And of course I love how you skirted the issue of your statement that Commons produces nothing beyond photos of genitals.
I'll be waiting for your numbers of how many genitals files are on Commons, out of the 17 million files in total we have. I'm having a guess here; perhaps 3,000? Maybe 5,000. But I do know that http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Uncircumcised_human_penis and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Circumcised_human_penis basically pales in comparison to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:All_Nippon_Airways_aircraft_at_Tokyo_International_Airport And yet we have a problem on the amount of cock pics on Commons? Seriously? Any time you feel like reasonable discussion on things Ironholds, feel free to chime in; because your comments were nothing more than ill-informed opinion. Cheers, Russavia On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Oliver Keyes <ironho...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Quite honestly, is it any wonder when people make such statements that >> editors from Commons basically ignore them, and don't bother >> responding -- much like the weekly "Commons is broken" threads we see >> elsewhere...you know the ones I am talking about. >> > I would suggest that if you have a weekly "your project is broken" thread > something is going terribly wrong. > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
