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.
But I do know that
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Uncircumcised_human_penis
and
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Circumcised_human_penis
basically pales in comparison to
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:All_Nippon_Airways_aircraft_at_T…
And yet we have a problem on the amount of cock pics on Commons? Seriously?
Any time you feel like reasonable discussion on things Ironholds, feel
free to chime in; because your comments were nothing more than
ill-informed opinion.
Cheers,
Russavia
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Oliver Keyes <ironholds(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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 "your project is broken"
thread
something is going terribly wrong.
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap