problematic, and it has
led, for years, to significant-minority viewpoints being excluded --
on the grounds that the views are not sufficiently well-represented by
reliable sources; or that the reliable sources, even if peer-reviewed,
belong to the wrong field.
Sarah
_
pedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&oldid=478167288#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources
Sarah
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Achal Prabhala wrote:
> Thank you Tom, and Sarah, for your very helpful explanations - they are
> extremely useful.
>
> There's a discussion on at the reliable sources notice board, for instance,
> which highlights some of the interpretiv
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Achal Prabhala wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday 23 February 2012 12:58 AM, Sarah wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Achal Prabhala
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thank you Tom, and Sarah, for your very helpful explanations - the
tm=1&usri=marshalsea
The byline apart, it's disturbing that someone might be conned into
paying $77 for it, when they can download it for free.
Sarah
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:24 PM, RYU Cheol wrote:
> You can find that at this link.
> http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/wikibooks-w
rastic changes all at once.
>
Does anyone know what kind of experiments we're talking about?
Sarah
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
getting to the point where it's quite hard to edit.
Sarah
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Sarah wrote:
>
>> Could someone from the Foundation confirm that they're looking into
>> it? It's getting to the point where it's quite hard to edit.
>
> Tim's inv
igating.
>
> Erik
> --
> Erik Möller
> VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
>
Erik, I've just tried loading some of the pages I was having problems
with. They're loading well, and preview is working well again. Many
thanks to everyone who helpe
a little-used alternative account of
mine, one that's obviously mine from the name.
Sarah
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
en.wiki than in pt.wiki)
> _
I also received two invitations to vote, including to a little-used
alternative account, one that is obviously mine from the name. This
suggests among other things that the minimum voting requirements must
be pretty low.
Sarah
_
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:49, phoebe ayers wrote:
> Hey Sarah -- the voting requirements are here --
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/en#Requirements
>
> 300 edits, 20 recent ones -- the requirements were roughly halved from
> the last elections. There
he software must be sending
out multiple invitations to quite a few people.
I can't see how it benefits the project to have multiple accounts
voting that only need to have made 300 edits and 20 recent ones, and a
kind bot that reminds them of all the eligible account names. We
> On 10 June 2011 22:19, Sarah wrote:
>> I've received two invitations to vote -- also both at the same e-mail
>> address -- so all I'd have to do now (if it were a user name that
>> didn't make it obvious it was mine) is go somewhere else to vote. And
>>
f
the accounts the software is reminding them of.
This is just not a good idea.
Sarah
>
> 2011/6/11, Sarah :
>>> On 10 June 2011 22:19, Sarah wrote:
>>>> I've received two invitations to vote -- also both at the same e-mail
>>>> address -- so all I&#x
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 21:03, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> On 10/06/2011 5:55 PM, Sarah wrote:
>> [...] that the software is actively inviting all accounts that meet
>> those requirements, it means we're alerting all the socks that they're
>> able to vote. The
Also, looking at the elections e-mail again, it links to a page that,
so far as I can see, doesn't tell people where to go to vote, except
for those most active on meta.
Sarah
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubs
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 22:08, Chris Lee wrote:
> It lasted only a minute. I apologize for the urgent email sent out; wanted
> to make sure that it was taken care of
What was it that lasted only a minute, Chris?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation
edians of notable primary
sources. It would make our articles significantly more interesting and
reader-friendly, and would tie in directly with efforts to record oral
histories.
Sarah
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Uns
ious readers, this kind of thing is obviously very off-putting. So
we risk limiting our reach by not dealing with it.
Sarah
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
ing and editing Wikipedia will appeal to a
broader range of people if they are given more personal options over
what they see when they first look at a page.
Sarah
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
ences, etc.
It has been discussed a few times, and I know David Shankbone did some
good ones, but for some reason it has been limited. Adding some
original videos to our articles (adding them to Wikipedia articles,
supplied by Wikinews) would be very attractive to readers, I think.
Sarah
__
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 12:34, Andrew Lih wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Sarah wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 12:02, Andrew Lih wrote:
>>> of Wikipedia principles. Wikis depend on eventualism: given an
>>> infinite timeline, pages eventually get bet
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 13:10, Andrew Lih wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Sarah wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 12:34, Andrew Lih wrote:
>>> And, in Wikipedia's crowdsourced way, potentially a re-oriented,
>>> mobilized Wikinews could produce in o
here is no inherent POV
issue there, so long as we observe NPOV, just as we do with text.
Primary sources are already allowed, so long as used descriptively and
not interpreted.
Sarah
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
ome, first served. The list will open on Wednesday, March 23 at
22:00 UTC, and will remain open for seven days. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CREDO
Feel free to add your name even if you're lower on the list than the
400th, in case people ahead of you aren't eligible.
Go
User
X, for whatever reason, and become User Y for a while.
Did the study do anything to correlate number of accounts with number of people?
Sarah
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 17:27, Sarah wrote:
>> It says: "Between 2005 and 2007, newbies started having real trouble
>> successfully joining the Wikimedia community. Before 2005 in the
>> English Wikipedia, nearly 40% of new editors would still be active a
>> ye
't be saying
it's the most important issue we face based on that survey alone.
Sarah
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
he survey is that it highlights the need to
attract new editors, based on some doubtful figures, without
addressing that experienced editors are becoming disillusioned.
Sarah
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
ally
written, we'll be astonished by the very small number of people who
created, wrote and maintained this project. And every time one of
those people leaves, real damage is inflicted on Wikipedia's future.
I wish the Foundation would focus on nurturing those people. The
differe
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 09:10, David Gerard wrote:
> I've been using it on our work intranet for new wikis. It's gained
> unsolicited positive comment. Vector looks nice.
>
Do we know how many editors still use Monobook?
Sarah
___
f
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 23:14, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>
> On Apr 3, 2011, at 1:02 AM, Virgilio A. P. Machado wrote:
>
>> intelectual
>
>
> *cough*
>
> -Dan
>
I hope the next time I write in Portuguese, the only mistake I make is
a typo! :)
___
foundation-l
at reason is there to suppose that's
meaningful in terms of numbers of people? It can only be the basis of
concern if we have reason to attribute meaning to it.
Sarah
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
U
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:51, Isabell Long wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 06:33:32PM +0100, Phil Nash wrote:
>> We've not had SUL (Single User Login) for that long, and my impression is
>> that this will tend to inflate the number of registered accounts compared
>> with the number of active acco
ment
at you, so that part of things was just a misunderstanding.
Sarah
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I missed the sarcasm in that. I thought it was a genuine
compliment about the intelligent discussion on this list. If it was a
personal attack that puts things in a different light.
Sarah
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia
ncredibly off-putting to new people too.
Sarah
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
ve their eye teeth to secure for
free. And yet we see so little focus on how to stop those volunteers
from leaving.
My own view is that if we focus on quality, new editors will continue
to arrive, because they'll see this as something worth being part of.
Sarah
it's pretty easy, and I say that as someone with a template phobia.
We work on a complex website that caters to lots of different needs
and skill levels, so there's a limit to how simple these processes can
be made.
Sarah
___
foundation-l mail
t's that precision of mind that makes the project a success in many
ways. But it can go too far. The thing is, you can't turn it on and
off as needed.
Sarah
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
editors can choose
whichever style they feel comfortable with (so long as they're not
changing a pre-existing style). A lot of the problems stem from
established editors not following the policies and guidelines -- and
not only about sourcing, but everything. We get endless in
and. Then we had
templates introduced as options. Then the manual options were removed.
If you try to open an article RfC manually nowadays, the RfC bot
reverts you when you add it to the list.
Sarah
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikime
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 16:45, MZMcBride wrote:
> Sarah wrote:
>> What is the problem with allowing editors to do this kind of thing
>> manually -- open AfDs and RfCs, and the like? Why does there always
>> have to be a template, just as a matter of interest?
>
> Well,
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:36, wrote:
> In a message dated 4/5/2011 6:08:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> bnewst...@wikimedia.org writes:
>> Another quick note on the Movement Communications Manager posting that we
>> are hoping to fill at WMF. We have a number of applicants, but very, very
>> few
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:42, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> I understood that they wanted someone who was ideally *not* a native
>> English speaker. That was something that concerned me when I read it,
>> because it looked as if the intention was to disadvantage applicants
>> who had English as a first l
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 13:07, Béria Lima wrote:
> Is not a Bias Sarah. Anyone can apply, but they have to know english (if not
> as 1º language as 2º one) and another language (if english is the 1º one).
> If this person is american, chinese, brazilian or african (i imagine) that
>
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 13:29, Risker wrote:
> On 15 April 2011 15:17, Sarah wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 13:07, Béria Lima wrote:
>> > Is not a Bias Sarah. Anyone can apply, but they have to know english (if
>> not
>> > as 1º language as 2º one) and
t of the
world involved." That would be an unfair hiring practice, not to
mention shooting the Foundation in the foot in terms of cutting off a
large number of potential applicants.
Sarah
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
cause they were born in a country that did
not make them a native English speaker. That is discrimination. Try to
imagine an ad that said: "Ideally your native language is not Urdu."
Sarah
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lis
obal organization hires globally, hiring people who have experience and
> skill in communicating globally.
>
Right, I understand that. But my question is whether an employment ad
in America could lawfully say (or imply), "Ideally your native
l
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 16:30, David Gerard wrote:
> On 15 April 2011 23:24, Sarah wrote:
>
>> Right, I understand that. But my question is whether an employment ad
>> in America could lawfully say (or imply), "Ideally your native
>> language is not Urdu."
&g
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 16:53, Risker wrote:
> On 15 April 2011 18:36, Sarah wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 16:30, David Gerard wrote:
>> > * Should you have been consulted?
>> >
>> But here we see something that happens on this list a lot. Someone
&g
use -- forcing us to claim fair use, then saying they're not covered
by the bizarre way Wikipedia interprets fair use. It's a situation
people have tried to draw attention to for years, with no success.
Sarah
___
foundation-l mailing li
e has
any idea why it's happening, or whether it's being looked into. I would link
to the discussion, but I can't get the page to open.
Does anyone on the list have information about it?
Sarah
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:20, Sarah wrote:
>
> The English Wikipedia has been experiencing painfully slow load times over
> the last few days, and lots of error messages when trying to save, to the
> point where the site has become difficult to use. There's discussion a
ow where it's hard to do anything.
Sarah
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Could someone from the Foundation or one of the developers say whether this
is being looked into?
Sarah
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:28, Thomas Morton
wrote:
> Yeh, that was when it was turned on. So maybe :)
>
> On 18 May 2011 19:27, Sarah wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 18, 2011 a
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:59, Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Sarah wrote:
>> Could someone from the Foundation or one of the developers say whether this
>> is being looked into?
>
> I've requested an assessment of the current situation and will
er-privacy
Sarah
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> On 20 May 2011 17:37, Chris Keating wrote:
>> It won't be too long before a reputable news source covers the whole issue -
>> or indeed a British Parliamentarian raises it under parliamentary privilege.
>
I'm thinking it will be interesting to see how Twitter's position is
handled, namely that i
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 18:01, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> 2) Regarding "Our BLP policy has worked.", that's a fascinating
>> argument that the super-injunction *is* worthwhile. If Wikipedia
>> defines verifiability in terms of major media sources, and the
>> super-injunction inhibits those sources, t
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 20:19, Wjhonson wrote:
>
> It is not up to us to decide that something is "private". If it's been
> published, then it is public.
> If it's been published in a reliable source, than it's useable in our project.
