:verified:@WikiTalk@kiwifarms.cc
Following
0
Followers
0
Posts
14
Imported by PSI
Reply to @WikiTalk@kiwifarms.cc
The reply
Hence why I used the word perceived. After posting this section I found the discussion, such as it was, on Anrza's talk page. Looking at the timestamps I'm a bit disappointed that you would read Anzra's reply referring you to the Manual of Style, which clearly says, "As always, do not use an apostrophe to form a plural", then elect to edit the MOS in order to have it your own way. Given your exhaustive contributions to WP I thought you'd hold yourself to higher standards than that. I hope you've now undone your edit.
Reply to @WikiTalk@kiwifarms.cc
The reply
OK, I take it back. The New York Times seemed to have changed their style book between the edition I have and the newer one online. BTW, I have no "authority" here, except that which may come with 12 years of editing, over 200,000 edits, and the respect of a number of other editors.
Sorry Ken but I have to agree with Anrza here; adding apostrophes to make something plural is the kind of thing you expect from greengrocers, not encyclopedias. Since you know a lot about Wikipedia I thought there may be some precedent that you were following, but it looks like you just decided to make a unilateral MOS edit after the fact instead. If there is a precedent on WP then I'd like to see it, maybe even reverse it. If not then I'd like to point out that Google ngrams for 1000s vs 1000's or 1960s vs 1960's, to pick a couple of random examples, shows a distinct skew away from using apostrophes. More to the point, I know of no rationale for using an apostrophe to make a plural unless you're a greengrocer who doesn't know any better. Maybe it's because it's way past my bedtime but it seems to me like you're exceeding your perceived authority here, Ken. If I'm mistaken then please forgive the insinuation.
I'm incredibly arrogant, and an overall unpleasant man, I mean, three days to type a simple message? I DESERVE a hate message that came outta nowhere, especially from someone desperately trying to preserve a Sonic the Hedgehog subsection that has absolutely nothing defending it besides the fact that it's pretty much only truth. So, without further ado, oh great being that churns the insults, will it be meaningless insults, or actual defense of your subsection?
The single most outrageous statement Trump made during his political tenure: "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated." Nobody? It's pretty much a litmus test of whether a citizen or resident of America is living in the real world with their eyes open. If you don't know that health care is one of America's most polarized, partisan, Byzantine and intractable problems, the next question in line to bracket the other person's world-view competence: "okay, do you know water is wet?" And if you get a "yes" answer you can say, "great! we're already halfway there." Then you can ask: do you think Jared Kushner can solve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict over coffee tomorrow afternoon? If the answer is "yes" again, you might be halfway there, but you've still got a long road ahead. What makes American healthcare "so complicated" is that many people are quick to support ideological option (A) or (B), but then when any specific proposal trickles into view, seven people out of ten go ape shit over their favoured ox being gored (such as watching your favourite Gore being doxed). Ideological majority often fails, and fails miserably, to translate into majorism backing any specific, concrete proposal. As I'm not picking on Trump in particular, let's also consider the Firdos Square statue destruction. The "majority" of Americans supported the Iraq invasion under the (careless) assumption that toppling the statue of Saddam Hussein would "end the conflict" (at least symbolically). What we saw instead was a year of Bush and other Bush administration officials running around saying "I did not have insurgency with those Arabs", modelled to a T on Bill Clinton's less-than-finest hour ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman.") As it stands, we've used the word "majority" in this lead three times in short succession, and nowhere have we made it clear that this is quite possibly yet another majorism of wishful thinking (spanning all citations provided), entirely congruent with: Brexit, ending Obamacare, and the toppling of the Hussein administration in Iraq. What you can legitimately assert from the polls cited is that the majority of people polling are not rejecting the two-state solution out of hand, though the devil is surely in the details, should a concrete proposal be tabled from on high. I am not the man of one book, or one Wikipedia page, or one geopolitical conflict. I have many other Wikipedia pages yet to visit / And miles to go before I sleep. On fresh news of Sheldon Adelson's passing, I've merely stopped by long enough to carve my two cents into the tree bark (with loud and sloppy axe strokes) for what it's worth.
Show more
I've long noticed that my semen, when first emitted, is milky white in color and thick in texture, like jelly or pudding. Then over the course of about two minutes, it becomes clear and much thinner in texture, more like thin nasal mucus. I've been trying for years to find out why, and whether there is some biological purpose to this change. I've mentioned my observation to many other men, and every one has either confirmed my observation or said they never noticed; none has said that they didn't find this to be true. I've also asked several doctors, including a urologist; they all agreed with my observation but none knew why this happens or what its purpose might be. I've Googled this question repeatedly with various search terms, but never turned up anything that seemed relevant. If any of you knows anyone—perhaps a specialist such as a fertility doctor, or a biochemist—who could answer this question, and can include it in this article, I think it would be a valuable datum. And I would be eternally grateful.
There is no concensus that lion homosexuality is "critical information". Please show us at least one popular page on the web that discusses basic lion information and homosexuality on the same page. Obscure information does not belong to a page that aims to educate people on basic lion facts.
Famous people who produce semen
Possibly worth a list? DJ Green Lantern has, I believe that John Updike as well. Any others?
I have Australian friends who refer to farts as "after dinner mints." I wanted to add this to the article but I figured it would just be removed as graffiti.. Even though it is true.
Don't know why cabbage making farts smellier needs a citation, we all know it is true.
SONIC IS A BLUE, MALE, HUMANOID, ANTHROPOMORPHIC, GLOVED, UPRIGHT-STANDING, FOOTED, BREATHING, LIVING, FICTIONAL, TEENAGE HEDGEHOG
Listen you idiots, I'm sick of this. Stop editing this into his description. As if what Sonic is isn't already extremely obvious to anyone who sees his picture or even reads the fucking name of this article, you people deem it completely necessary to list an endless amount of redundant terms to describe him to people, like him being "blue", "anthropomorphic", "male" and "humanoid". YES, WE GET IT. HE'S AN ANTHRO HEDGEHOG, SHUT THE HELL UP. The fact that somebody always edits these redundant and idiotic descriptions back into the article makes me think that this page is exclusively edited only by stupid, horny furries.
The objection to this photo seems to be under the impression that the tan-colored thing is actually the horse's penis -- but it looks to me more like some sort of rubber aparatus. I've seen horsewang before, and it never looked like that -- though I admit I have never harvested horse semen, and I could be mistaken. Actually, reading the horse breeding article, I am VERY doubtful that this is a photo of a penis. Would the photographer be willing to answer this question for me, please?
With respect to anilingus, is there anyway we can please edit/remove/delete all past references to the phrase "Barracking the Obama". It's beneath what this project is trying to accomplish.