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_To...
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap