+1 on SJ's comment, and I think Pete made some excellent points on the talk
page. For instance: How would this affect the legal team's paid staff time if
we place a big red button under each image? I have cc:ed Geoff since he may not
be aware of the question.
But I would also like to say that
Hmm, there seems to be much more behind this scary story about Jolie:
http://www.naturalnews.com/040365_Angelina_Jolie_gene_patents_Supreme_Court_decision.html#ixzz2TVCldugn
I didn't know you could patent a gene and reading between the lines, I
think it's a tragedy for Jolie and her family. It's
Natural News is full of bizarre conspiracy theory stuff... I wouldn't
trust their analysis much :/
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:50 PM, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm, there seems to be much more behind this scary story about Jolie:
Thanks - I noticed from the diffs on Wikipedia that they are trying to
report something as a scoop that is actually pretty old news... I am
just astonished that it is possible to patent a human gene!
2013/5/17, Leigh Honeywell le...@hypatia.ca:
Natural News is full of bizarre conspiracy theory
Hi Lennart,
Thank you for calling this out. You raise an extremely valid point. I
have asked Luis to follow this project, so I am including him here so he
can follow. I'm also including Michelle, who historically has been
dealing with these kinds of reports for legal.
Appreciate your
Hi SJ,
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Pete,
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com
wrote:
To me the wording of the board resolution is
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.comwrote:
I think one of the best things we could all do to move things forward
would be to start adding the consent template wherever we can, and
encouraging our photographer friends to do so as well. It would be
fantastic --
For anybody interested: I've nominated the photo I mentioned a while back,
a portrait of Karen Stollznow, for deletion. To me this seems like a clear
case of a file that Commons policy requires be deleted, but that was not.
Hi again,
Admin User:Evula attempted to delete them per COM:SCOPE but every
single one was immediately restored. People are now yelling at him on his talk
page.
-- Allie
On May 17, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Lennart Guldbrandsson
l_guldbrands...@hotmail.com wrote:
Oh, this was not good. I
By the way, I am constantly surprised at the tone in some of the discussions on
Commons. I rarely meet that normally on Swedish WIkipedia. But I am not naive
about it. I know that it exists. Some time ago, I wrote a blog post about how
there is actually several encyclopedias all rolled together
http://toolserver.org/~magnus/glamorous.php?doit=Do+it!category=Nude+portrayals+of+computer+technologyshould
answer George's question. It takes a while loading and it isn't
worksafe - unless you can get away with thumbnails
-Ole.
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 1:10 AM, George Herbert
Hi,
I'd like to ask that people don't use this mailing list to get into in
depth explanations of what the images look like. Simply saying NSFW is
good enough for me.
I can tell by reading the captions 1) I don't want to look at them 2) I
don't want to hear what they look like.
It's as
I apologize Sarah. I thought that descriptions of the images would allow
those who cannot view them to evaluate the contents if they wish. It will
not happen again.
Nepenthe
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
I'd like to ask that people don't
They look like they're some sort of odd art project on the commoditisation
of female sexuality in the technology industry (for instance, booth babes
and magazine ads with half naked women promoting new gadgets), rather than
an outright attempt to titillate. Are random artistic images in Commons
14 matches
Mail list logo
