On 26 Aug 2012, at 16:36, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
Questionable just means one has questions. So it's nice, unlike the other words which I was contrasting with questionable - not using to describe my specific questions on specific articles in that particular AfD list. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Feminism/Article_alerts
But frankly I do wonder why two people on this list nominate brand new articles related to women for deletion rather than improving them.
HOWEVER -- the specifics should be discussed at the relevant AfD pages, so if this little dust up gets people there, goody goody!! :-)
CM
Wow. What a ridiculous way to say "yes". Ive always found you to be switched on and relevant in the past; but looking over your contributions to those AFDs it feels like your certain the aim is to remove these articles because we are anti-women. And for no other reason.
This is the sort of thing that puts women off editing Wikipedia and I am happy to call it out. Tom
On 8/26/2012 11:01 AM, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson wrote:
Or that I nominated the B.a.B.e article for those reasons? Let's assume good faith here.
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas@googlemail.com
wrote:
On 26 August 2012 15:16, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/26/2012 9:58 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
Right now there are 3 questionable AfD's and various nominations, etc.
Plus a bunch of Good article nominees and other listings.
On a "fostering friendly atmosphere" note; characterising actions as "questionable" is not very nice.
Tom
Questionable is being nice. "shitty" "sexist" "woman hating BS" is what is not very nice - in a wikipedia context, anyway... :-)
CM
Are you *seriously *implying I nominated the Tod Akin article for those reasons?
Tom
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap