Difference between revisions of "Talk:Wikimedia Commons"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(re) |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:I've made an edit which I believe improves it without removing the thrust of the original text. [[User:NeilWalker|NeilWalker]] ([[User talk:NeilWalker|talk]]) 10:08, 1 September 2017 (EDT) | :I've made an edit which I believe improves it without removing the thrust of the original text. [[User:NeilWalker|NeilWalker]] ([[User talk:NeilWalker|talk]]) 10:08, 1 September 2017 (EDT) | ||
::By the way, David, when you changed the wording, part of the wording you changed was part of a quote: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Commons&curid=126816&diff=1370573&oldid=1370548] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:12, 1 September 2017 (EDT) | ::By the way, David, when you changed the wording, part of the wording you changed was part of a quote: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Commons&curid=126816&diff=1370573&oldid=1370548] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:12, 1 September 2017 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::'''NeilWalker''', that sounds much better to me, though admittedly, it does take out the "shock value." It looks fine to me, though. | ||
| + | :::'''1990'sguy''', good catch. Without quote marks, I didn't realize it was a quote. The diligent thing for me to do would have been to check the reference first though. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 10:21, 1 September 2017 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 14:21, September 1, 2017
"Wikimedia Commons as a massive amateur porn hub"
Hi,
This problem probably is worth mentioning, but may I suggest we take a much less "in-your-face" approach to it, even if they don't? CP is supposed to by family-friendly, so it doesn't seem to me like in-depth descriptions and suggested search terms are a good idea. Any thoughts? --David B (TALK) 09:52, 1 September 2017 (EDT)
- I've made an edit which I believe improves it without removing the thrust of the original text. NeilWalker (talk) 10:08, 1 September 2017 (EDT)
- By the way, David, when you changed the wording, part of the wording you changed was part of a quote: [1] --1990'sguy (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2017 (EDT)
- NeilWalker, that sounds much better to me, though admittedly, it does take out the "shock value." It looks fine to me, though.
- 1990'sguy, good catch. Without quote marks, I didn't realize it was a quote. The diligent thing for me to do would have been to check the reference first though. --David B (TALK) 10:21, 1 September 2017 (EDT)
- By the way, David, when you changed the wording, part of the wording you changed was part of a quote: [1] --1990'sguy (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2017 (EDT)