Hi, 

I'd like to ask that people don't use this mailing list to get into in depth explanations of what the images look like. Simply saying "NSFW" is good enough for me. 

I can tell by reading the captions 1) I don't want to look at them 2) I don't want to hear what they look like. 

It's as uncomfortable for me to read and hear the descriptions, as it is for me to see the descriptions. 

Thanks, 

Sarah

who is no longer a moderator here, but had to say something. 

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Nepenthe <topazbutterfly@gmail.com> wrote:

Bling-bling - table.jpg (An image of a young, thin, nude woman on hands and knees and long black hair obscuring here in side view. A vase is placed on the small of her back and rhinestones on her flank read "<table>") is in use on the fr.wikipedia's article on sexual objectification.

Torso of nude woman with facebook like button.jpg is being used on a Russian wikinews article about Facebook's like button. I guess the fact that it's painted onto a nude woman is a bonus? It's also used on pt.wikipedia's body painting article.

Outer labia piercing.jpg (Close up of a female crotch wearing pink panties pushed aside to reveal a large ring piercing through the outer labia. Another person's hand, with "<a>"  written in rhinestones, is pulling on the ring. Get it! Link!) is used on a number of genital piercing articles.

Need to stop. Too depressing.

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Ole Palnatoke Andersen <ole@palnatoke.org> wrote:

http://toolserver.org/~magnus/glamorous.php?doit=Do+it!&category=Nude+portrayals+of+computer+technology should answer George's question. It takes a while loading and it isn't worksafe - unless you can get away with thumbnails

-Ole.

On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 1:10 AM, George Herbert <george.herbert@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm at work and can't really get away with looking at the gallery images from here without trouble.  However...

Has anyone looked at them to see where (if anywhere) they are in use on projects?

-george

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm sure EVula knew that Commoners wouldn't abide his deletion of
their fap galleries. They've never liked it much before, and this
gallery is even nerdy! Double whammy. The uploader freaked out with
inspiring rapidity.

The arguments given in a previous deletion review are instructive;
only the most mechanical reading of the project scope policy, in the
way most charitable to retaining pornographic collections, were even
considered. The closer said, paraphrasing: "Pornographic? Sure, don't
care. Objectifies women? Sure, don't care. Not useful on another
Wikimedia project? Sure, don't care. It was on Flickr, so they must
have consented to publication on Commons, case closed."

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

--

http://palnatoke.org * @palnatoke * +4522934588

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

--

--
Sarah Stierch
Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian

www.sarahstierch.com

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap