Talk:Buttock cleavage

message: That male buttock cleavage picture is pointless, seeing as there is none. Instead of a painting, why not a picture in a real-life context?
:it is not quite none, rather it is the tiniest possible amount above none..... Mathmo 10:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. What's the point in putting up a picture of some nerd's ass? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.64.145 (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: coin slot??? this whole article is crap--71.97.158.222 18:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pointless

message: This term is not notable on its own and will likely fail another AfD. It should be merged into Cleavage (anatomy) if this information is to be retained. If there's no opposition, this will be done in 48 hours, otherwise I'll file an AfD. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *But why maintain the fork when the material could better be used to illustrate a fluid concept at Cleavage (anatomy)? Most of this material is preserved there, so I don't know why this article, with so few references to such an obscure and bizarre concept, would be better off separate. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *The 48 hours was only if there was no discussion. I meant it as a time frame for the unopposed move not a deadline for discussion. I will wait for consensus here to support it before I merge this page again. In regards to the AfD, this article will probably fail one, so it's reasonable to include that in the rationale for a merger. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Article quality is no reason for deletion. If you are so concerned about quality, may be you can lend a hand and improve it. This kind of destructive complaining is seriously injurious to a collaborative project like the Wikipedia. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no way this article can be much more than a WP:DICDEF and is of no value whatsoever to an encyclopedia. Also, your tone is rather unfriendly. Please moderate it - incivility is far more damaging to a collaborative project than removing an article on buttock cleavage would be. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that claim of unfriendliness really stands. You have started a crusade against a bundle of articles that have just emerged from a similar initiative of Cumulus Cloud, and while I have been adding stuff you kept arguing over non-issues. Not only that. Out of the bundle you wanted to put one article to AfD, which you claimed you would've done if IP addresses were able to do so. I have taken it to AfD for to help you, and let you know that immediately. But you came back to complain about tone of voice, not taking part in the AfD. As far as I can see, all that works more for reducing the encyclopedia, as opposed to increasing it. Not a good feeling at all. Aditya(talk • contribs) 00:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, everything here can go to Buttocks quite easily. Why multiply entities without necessity? (edit conflict) As you can see, I am taking part in it, but we all have to sleep sometime. Goodnight.  78.86.18.55 (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge to [[Cleavage (anatomy)]]

message: The scholarly work at footnote one is rubbish, I think. It refers to an article allegedly by a W.G. Cassidy, in Southerly: the magazine of the Australian English Association, vol. 34, 1939, when in fact said magazine was founded in 1939 and therefore was at volume 1. By 1944 it was only at volume five, and got to volume 39 in 1979 (see  http://www.archive.org/stream/southerlymagass05howarich/southerlymagass05howarich_djvu.txt and http://www.catalog.slsa.sa.gov.au/record=b1137381~S1#). Futhermore "Southerly" is a literary and not a legal review. 
Ah, and the quoted article is called "Private Parts: A Judicial Review".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.48.172.104 (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have improved the ref somewhat. See how it stands in conflict with the link (2nd one, the 1st one says nothing) you provided. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Private Parts 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Slut slot. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Hog Farm (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Slut slot" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: replaced the image :File:Maurerdekolleté.jpg (which I happened to check just now) with their upload :File:Padres fan butt crack.jpg. This was reverted once by a bot as possible vandalism, but then repeated. I suggest that it is indeed vandalism. (They also added that image to wiktionary:it:coscia and wiktionary:it:cosce, so this appears to be cross-wiki vandalism, which I don’t really know how to deal with.) , who originally added :File:Maurerdekolleté.jpg. Brianjd (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur this appears to be a subtle form of vandalism. Based on username of @LAWorldSeriesChamp and file name, File:Padres fan butt crack.jpg, it is clearly a juvenile attempt to deface an opponents team within this article. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have reverted it on the page, added a vandalism warning to @User talk:LAWorldSeriesChamp and will assist with monitoring for future vandalism. Demt1298 (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion