> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Fred Bauder
> wrote:
> > Note however, "We were about to be smeared in all media as hosting
> > hardcore pornography with zero educational value and doing nothing about
> > it."
> >
> > Fred Bauder
>
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:39 PM, David Goodman wrote:
> And w
And we are about to be presented in all responsible free culture media
as having
acted as if such false accusations were true.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Note however, "We were about to be smeared
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> To the contrary, I have been very active in discussions both on the
> wiki, in email, and in irc. Pretending that I'm not a reasonable person
> open to discussion and debate is not going to be very persuasiv
On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 01:47:52PM +0100, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> On 5/8/10 12:12 PM, Adam Cuerden wrote:
> > and has made a statement that he refuses to discuss his deletions until
> > after he has finished deleting them all, which would only compound the
> > problem.
>
> To the contrary, I have bee
Svip wrote:
> On 8 May 2010 14:43, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>
>> Well, do you need a picture to explain a dildo?
>>
>
> Well, do you need a picture to explain a cloud?
>
> Do you need a picture to explain a wall? A door? A mobile phone? An
> aeroplane? And I could go on, until I would have
On 8 May 2010 14:43, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Well, do you need a picture to explain a dildo?
Well, do you need a picture to explain a cloud?
Do you need a picture to explain a wall? A door? A mobile phone? An
aeroplane? And I could go on, until I would have totally disproved
the usage of Commo
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Well, do you need a picture to explain a dildo?
Well, at least it is helpful for foreign readers to some extent to
have an illustration,
File:Franz von Bayros
> 016.jpg is more or less art, but File:Félicien Rops - Sainte-Thérèse.png
> which
Note however, "We were about to be smeared in all media as hosting
hardcore pornography with zero educational value and doing nothing about
it."
Fred Bauder
> Further, Mr. Wales:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=38935852&oldid=38
You hadn't commented on this list when I wrote that. It's a reply to Zazo.
>On 5/8/10 1:43 PM, Adam Cuerden wrote:
>> I see you have ignored all the content of my messages, focusing on a single
>> pair of words, in which I express my frustration at Jimbo, who had, just
>> previously, told me on IR
Let me expand on that: Immediately after or before Wales saying that
he's always willing to discuss things, he deleted four pages of
discussion which had sprung up about his behaviour overnight.
So, he's claiming he's always willing to discuss things - at the
*exact same time* as he's very public
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Adam Cuerden wrote:
> I, of course, agree that the Félicien Rops image is offensive, and we
> have no reason to needlessly offend by putting it in articles where
> less-offensive images are equally encyclopedic. However, it's also by
> a notable artist, and, as such
Further, Mr. Wales:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=38935852&oldid=38935659
Here, you remove about four pages of requests that you stop your
behaviour without commenting on them, saying you know better than the
community.
You're a
Really, Mr. Wales? Let's review what you actually wrote.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=38891861&oldid=38891748
"I have redeleted the image for the duration of the cleanup project. We will
have a solid discussion about whether Comm
How child friendly should we be?
Fred Bauder
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I, of course, agree that the Félicien Rops image is offensive, and we
have no reason to needlessly offend by putting it in articles where
less-offensive images are equally encyclopedic. However, it's also by
a notable artist, and, as such, can be used to illustrate his work,
the subjects you mentio
On 5/8/10 1:43 PM, Adam Cuerden wrote:
> I see you have ignored all the content of my messages, focusing on a single
> pair of words, in which I express my frustration at Jimbo, who had, just
> previously, told me on IRC that artworks would not be spared, that he
> refused to limit such deletions,
On 5/8/10 12:12 PM, Adam Cuerden wrote:
> and has made a statement that he refuses to discuss his deletions until
> after he has finished deleting them all, which would only compound the
> problem.
To the contrary, I have been very active in discussions both on the
wiki, in email, and in irc. Pr
Zazo:
I see you have ignored all the content of my messages, focusing on a single
pair of words, in which I express my frustration at Jimbo, who had, just
previously, told me on IRC that artworks would not be spared, that he
refused to limit such deletions, and that any such opinions to the contr
Well, do you need a picture to explain a dildo? File:Franz von Bayros
016.jpg is more or less art, but File:Félicien Rops - Sainte-Thérèse.png
which is used on three Wikipedias to illustrate the use of a dildo has
some real problems with being offensive to Catholics (Of course Japanese
or Chinese C
Adam,
As long as you do comments like this [1] ("Fuck you") I would like you
to abstain from discussing until your mood has changed.
Ziko
[1]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Sexual_content&diff=next&oldid=38893870
2010/5/8 Adam Cuerden :
> The foundation appears t
The foundation appears to be of the impression that Jimbo is merely
attempting to encourage scrutiny, and removing clear cases.
This is not true. Jimbo has speedy deleted, without discussion, historical
artworks and diagrams, often edit warring with admins to keep them deleted,
and has made a stat
21 matches
Mail list logo
