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.
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 clear as is stands.
No. In my view no version of the board resolution that remains such
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:
Hey Sarah et al
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is my first Commons deletion nom. I'm trying to
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
snip Erik said,
---o0o---
Even if they are uploaded in good faith (I put them on Flickr with
permission and now I'm uploading them to Commons), *it's still desirable
to ask for evidence of consent specifically for
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
snip Erik said,
---o0o---
Even if they are uploaded in good faith (I put them on Flickr with
permission and now I'm uploading them to
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.comwrote:
snip Erik said,
---o0o---
Even if they are uploaded in good faith (I put
Hey Sarah et al
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is my first Commons deletion nom. I'm trying to act rather than
expecting others to do it, but it's not a particularly pleasant experience.
I understand why people don't want to get involved.
You
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:
Hey Sarah et al
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is my first Commons deletion nom. I'm trying to act rather
than
expecting others to do it, but it's not a
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:17 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
As I have said before, I am happy to work with you or anyone on drafting a
better policy. (I realize you offered a two word edit, but in my
Hello again Andreas
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
If you look at the upload stream, they come up quite regularly, including
images of minors, uploaded again and again under different user names,
according to a mail I received from Philippe a couple
Russavia and Andreas, I want to take this opportunity to point out that the
style of argument the two of you have been engaged in since last night is
exactly what some of us mean when we refer to an aggressive atmosphere
that makes us uncomfortable on the projects. Turning a disagreement over
how
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
To me the wording of the board resolution is clear as is stands. Erik has
further clarified it. However, present practice in Commons does not follow
it. So if these three words help make the intended meaning clearer,
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
The resolution as worded requires that any photo of a person in a private
place, or with an expectation of privacy, carry a declaration of consent.
It does not specify consent to what, and there is no broadly agreed
On 5/13/13 2:58 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
there is no broadly agreed model of what that consent form might look
like.
Actually there is: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Consent
So images like this one would have to be deleted:
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On 5/13/13 2:58 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
there is no broadly agreed model of what that consent form might look
like.
Actually there is: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Consent
That looks better than I
On 5/13/13 5:03 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
So images like this one would have to be deleted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michelle_and_Barack_Obama_paint_at_a_Habitat_for_Humanity_site.jpg
That image should be tagged with {{consent|published}}, which
states the following:
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Pete, that photograph is from The Official White House Photostream. This
rather implies that the subjects or their representatives waived their
reasonable expectation of privacy.
The cucumber lady, however, DID NOT, and
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:
It merely states (paraphrasing) images of people in a private setting
OR
with an expectation of privacy.
The OR inserted above is important to the paraphrase -- it's one of the
things that often gets missed in
Also, I will say this out in the open.
What I wrote just previous to this is EXACTLY why we on Commons have
allowed ourselves to be guided by common sense and our community
drafted policies, rather the potentially destructive Board resolution.
I will also make it known that I sent emails to Sue
Right Pete,
It is an important distinction to make, thanks for that. For example
A person in the UK is having a meal in a restaurant. It's not exactly
a private setting is it? Do they have an expectation of privacy?
Read
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
The cucumber ladies still have their pictures on Commons, even though the
Flickr account the images were scraped from has long been deleted:
(SFW:) http://www.flickr.com/photos/phoenixontherise/6092639951/
I've
Erik, et al
Just a heads up that I have responded to your question at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Russavia#Evidence_of_consent
I invite all gender gap list members to come to Commons to read what
is written, and get involved.
Cheers,
Russavia
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:22 PM,
Here is an example of a recent deletion request that was closed as Keep.
(While the image is not safe for work, the following link to the deletion
discussion is. The deletion discussion does not show the image, only a link
to it.)
You may argue for all of the below on the project, and involve the
community-at-large. But you should know, that much of what you describe
below is covered by http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Personality.
If there are refinements that could be made, can I suggest you stop talking
on
Hey Fluff,
Indeed we did have a conversation on IRC the other day. You and I may not
agree on numerous things, and in many instances we have very similar views
(but perhaps you just aren't aware of it), but one thing we surely can
agree on is that by only commenting on this list is not having
Alas no, I'm not up to your challenge. I'm subject to quite enough
aggression and strange sexualization of situations on enwp; I don't have
the energy to dive headfirst into an even worse atmosphere of those things
on Commons. I'm much more comfortable speaking here, in an environment of
respect
More seriously; the idea that someone either volunteers themselves to enter
an environment they find disturbing and uncomfortable, or they're actively
contributing to it being disturbing and uncomfortable, is (frankly)
bullshit. Katherine is not responsible for the failure of Commons to
produce
And I see that you are just as active
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ironholds) so
you are obviously talking as a result of long-term experience.
