Posts on Wikipedia

[Baill Inneraora]

Do they really need to have an article on anal fisting? Can’t you kind of put together the words “Anal” and “fisting” and figure out what it is?

It’s like saying, “I have no idea what the movie ‘Snakes on a Plane’ is about.”

 

[RealMenSwallow]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingering_(sexual_act)#Anal_fingering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butt_plug
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_toy

And just in case you don't get the hint from your "office romance"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment

 

[Will E Worm]

Do we really need to risk letting children view this material? It's just mind blowing!

I know, I'm surprised no one has said something to them.

It would be better to have these subjects locked and you would have to sign up to view them.

 

[assholebythedoor]

stop sticking your penis in the light bulb socket.

 

[Dawn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_fetishism#Feederism

 

[dafib]

Wow! Boobpedia is the greatest site ever!

 

[Will E Worm]

stop sticking your penis in the light bulb socket.

What? :dunno:

Wow! Boobpedia is the greatest site ever!

You meant Freeones.

 

[RealMenSwallow]

Feed your kinkier side with these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_shower
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondage_(BDSM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_fetish

 

[RealMenSwallow]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masturbation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowjob
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunnilingus

And seriously? Fucking seriously? Why did I have to find this? Why?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejaculation

 

[Petra]

so all that is allowed yet a Freeones entry there once was is not, funny

Mind boggling...

 

[recnal420]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masturbation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowjob
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunnilingus

And seriously? Fucking seriously? Why did I have to find this? Why?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejaculation

heres one from ejac

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semen_quality

haha

 

[RealMenSwallow]

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teabagging"]Teabagging[/URL]

I don't know how they get away with that picture...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_%28sex_act%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_slang

 

[habo9]

I like going into Wiki and changing things to sound stupid , but they said if I keep doing it I will get banned lol

 

[Elwood70]

. Do we really need to risk letting children view this material?

Who's "we"?

Yes,we do.

The parents however....

 

[Mayhem]

I like going into Wiki and changing things to sound stupid , but they said if I keep doing it I will get banned lol

Well, I hope you are either joking or they do ban you. Why would you do something like that? Some of us use Wikipedia on an almost daily basis and it beats the shit out of having to buy a set of encyclopedias(especially if you can't afford too). And I imagine a bunch of people also use it for information that they need for serious purposes (like, y'know, their jobs, homework, helping their kids).

Again, if you were joking, disregard the above. If you weren't, GROW THE FUCK UP!

 

[habo9]

Well, I hope you are either joking or they do ban you. Why would you do something like that? Some of us use Wikipedia on an almost daily basis and it beats the shit out of having to buy a set of encyclopedias(especially if you can't afford too). And I imagine a bunch of people also use it for information that they need for serious purposes (like, y'know, their jobs, homework, helping their kids).

Again, if you were joking, disregard the above. If you weren't, GROW THE FUCK UP!

Im really sorry I upset you , na Im not really , ok I will stop it because you type in swear words and your mental plus you have told me off :rofl:

PS I dont use wiki not been on it for ages anyway , BTW way I was joking but I will do it now just to piss you off :thefinger

BTW dont disregard that cause I will , any requests?

 

[Ace Bandage]

Wikipedia is not censored:
However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content.

 

[Big Poppa Pump]

Well, I hope you are either joking or they do ban you. Why would you do something like that? Some of us use Wikipedia on an almost daily basis and it beats the shit out of having to buy a set of encyclopedias(especially if you can't afford too). And I imagine a bunch of people also use it for information that they need for serious purposes (like, y'know, their jobs, homework, helping their kids).

Again, if you were joking, disregard the above. If you weren't, GROW THE FUCK UP!

I think your taking this way to seriously, Mayhem. One of the reasons Wikipedia is so great is because it can be edited. I use it as a reference website for my archeology course to look up historical dates but I still double check on other sites because I know its universally and constantly edited. Lighten up dude.

 

[habo9]

I think your taking this way to seriously, Mayhem. One of the reasons Wikipedia is so great is because it can be edited. I use it as a reference website for my archeology course to look up historical dates but I still double check on other sites because I know its universally and constantly edited. Lighten up dude.

Lol me too , I never use it if I want to find things out , its not accurate and its always changing , I remember I looked up were Im from in Glasgow and it was just bullshit , well it wasnt all bullshit but people had added just pure rubbish and things that werent true lol

Take everything you read on Wiki with a pinch of salt and always double check it with another source :thumbsup:

Thats why I dont use it for serious stuff , Id rather look up a proper website

 

[RealMenSwallow]

Obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site, or clear vandalism) is usually removed quickly. Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, will also be removed. However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content.

What does "Obviously inappropriate content" mean if they show photos like the ones in teabagging? I'm perfectly open to their cartoon portrayals of other sexual activities, but a photograph seems way out of line.