[Gendergap] Kelly Wearstler, again...

2011-12-01 Thread Sarah Stierch
Hi everyone, A few months ago Kelly Wearstler appeared - I think on this list. I had never heard of her, but, a small stink was being made on her talk page about whether to feature the Playboy model infobox for her page. So, I took a look, and of course got sucked in. I rewrote the article

Re: [Gendergap] [Foundation-l] Fundraising is for men

2011-12-01 Thread emijrp
2011/12/1 Carol Moore carolmoor...@verizon.net On 11/29/2011 5:19 PM, emijrp wrote: So, the first step would be to try and figure out if women are visiting the site and not editing or just not visiting at all, before saying nonsense about sexism and Wikipedia community. Fundraising

Re: [Gendergap] [Foundation-l] Fundraising is for men

2011-12-01 Thread Michael J. Lowrey
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 9:23 AM, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote: Sure. For your information, this mailing list is a insult to the real excluded people. Why is this... individual on this mailing list, if they despise our very reason for existing? -- Michael J. Orange Mike Lowrey When I get a

Re: [Gendergap] [Foundation-l] Fundraising is for men

2011-12-01 Thread Christine Meyer
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 7:23 AM, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/12/1 Carol Moore carolmoor...@verizon.net Fundraising from women is an interesting topic. You may think comments about sexism and the Wikipedia community are nonsense, but guess what. Women who take a lot of sexist nonsense

Re: [Gendergap] [Foundation-l] Fundraising is for men

2011-12-01 Thread Philippe Beaudette
On Dec 1, 2011, at 10:54 AM, Christine Meyer christinewme...@gmail.com wrote: Most of those women are single and childless; I think that I may be the only serious WP content editor who is married and has children, or at least the only one I know about. The above statement also buys into

Re: [Gendergap] [Foundation-l] Fundraising is for men

2011-12-01 Thread Carol Moore
Pardon me for stereotyping without evidence. Bad original posts sometimes lead to bad responses. ;-( Hear hear as to why people opposed to the concept posting on the list. On 12/1/2011 12:01 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote: On Dec 1, 2011, at 10:54 AM, Christine Meyerchristinewme...@gmail.com

Re: [Gendergap] Kelly Wearstler, again...

2011-12-01 Thread Rob
Thanks for bringing this to our (well, mine, anyway) attention. It was troubling when it first showed up on BLPN in May and it's still troubling that so many (all male, looks like) editors are missing the point of BLP and UNDUE and are so dismissive of the career accomplishments of the subject of

Re: [Gendergap] Kelly Wearstler, again...

2011-12-01 Thread Nathan
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Rob gamali...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for bringing this to our (well, mine, anyway) attention.  It was troubling when it first showed up on BLPN in May and it's still troubling that so many (all male, looks like) editors are missing the point of BLP and UNDUE

Re: [Gendergap] Kelly Wearstler, again...

2011-12-01 Thread Rob
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Well, let's be fair - there are men on both sides, and as most Wikipedia editors are male I don't think any conclusions can be drawn from the gender of the editors :-P You're right, I should have qualified that a bit more.

[Gendergap] Kelly Wearstler, again...

2011-12-01 Thread Wiki Hegvald
A little background: Kww, the candidate for arbcom about whom we are talking, was one of the users who insisted that it was a good idea to have a specific playmate infobox in the article on Wearstler. The box in question is one which makes the bust, waist and hip measurements the most prominently

Re: [Gendergap] Kelly Wearstler, again...

2011-12-01 Thread Audrey Cormier
I don't think an Admin should get any more weight as any other editor working on writing an article when they are contributing to it in an editor role (like POV-pushing over an info box, to demonstrate the high esteem in which they place pretty breasts). If they keep overriding other editors