals intentionally insert false or harmful information. To combat this, many people monitor the recent changes page. However, this system has limitations. To improve it, Wikipedia introduced the Edit Approval system1.
- Edit Approval Process:
- When an edit is made (whether it’s brilliant prose or vandalism), it appears on two special pages: Special:Recentchanges and Special:Unapprovededits.
- The Unapproved Edits page lists specifically those edits that haven’t been approved yet. It doesn’t mean the edit is invisible; it simply hasn’t been reviewed.
- Administrators or trusted users evaluate each edit. If they believe it’s valuable, they approve it. Otherwise, they revert it.
- The Edit Approval system ensures that problematic edits are logged for later review, preventing libelous or harmful content from slipping through the cracks1.
- Case Study: John Seigenthaler Sr.:
- In 2005, a libelous edit about John Seigenthaler Sr. remained on Wikipedia for months due to the sheer volume of edits. The Edit Approval policy would have flagged it on the Unapproved Edits page, making it easier to address1.
- In summary, approved edits enhance Wikipedia’s reliability and protect it from misinformation and vandalism. Web domain source (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- The document you are linking and quoting is a failed proposal, so I am unsure how it is relevant to this discussion. --KonstantinaG07 (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)