- Portals
- The Current Year
- ED in the News
- Admins
- Help ED Rebuild
- Archive
- ED Bookmarklet
- Donate Bitcoin
Contact an admin on Discord or EDF if you want an account. Also fuck bots.
User talk:T/CHILDPROTECT: Difference between revisions
imported>JuniusThaddeus moved Talk:CHILDPROTECT to User talk:T/CHILDPROTECT: Some pedophilia apologists stubbornly want to believe that this is the view endorsed by the ED communty: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=7506844. |
imported>JuniusThaddeus moved Talk:CHILDPROTECT to User talk:T/CHILDPROTECT: Some pedophilia apologists stubbornly want to believe that this is the view endorsed by the ED communty: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=7506844. |
(No difference)
| |
Revision as of 20:04, 15 February 2014
Move?
As a policy of the same name has also been created on the Wikimedia commons, I propose dropping the WP: and simply having this at CHILDPROTECT which has been a redirect to this page up until now. Any objections? An issue that seems to apply to several Wikimedia projects now. As long as the history references that it began at Wikipedia I doubt any valuable information would be lost. 
Ty
c 00:42, 25 April 2012 (EDT)
Red
TOW: "Good red links help Wikipedia ED —they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia ED.se is far from finished." Tyc 05:58, 25 April 2012 (EDT)
- in the meantime would you plz make use of template:wpul, that's what it's there for: wikipedians nobody cares about. it just seems like a LOT of red. is there an incoming batch of wikipedia articles that i dont know about? -hipcrime
08:49, 25 April 2012 (EDT)
lead
i think the opening paragraph sentence could be more clear, and maybe summarize this, so that people can tell whether they care to read it. -hipcrime 08:52, 25 April 2012 (EDT)