>
But not everything that's usable has to be used. I'm incre
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 14:33, MZMcBride wrote:
> Sarah wrote:
>> I'm increasingly wondering whether we should be hosting any BLPs, because
>> these are often difficult decisions to make -- at which point there is
>> legitimate public interest in a person's pr
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 15:14, MZMcBride wrote:
> Sarah wrote:
>> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 14:33, MZMcBride wrote:
>>> I think anyone who has been in the "BLP trenches" has had the same thought.
>>> The reality is that an encyclopedia without a "Bara
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 16:01, Risker wrote:
> As to the comments from MZMcBride and Sarah, I would like to see a
> significantly higher minimal level of notability for BLPs. In the past few
> years of working with the Arbitration Committee, I have seen literally
> thousands of BLPs
he Foundation would hand over the IP addresses of
Wikipedians if asked by a British court because of these injunctions?
Did he actually say that, and if so when did the Foundation decide this?
Sarah
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.w
irely clear how grounded it is in fact. Sometimes we're
told OTRS is overwhelmed by the number of BLP complaints, but no
figures are given.
Some hard stats -- X number of complaints concerning Y number of
articles within time T, of which Z were actionable -- would be very
useful.
Sarah
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 13:33, wrote:
> On 22/05/2011 19:32, Sarah wrote:
>> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:00, wrote:
>>> On 22/05/2011 11:58, Chris Keating wrote:
>>>> Also rather interestingly, it appears that a Scottish newspaper has
>>>> re
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 16:03, Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 22 May 2011 19:58, Sarah wrote:
>
>> The BLP problem is a very divisive one on the English Wikipedia, but
>> it's not entirely clear how grounded it is in fact. Sometimes we're
>> told OTRS is overwhelmed by
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 19:50, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
> Identity of Anonymous Wikipedia Editors Not Protected by First Amendment
>
> http://ecommercelaw.typepad.com/ecommerce_law/2011/05/identity-of-anonymous-wikipedia-editors-not-protected-by-first-amendment.html
>
> Nothing unexpected.
>
> Fred
R
] says despite its faults, [Wikipedia] does promote solid
values for its writers, including precise citations, accurate
research, editing and revision."
Sarah
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 02:46, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Those who toil away in the depths of style guide subpages and cite
> templates should be reminded from time to time of the tremendous
> impact their work has on the rest of the world...
>
Speaking of which, David Gerard has just posted this to wi
r was extremely good at exploiting that
tendency. That's the long and short of it.
The one good thing that could come of it is that we recognize in
future when we're doing it again, but that will only happen if we
remember and discuss it, and try to heal the division
in
regards to opportunities.
Feel free to email me directly, again, right now I am unable to move quickly
in any major projects due to my already big work load, but, I'm hoping that
this will be large part of my career work as an advocate for Native rights,
a scholar, and an open source-lover
ia as a whole, and we must learn how
to make the utmost use of that language in order to continue our mission to
disseminate knowledge on a worldwide scale.
-Sarah
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
oundation being a
United States based organization focusing more so on international efforts.
To be honest, your email was a slap in the face. Thank you again for sharing
your thoughts, I take your letter very seriously.
-Sarah
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Maria Alameda wrote:
>
>
> Hello
he United States coming from a female
> > white-undergraduate student pursuing her masters, her comments on the
> plight
> > and the issues of an entire race would seem rather patronizing. Perhaps,
> its
> > just me.
> > > Maria AlamedaM.A, Ph.d (Native American studies)
> >
Commercial Drive ;-))
-Sarah
Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :)
On Jul 29, 2011, at 6:08 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> From the perspective of Wikimedia Canada, this sounds exciting. Many
> of us believe that work with the First Nations is an important e
ating and Wikimania 2011
providing food and the venue.
-Sarah
--
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia
Foundation<http://www.glamwiki.org>
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch>
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*His
r for the Wikimedia
Foundation<http://www.glamwiki.org>
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch>
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
--
seum.
And a calendar of upcoming events!
Members of the community write this publication, so if you have
contributions to make, please participate. Translations encouraged.
GLAM on!
