Welcome to Eggporncomics! This site was created for all cartoon, hentai, 3d xxx comics fans all over the world. Enjoy fresh daily updates from our team and surf over our categories to get all of your fantasies realize. Check it out and enjoy the incredible world of porn comics for an adults right here! Our team always working on improving this site and the best reward for us will be your come back. We will be glad to see you again and again, so do not forget to add Eggporncomics.com to bookmarks. Also you can share our site or some comics in social media. See you again!
xxx kim possible porn
In addition, I believe that userboxes should use parameters whenever possible. For example, it makes no sense to have seperate userboxes for every time zone. A user could easily specify which timezone he wishes to display by providing an argument to the template.
Is there an easier way to be honest about our points of view than userboxes? Is squelching individual points of view honest? Will squeching points of view ever be able to achive neutrality in editing as well as announcing them? Why then not make it as easy and attractive as possible to make such an announcement? --James S. 17:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Herostratus, how can you justify that pornography should be speedily deleted?! Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. For further evidence, see penis or vulva. I find it rather telling that you would support the speedy deletion of pornography but not a much more worthless and more damaging hate-speech template (see Tony's examples above). --Cyde Weys 06:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it's remotely possible to compare the two. If I put text on my userpage describing my beliefs, you have to come to my userpage, where you engage me as a person, to read it. If I plop a little template on my userpage, saying "this user subscribes to X belief", I'm making myself part of a faction within Wikipedia that, selected by belief, can be managed, rounded up, manipulated, marketed to and whatnot. Belief becomes a commodity. The problem is exacerbated if there's an associated category because these are somewhat easier to navigate than template links.
The real problem is that through the medium of the userboxes and categories similar-POVed users can find eachother and form a POV-power just too easily. That would make NPOV-writing almost impossible, could corrupt votings through loyalty mobilization, and might scare off other users from contibuting.
We've long had a policy of speedy deleting attack pages, and just because something is a template rather than another kind of page doesn't excuse it from that policy. While I agree that in the case of most of our 5000 or so templates it would be inappropriate to speedily delete them, the controversy seems to revolve around about 100 or so political and religious templates which, Jimbo has made it very plain, have a limited future on this site, one way or another. I suepect that most of the attack templates are political or polemical in nature, so ultimately the problem will be resolved. In the meantime a policy against speedy deleting templates would be impossible to implement. Sysops will continue to delete content that has no place on Wikipedia because it is used to attack other people. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply] 2ff7e9595c
Comments