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
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
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
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.
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
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
