Hi
This news story is doing the rounds in the news but I don't know if
everyone has seen the original NY times op-ed by Angelina Jolie[1]. She
talks about her preemptive and precautionary double-mastectomy because she
found out she was at a higher risk for breast cancer after genetic
screening. I
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Sylvia Ventura sylvia.vent...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Theo, thank you for documenting my experience on meta, clearly a
rookie mistake on my part, I hadn't revisited that page since and just
now saw Sarah S note. I'm not giving up but I'm still figuring out the
best
Hi Sylvia
It seems the crux of your argument is against the nature of the Internet
itself, rather than anything specific to Wikipedia. There is nothing unique
about anonymity on Wikipedia. In fact, it could be argued that internet
itself promotes anonymity - Internet protocol don't require any
Hi Sylvia
I share some of your concerns and agree with your insightful observations.
My comments are inline-
On Sat, May 11, 2013, Sylvia Ventura sylvia.vent...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Theo, thank you for the thorough response. You bring up very valid
points, specially around privacy standards
I wanted to ask a question to the members of the list-
Is all pornography inherently bad, against women, perhaps, Anti-feminist
but does it degrade women just by its sheer existence? Are there women who
either a) don't have strong opinions on it b) are supportive of some form
of it.
For the
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
No. Record-keeping is required by law for images whose production involved
actual people engaged in sexually explicit conduct, meaning actual or
simulated—(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital,
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Theo, that is completely wrong. Record-keeping requirements only apply to
images where models were required to engage in actual sexually explicit
conduct, and moreover, it only applies to images created from 1990 onward.
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Outside prosecutors can not prosecute, or charge any editor based on
their username, whether its User:someguy542 or User:Ladiesman232, there is
no real
Hi Andreas
Some observations-
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
A Google image search for gay cumshot indicates there are 37.8 million
results. Cumshot -gay has 44 million. If these numbers are correct, then
gay and non-gay cumshots are almost equally
with them. :P
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
And I defended the reverting editor. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGender-neutral_languageaction=historysubmitdiff=468184170oldid=468179760
).
[...]
I'm sure Dominic can
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
**
Yes, the traditional usage has been predominantly masculine, but in modern
usage, they is the dominant form. See my reply at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Gender-neutral_language#She_before_he.3F
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:
Max, a campus ambassador, voices his thoughts about women, Wikimedia and
campus ambassadors.
Who's Max?
sbm ;)
Theo
___
Gendergap mailing list
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:00 PM, ChaoticFluffy chaoticflu...@gmail.comwrote:
Hmmm, interesting. I've often wondered whether I would have had a less
pleasant experience fitting into the wiki(p|m)edia IRC channels if I had an
obviously-gendered nick. As it is, I get maybe one random pm a month,
Hi
Why is an OTRS ticket being discussed on a public mailing list? Correct me
if I'm wrong but I thought the ticket info and address were supposed to be
private, unless otherwise noted, no?
Regards
Theo
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:59 AM, leilah ozaibi email.lei...@gmail.comwrote:
Yes, and a
Hi
I am mostly active on other ML and signed on to Gender gap list solely to
respond to Maggie and Sarah. Let me be clear, Rupert thruner and Pete are
both right, you were not nice at all in your previous response and
border-line uncivil, Maggie. And you are not blunt, maybe slightly
misinformed.
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 11:25 PM, Maggie rockerre...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, Peter, when a person is offended by something someone else has said
and you don't understand it---it's probably best not to comment on it.
I am offended by something you said, somewhere, please don't comment on it.
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On *Sat, 1/10/11, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com* wrote:
Sarah, I am not sure what you've been trying to say lately[2].
Rest assured that it made perfect sense to others. ;)
Wonderful, now I can finally sleep
17 matches
Mail list logo
