what's wrong with "imagesq" though... ;)
As pronunced in french, "q" becomes "cul", which means "ass", or "porn". Thus "images de cul" or "images de q" => porn pics.
So it does have some meaning.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Nicolas
Accédez au courrier électronique de La Poste : www.laposte.net ; 3615 LAPOSTENET (0,34/mn) ; tél : 08 92 68 13 50 (0,34/mn)
Nicolas Weeger wrote:
what's wrong with "imagesq" though... ;)
As pronunced in french, "q" becomes "cul", which means "ass", or "porn". Thus "images de cul" or "images de q" => porn pics.
So it does have some meaning.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Nicolas
Wow. Just wow. Ok, here's a suggestion, somewhere between humorous and completely serious: when sending an edit form, the user interface should send a hidden "canary" field containing various safe-for-work words that will be mutilated by idiotic censorware such as this: words like "Middlesex", "Cockfosters" and "Scunthorpe" come to mind. Then, if the "canary" field is returned in a mutilated form (for example, "Middle fosters Sthorpe") when the edit is submitted, we know that the rest of the edit is potentially dubious. We could then refuse the edit, alerting the user that they are in a text-mangling environment, and that they should edit from somewhere else. The uses of "canary" field could also potentially be extended to check that the browser correctly handles various other technical issues, such as not mangling character sets.
-- Neil
Neil Harris said:
Nicolas Weeger wrote:
what's wrong with "imagesq" though... ;)
As pronunced in french, "q" becomes "cul", which means "ass", or "porn". Thus "images de cul" or "images de q" => porn pics.
Hence the caption LHOOQ on Marcel Duchamp's defaced Mona Lisa.
http://www.studiolo.org/Mona/MONA11.htm
Wow. Just wow. Ok, here's a suggestion, somewhere between humorous and completely serious: when sending an edit form, the user interface should send a hidden "canary" field containing various safe-for-work words that will be mutilated by idiotic censorware such as this: words like "Middlesex", "Cockfosters" and "Scunthorpe" come to mind. Then, if the "canary" field is returned in a mutilated form (for example, "Middle fosters Sthorpe") when the edit is submitted, we know that the rest of the edit is potentially dubious. We could then refuse the edit, alerting the user that they are in a text-mangling environment, and that they should edit from somewhere else. The uses of "canary" field could also potentially be extended to check that the browser correctly handles various other technical issues, such as not mangling character sets.
So simple it could just work! :)
I'm still boggled by the suggestion that this censorware nonsense may have infected languages other than American.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org