Talk:Saint Louis

Route Planning

Change is inevitable, but come on! If you keep changing the route, you will have people in the wrong places, and folks going the wrong way. Not everyone will be able to visit this Wiki entry before heading to the ride. Consider the folks coming from out-of-town. They print the route and map, and then never have a chance to check again. If there is a good reason for the change, then that ought to be explained. Please let people know what is going on. If someone planned to join the ride as the bikers passed their home, they may be left waiting because the ride no longer comes close to them. PLEASE! Set the route and leave it alone unless absolutely required to change it. PLEASE! Part of any demonstration is to demonstrate you are organized to the policy-makers. No one fears unorganized protesters in making much of any long lasting change. Organized protesters command the respect, because decision-makers know the protesters are not going away any time soon. --Photo212grapher 15:54, 14 August 2009 (PDT)

Feedback 1

The St. Louis world naked bike ride was awesome it was well worth can't wait to do it again – Vinced, 13:32, 3 August 2008

Feedback 2

Great event, but switching the starting location right before the event was a huge problem. I drove around in circles trying to find the place - clearly, it was no longer at the Pool Pavilion, and no signs stating otherwise. Think about it - for a event all about ending oil dependency, having people driving around defeats the purpose!

We probably should have hired a stripper or two to ride. You always need someone to start the ball rolling. Not many wanted to go first. I'll add to the Saint Louis 2008 later. I want others to have their chance to post, too.

Next year - daytime? And if you want crowds to bring publicity, post signs along the route. And publish the correct route. A circular route is best.

And I want to say thanks to User:Nsayers for editing my comment here. Most people would not edit other people's words on a discussion page, but it is nice to see some people do lack respect for others by modifying the words of others no matter where they may be. It is all in the wiki tradition, right? If I had a broken link it would be one thing, but by deleting the page I made and then hiding all traces to it, User:Nsayers went above and beyond... much beyond - beyond what is considered normal wiki-etiquette.

I can understand why 90% of the other pages are devoid of images, but rather links to Flcker and other sharing sites. The entire idea of WNBR is respect. It is unfortunate some lack it. You can modify the entries. You can add images and galleries that others thought best not to do. You can even make a hundred new entries taking the reader in an endless circle. But deleting pages someone wanted and then editing their comments that lead to those pages is rather adolescent and completely disrespectful.

Anyone wishing to add images needs to be forewarned. And let's all thank User:Nsayers for making the Saint Louis page Not Safe for Work (NSWF). --Photo212grapher 15:31, 3 August 2008 (PDT)

Media versus photos

I do not agree with moving the Voyeurweb links to the Photo section from the Media section. The media section also contain photos or video. Voyeurweb will be displaying those photos for a month, then they are removed. This is much like the news reports being archived. People submitting those photos are non-traditional correspondents to a non-traditional documentary site. These Voyeurweb pages are different from a photo album page. --Photo212grapher 05:17, 11 August 2008 (PDT)

Personal attacks, voyeur porn links

Erm, I'm not sure who's being "adolescent and disrespectful" here. I responded to your criticisms promptly by adding a separate photos page again. I haven't resorted to snide personal attacks. As for Yoyeurweb, I think it's questionable to add links to dodgy voyeur porn sites. Non-participatory voyeurs are unfortunately going to be present at most WNBRs, but that doesn't mean we should give them extra publicity. Elsewhere on the wiki these links have been removed by other admins, although I'm unsure of this policy. – Nsayers 05:52, 11 August 2008 (PDT)

You do well in cleaning your tracks after being called on it. The shame is you still have no clue what you did. the entire media is a "non-participatory voyeur" and you are calling the media you want to attract UNFORTUNATE? Learn what is going on before posting dribble. As far as Voyeurweb links go, this protest wants to generate publicity. Voyeurweb has over 4 million viewers. Getting the message out to them is a good thing. Calling them a "dodgy voyeur porn site" is arrogant. They promote the same body freedom that the WNBR promotes. While a few of their images are without consent, the vast majority of the images are submitted by people with healthy self body attitudes. You are criticizing what you do not know. Not the right attitude, but you have shown yourself to act first, think later. Admins remove those links when the photos are pulled in a months time. Try to pay attention and read what others have written. Anything else you wish to be educated on here? --Photo212grapher 17:40, 11 August 2008 (PDT)