On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote:
David Gerard, 18/09/2012 11:52:
That word just ... you're trivialising that doing a simple thing has
actually caused problems in the past. It would not have solved the
PETA or Cafe Magazine examples, for example.
The images were deleted this morning by Rd232. They have now been undeleted
by Russavia.
As a result of the undelete, there is now yet another deletion discussion
at the bottom of this page:
Note that there have been two recent Buzzfeed articles about Commons and
Wikipedia, by Jack Stuef, who is a writer for The Onion:
1. The Epic Battle For Wikipedia's Autofellatio Page
In the underbelly of Wikipedia is an exhibitionist subculture dedicated to
one thing: Ensuring that their penis
Mr Gerard, could you please take your conspiracy theories elsewhere? For
the record, what you're saying is totally off the wall.
Andreas
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 1:42 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 April 2012 13:39, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
I've sent you
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed. This is the link I received by mail:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images
Those people are identifiable and in a private place. If the
photographer showed up and
Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation Board published the following
Resolution:
---o0o---
The Wikimedia Foundation Board affirms the value of freely licensed
content, and we pay special attention to the provenance of this content. We
also value the right to privacy, for our editors and readers as
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:49 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
What happened with implementing software related to controversial content?
There was quite a bit of hubbub at some point, then Wikimedia pulled back a
little (and Sue visited Germany to give some assurances)... what's the
]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-October/069699.html
Am 17.10.2011 02:56, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
Personality conflicts aside, we're noting that non-sexual search terms in
Commons can prominently return sexual images of varying explicitness, from
mild nudity to hardcore
[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Controversial_content%2FBrainstormingaction=historysubmitdiff=2996411oldid=2995984
[2]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-October/069699.html
Am 17.10.2011 02:56, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
Personality conflicts aside, we're noting
. Google
Hi Andreas,
Op 11-10-2011 23:36, Andreas Kolbe schreef:
Maarten,
That sounds like the most plausible answer to me to date. We know that sexual
images are among the most popular in Commons.
knip
This is something the personal image filter would (in part) address. We could
also have
We are wondering on Meta[1] what criteria the Commons search function uses to
establish the order of search results displayed.
To give some examples, searching for pearl necklace in Commons shows a woman
with sperm on her neck as the first image result:
Andreas,
Op 11-10-2011 17:22, Andreas Kolbe schreef:
Why is our listing so different from the one in Google, and why are sexual
images so much higher up in our listing of search results?
My assumption is that the popularity (either incoming links or number of
clicks) might be taken into account
, 17 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe
wrote:
The images from today and yesterday are:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Turbo_imperialis_01.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg
If you are unwilling to recognise the difference in
terms
There seems to be a worrying tendency to treat Commons as a gallery for
non-notable art.
It's an educational project, not a vehicle for self-promotion.
A.
--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
From: Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd:
--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia
Commons
To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Monday, 16 May, 2011, 14:46
The
There is a long thread on the Commons and Gendergap lists about today's
featured image on Commons:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-May/
It's an original piece of art by a Wikimedian, in the style of erotic
manga:
--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Cecil cecila...@gmail.com wrote:
And as a girl (or more a long-grown woman) with no real interest in mangas my
opinion is that the image has nice colours, is cleanly made and in general
aesthetically pleasing. Only complaint: it is a bit kitschy.
lg, Cecil
Yeah, a but
--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Cecil cecila...@gmail.com wrote:
There seems to be a worrying tendency to treat Commons as a gallery for
non-notable art.
It's an educational project, not a vehicle for self-promotion.
A.
Actually, Wikipedia is the educational project, not Commons.
Commons is a repository
--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Commons-l] [Foundation-l] Commons as an art gallery?
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org,
Wikimedia Commons Discussion List commons-l
--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
At least you could strike the following from the list:
Japan, India and
Turkey. In
In Japan it is a well known topic, in India i can't see any
confusion
about this image (it is on the mainpage) and Turkey decided
May 2011, Andreas Kolbe
wrote:
It seems to me you are obsessed with the breasts in
that image. If someone argues
against an image with breasts, it is censorship.
If someone argues against hosting some Wikimedian's
technically semi-competent,
but undistinguished Thomas Kinkade
21 matches
Mail list logo