Sarah
--
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia
Foundation<http://www.glamwiki.org>
Wikipedia
It's really fascinating how freely Wikipedians and Wikimedians love to throw
around the word censorship. Someone should do a study on that.
Sarah
--
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia
Foundation<http://www.glamwiki.org>
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
ository making available public domain and freely-licensed
educational media content to all. It acts as a common repository for the
various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation."
However, I am beginning to think that Commons might have to change it's
scope since "educational m
replies, eventually a lot of us just hit the delete button until something
jumps out. Myself, and others, appreciate clarifications. Wikipedia and
related sister projects are bad at explaining things, so it's always nice to
have kind folks like you explain things to some of us (again!) :).
Sarah
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 5:23 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 4 September 2011 22:18, Sarah Stierch wrote:
>
> >> I really wish people would read previous discussions.
>
> > Don't be passive aggressive ;)
>
>
> I think it's an entirely reasonable statemen
7;t even live in America. I think
you need to rethink your statements before you go around accusing
supporters, including women, of this referendum as sexually dysfunctional
conservatives.
Sarah
--
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia
Foundation<http://www.gl
here isn't a big giant penis in one's face upon opening it.
I work in an educational environment (a museum institution, which has
exhibits on sexuality, gender, etc) and I can't even look at these articles
at work, take that as you will.
Sarah
who is totally grossed out by that photo
Hi everyone,
I can't remember - was user gender a "question" in the survey?
I don't remember...
Thanks :)
-Sarah
--
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia <http://www.glamwiki.org>
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art<http://en.wikipedia.or
Thanks Beria! :) A shame, it would have been really fascinating to see if
there was a gender gap in this matter.
-Sarah
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Béria Lima wrote:
> No.
>
> You can see all the questions here:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Vote_
rence and
belief systems around the world and within small communities.
-Sarah (Stierch)
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 1:32 PM, rupert THURNER wrote:
> do you propose questions like the following?
>
> knowledge level o a-level o university o...
> raceo african
end of the world next
yearat this point.
Sarah Stierch
Who is never bored and is surely not mainstream, but is happy to be called so
right now.
Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :)
On Sep 23, 2011, at 8:03 AM, m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
> After some t
foundation every month for.
That's why I donate my time to contributing to Wikimedia projects.
I'm over commenting about this subject. I'm going to go back to thinking of
ways to have more women and men create better sexual content for Commons as
a project and go attend my "
As the British Museum.
Hehehehe.
--Sarah (Stierch)
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:27 PM, emijrp wrote:
> If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum claim any
> copyright for scans which lack originality?[1]
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Libr
ASK THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.
Damn. Joke fail.
-Sarah
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
> As the British Museum.
>
> Hehehehe.
>
> --Sarah (Stierch)
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:27 PM, emijrp wrote:
>
>> If originals don't have c
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
>
>
> One more, but forgot her name and too lazy to search. German females
> in discussion on German Wikipedia should be also checked.
>
> Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter
> (though,
ing his cum drenched biscuit on the [[Soggy biscuit]]
article.
Well it was quickly taken down!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Soggy_biscuit#Removing_the_article_image
But at least we have plenty of other images of people in sexually deviant
situations with their faces shown. :P
-Sarah "
ooking for some
juicy image and videos and frankly you can't find that on Wikipedia (because
we all know that Commons porn is really bad quality).
And I'm sure there are plenty of other people, regardless of gender,
nationality, sexuality or other demographics that probably would feel the
sam
't hide things from your kids. I
was one of those kids - I was going to to the bookshop in 1989 looking for
Dr. Ruth books, I was sneaking off to the art books to look at Nan Goldin
books.
But, again, that's just my personal experience.
And as a side note (and this goes to a num
ing I hope to develop here in the US in the future.
I encourage people interested in developing these types of ideas further to
stop by gender gap-l as well!
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap But it's great to
see these projects developing elsewhere, of course :D
-Sarah
100 matches
Mail list logo