It goes back to my response to Erik, that it is easier to sit back and
be negative, than it is to get involved. In terms of
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:
And I see that you are just as active
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ironholds) so
you are obviously talking as a result of long-term experience.
When I say that shaming is bad? Why, yes.
I feel *exactly* the same way, and I'm a Commons admin :( This speaks for me,
too.
-- Allie
On May 12, 2013, at 1:15 PM, Katherine Casey fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com
wrote:
Alas no, I'm not up to your challenge. I'm subject to quite enough aggression
and strange sexualization of situations
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
Indeed, we could have a twice or thrice daily thread on English
Wikipedia about that very project, couldn't we?
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
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.
I have to say I share Russavia's bafflement around this issue.
The accomplishments people have made on the platform of Wikimedia Commons
are, in my view, staggering. Just this morning, a couple Wikipedian friends
told me about the photography of JJ Harrison, somebody who has uploaded an
Pete,
The other day, Daniel Case referred on Commons to Commons' failure as a
community to formulate a clear policy about posting identifiable nudes in
private places without any indication as to whether they have consented to
publication of those images under a licensing scheme that allows for
I'll gladly pass your comment on, Russavia. How should the attribution
read? At present it reads,
Which way?
Bernard Gagnon/Wikimedia Commons GNU Free Documentation License
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/1106/From-a-distance-Syria-feels-like-Iraq-in-2004
On Mon, May 13, 2013
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Pete,
snip
Yet now, faced with those horrible things that happen on our site all
the time, and which come up time and again in gender gap discussions, you
want to send us bird-watching and tell us about all the
Hi Pete, et al
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
You know what other sites are riddled with copyright violations? YouTube,
Flickr, Facebook. None of those sites have a community of people working to
keep copyright violations off; Commons does. They're
Ryan Kaldari, 08/05/2013 07:09:
On 5/7/13 9:57 AM, Russavia wrote:
Frankly, I don't know why this is a feminist issue; rather than an
issue of common sense.
Agreed. I often find it is counter-productive to frame these sort of
debates in terms of feminism/sexism/etc. [...]
Sure. I'm not
For what it's worth, I added my comments to your page on Meta
2013/5/9, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com:
Yay! Erik replied. Seriously, I was beginning to think no one from the
Foundation read this mailing list anymore aside from me and Kaldari (and we
read it as volunteers!). See
I think it's easier to discuss the challenges associated with the board
resolution in question, if we can leave aside the question of nudity for a
moment. Here is a simple example of an ordinary portrait taken in a
(presumably) private setting in a library:
From a common-sense perspective, Pete, I'd say that if the image was taken
in a private place, shows an identifiable person, and that person does not
give permission for us to be using their likeness, it should be a
no-brainer that we don't have the right (ethically, at least, in light of
the
On Friday, 10 May 2013 at 15:23, Pete Forsyth wrote:
I think it's easier to discuss the challenges associated with the board
resolution in question, if we can leave aside the question of nudity for a
moment. Here is a simple example of an ordinary portrait taken in a
(presumably) private
Well said, Fluff. I actually don't think the verification is necessary in a
case like this; there's no compelling reason to suspect the person is lying
about her identity. And given the scale of how many files are proposed for
deletion in a day, I don't think we can afford to set the bar so high
Tom, I agree with your concern. But if the principle is that we should
enforce the board resolution anywhere it applies, we should simply delete
this photo without needing OTRS, right? It's an issue of who's obligated to
do what. The board resolution clearly states that if there is no
On Friday, 10 May 2013 at 15:48, Pete Forsyth wrote:
Well said, Fluff. I actually don't think the verification is necessary in a
case like this; there's no compelling reason to suspect the person is lying
about her identity. And given the scale of how many files are proposed for
deletion in
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
It'd be nice if we had OTRS agents more active in Commons who could
proactively deal with these kinds of things.
(They might be made to feel as welcome as Christians in lion enclosures,
but that's another matter...)
I
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The Terms of Use prohibit harassment, which is the same word that's
used to characterize the behaviors the friendly space policy
prohibits. So at least in that respect the two are already somewhat
analogous.
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Pete,
I don't know which Commons you participate in. The one I know has tons of
nude pictures of women uploaded by anonymous throwaway accounts,
Hi, I have some comments inline.
---o0o---
This image, originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on 3 March 2013 by
the administrator or reviewer Mattbuck, who confirmed that it was available
on Flickr under the stated license on that date.
---o0o---
Zero concern for model consent to
Pete,
Please suggest a revised wording that you feel would be clearer. Then we
can request that the board adopt it and amend the resolution accordingly.
Andreas
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
The resolution wording is:
---o0o---
We feel that it
Would you like the board to adopt and amend a resolution based purely
upon the opinions of editors who are members of this mailing list, or
do you intend to open it up to discussion for the wider, including the
Commons, community?
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi, I have some comments inline.
---o0o---
This image, originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on 3 March 2013 by
the administrator or reviewer Mattbuck, who confirmed that it was available
on Flickr under the
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:
Would you like the board to adopt and amend a resolution based purely
upon the opinions of editors who are members of this mailing list, or
do you intend to open it up to discussion for the wider, including the
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Russavia
russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:
Would you like the board to adopt and amend a resolution based purely
upon the opinions of editors who are members of this mailing list, or
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Russavia
russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:
Would you like the board to adopt and amend a resolution based
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Would you feel that is sufficient? This would make it clearer that editors
are expected to obtain subject consent before uploading images taken in
private situations to Wikimedia websites.
Define private situations.
Actually, it's total gobbledygook.
But can you confirm that what you take it to mean is that quite simply
consent is required if the photo is taken in a private place with an
expectation of privacy?
Cheers
Russavia
___
Gendergap mailing list
It took me one minute to find the uploads of this user:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Austin_photoguy50
Please nominate all of them for deletion. I will be interested in watching how
what goes.
Done. With the WMF resolution linked and quoted at length.
Oh dear, I'm not sure there's enough vodka in the universe for us all to
play that drinking game, Daniel! Especially given that closed by Mattbuck
as delete probably ought to be a finish your drink qualifier...
-Fluffernutter
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case
File:Ronda F7998.JPGhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ronda_F7998.JPGis
clearly in scope. Could be used to illustrate Urn, Vase,
Pottery,
Crosslegged etc.
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:
I will be of course posting a link to this list on the
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 4:08 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:
I will be of course posting a link to this list on the DR given the
idiocy and trolling of a Commons admin going on here.
Cheers,
Russavia
The message you posted at the DR,
---o0o---
*Comment* This nomination
Fluffernutter,
That is a totally ridiculous comment to make.
Do I have to show you just how ridiculous it is by generating a list
of sexuality discussions that Mattbuck has 1) nominated for deletion
or 2) closed as delete.
Of course, if one was more active on Commons
Erik,
I will answer your questions, only too happy to, and you are free to
pass my answers on to others within the foundation. Because it is
something that I have trying addressing with others in the foundation
in the past, but which has been ignored by way of no reply.
But I would prefer that
Regarding the question of what can you do,
I had the experience last week of starting a new job.
I had to read through the guidelines for the organization,
which included a section on Equal Opportunity and Freedom from Harassment.
Prominent on the first page:
Harassment Defined
1. Hostile
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Mary Mark Ockerbloom
celebration.wo...@gmail.com wrote:
Regarding the question of what can you do,
I had the experience last week of starting a new job.
I had to read through the guidelines for the organization,
which included a section on Equal Opportunity
The more I look into it, the more it seems like it's a pointless endeavor.
From the deletion discussions I've looked at (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Save_the_Redwoods.jpg),
a photo of two nude young women in a tree considered in scope. After all,
it's been
I have friends who live up there. And I will be in the area in July.
I'll see if we can get decent photos of the hot springs.
Actually it might be federal land therefore we can get public domain images for
it. I need to look into that when I am online.
The best thing to do: replace the crap
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Nepenthe topazbutter...@gmail.com wrote:
The more I look into it, the more it seems like it's a pointless endeavor.
From the deletion discussions I've looked at (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Save_the_Redwoods.jpg),
a photo
Another idea -
Perhaps we can create a working list of articles that need better photos and
are using absurd sexualized images etc as their photos.
