User contributions for Zanaq

16:2216:22, 1 July 2018 diff hist 38 User:Zanaq/global.js replaced version of Zanaq on 16:12, 1 July 2018 (18170986) - activate zmUsePreviewFindDominantMeaning Tag: Reverted
16:2116:21, 1 July 2018 diff hist −38 User:Zanaq/global.js replaced version of Zanaq on 08:15, 16 June 2018 (18132620) Tag: Reverted
16:1216:12, 1 July 2018 diff hist 38 User:Zanaq/global.js zmUsePreviewFindDominantMeaning Tag: Reverted

17:5117:51, 2 August 2012 diff hist 681 Controversial content/Brainstorming →Proposal Comparison: It is the responsability of the users, not of this website. If users dont know how to use a computer perhaps they should not use one. People who are easily offended should not use the internet anyway, and I for one do not care wh

07:5807:58, 7 September 2011 diff hist 266 Talk:Image filter referendum/Results/en →Vote analysis by project and degree of passion: Other projects may have their own goals and editorial judgement which also probably does not include objectionability since any two people will never fully agree on what's objectionable and what is

11:1011:10, 6 September 2011 diff hist 992 Talk:Image filter referendum/Results/en →Vote analysis by project and degree of passion: So the purpose of making vulva a featured article is to offend people, yeah right. If the disfigured man crosses the street, other traffic is supposed to make eye contact. There is no purpose here:

18:2618:26, 5 September 2011 diff hist 519 Talk:Image filter referendum/Results/en →Comments: That is called neutrality: the only values we should care about are ''encyclopedic'' values, like verifiability. If featured articles will appear on the main page, then ''all'' featured articles should be treated the same. Not make som
11:1811:18, 5 September 2011 diff hist 338 Talk:Image filter referendum/Results/en →Comments: There is nothing wrong with a vulva on the main page: it is a featured article. Featured articles will sometimes be displayed on the front page including the relevant picture. The only neutral conclusion is to show the article includin

16:3416:34, 4 September 2011 diff hist 185 Talk:Image filter referendum/Results/en →Result by date?: You can see which voters voted but not what. I'd rather have the reverse data: see when/what but not who. This is useless.
15:2215:22, 4 September 2011 diff hist 101 Talk:Image filter referendum/Results/en →Result by date?: Would there be a hyperlinklink to these data?
06:5806:58, 4 September 2011 diff hist 250 Talk:Image filter referendum/Results/en →Result by date?: There should be a way to compare the results before the e-mail to results after: I speculate regular users vs. incidental users and the biased nature of the spam mail will have had some influence.
06:5506:55, 4 September 2011 diff hist 407 Talk:Image filter referendum/Results/en →Results now released: Disappointing result. From the results it seems support for this ridiculous thing is pretty clear. I wonder what kind of influence the biased questions and spammail have had: we will never know, so the Foundation has been l

11:1611:16, 3 September 2011 diff hist 337 Talk:Image filter referendum/Results/en →September 1: This is most disconcerting: if only one person has access, there are no checks and balances. Combine this with the biased setup of this referendum, the canvassing spam mails, and the hiding of negative comments.... I'd like to Assum
10:5210:52, 3 September 2011 diff hist 78 Talk:Image filter referendum/en/Referendum →Bias in Referendum Questions - Important/Unimportant vs. Support/Oppose: That is correct.