Obviously sex articles wouldn't always fall into thy category, but, I'm
thinking more stupid things like the hot springs article.
Instead of wiki
Andreas - when you say until the Foundation does something, what are you
looking for them to do?
You can always directly write the legal team and ask them for input on what
they could do regarding your concerns. That's what I would do if I was
you.
As you very well know, grantmaking and
Just to follow up - the English Wikipedia article about the Babgy Hot
Springs does not depict any nudity in the images:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagby_Hot_Springs
At this point, I'm so over fretting about porny stuff on Commons - I'm
more concerned about personality rights - but, if it
Sarah, indeed, I should have been more clear. It is the Commons category
for the Hot Springs that contains the nude images, not the en.wikipedia
article.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:
Just to follow up - the English Wikipedia article about the
As possibly the only person in this discussion who's been to Bagby, I'd
hasten to point out that arguably, including nudity in the article would be
the most accurate way to depict it. I've seen more naked people there than
clothed people.
But yes, I agree with Sarah -- having images of naked
The best idea I've seen!
If a subject area is lacking on Commons, the best way to go about it
is to upload more photos, so that the one or two naturist photos
blend in.
Look forward to seeing more images in that category in the future. :)
Cheers,
Russavia
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:54 AM,
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:
Andreas - when you say until the Foundation does something, what are you
looking for them to do?
Sarah, change has to come from the top: from Sue and the board. As far as I
am concerned, they have failed abysmally.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:
Andreas - when you say until the Foundation does something, what are
you looking for them to do?
Sarah, change has to come from the top:
Pete,
I'd invite you to run a Google image search for Bagby Hot Springs, with
safe search turned off. The first one hundred images include about as many
images of female nudity as the nine-image Commons category.
That is the difference between Commons demographics, and general
demographics.
I am getting plenty more results than what we have on Commons.
I am suspecting that a bad example was chosen here, because they are
HOT SPRINGS; which generally means that nudity is allowed, and given
what they are, it's generally to be expected. Unless of course we want
to turn back the clocks
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:
Andreas - when you say until the Foundation does something, what are you
looking for them to do?
You can always directly write the legal team and ask them for input on
what they could do regarding your concerns.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:
Andreas - when you say until the Foundation does something, what are you
looking for them to do?
You can always directly write the legal team and ask them for input on
what they could do regarding your concerns.
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
It's a good question. Why is it humoured?
It doesn't look like you're going to
Frankly, I don't know why this is a feminist issue; rather than an
issue of common sense.
It is not a finite list, and for the vast majority of people on the
list, being a vegetarian is hardly responsible for even the smallest
piece of their notability; it is an arbitrary piece of trivia for most
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:
Frankly, I don't know why this is a feminist issue; rather than an
issue of common sense.
It is not a finite list, and for the vast majority of people on the
list, being a vegetarian is hardly responsible for even
On 5/7/13 9:57 AM, Russavia wrote:
Frankly, I don't know why this is a feminist issue; rather than an
issue of common sense.
Agreed. I often find it is counter-productive to frame these sort of
debates in terms of feminism/sexism/etc. This immediately triggers the
censorship-defense
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
But I think it's important to mention it in the context of this thread. It
does seem to me that the sexism is getting worse, more blatant.
It is, and
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
But I think it's important to mention it in the context of this thread. It
does seem to me that the sexism is getting worse, more blatant.
It is, and the reason is that it is humoured and swept under the carpet,
rather than
It is impossible not to get upset. In my memory we worked to honor Alice
Paul. She never saw the ERA pass. (and neither have I)
It's is so soon in the history of the world that women have been able to
vote.It has not even been 100 years in the U.S.
Of course they are scared. of course they are
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Kathleen McCook klmcc...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course they are scared. of course they are mean. equality is terrifying
to them. so they do these kinds of things over and over and we fight back
little by little...but each day another woman steps up on
your
On 4/29/13 12:20 PM, Sarah wrote:
I was reverted when I tried to remove them all, so I started an RfC on
the talk page, and alerted WikiProject Feminism. In turn, the editor
who added them (who uses a woman's name) alerted WikiProject
Pornography, so it seems likely that some at least will
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:
On 4/29/13 12:20 PM, Sarah wrote:
I was reverted when I tried to remove them all, so I started an RfC on
the talk page, and alerted WikiProject Feminism. In turn, the editor who
added them (who uses a woman's
93 matches
Mail list logo
