Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, David Goodman wrote:
The present rules at Wikipedia are so many and
contradictory that it is possible to construct an argument with them to
justify almost any decision--even without using IAR.
I'm trying to figure out if you're arguing with
Bod Notbod wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:38 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
Since we have no really universally agreed vision of what the encyclopedia
should be, almost any decision is the result of compromise [...] Personally,
I
think that's the worst way to find a
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Does this case have implications for Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8533695.stm
Google employees were convicted by a court for allowing a video of a
teenager with
Not sure what's going on in the edit history of [[Sam Walton]]. There
are a number of grey crossed out links. At first I thought it might
be a new way of displaying deleted edits but they still appear after I
log out, and deleted edits on other articles still appear in the
normal fashion.
Those edits have been oversighted.
More information on oversight can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight
2010/2/24 Rob gamali...@gmail.com
Not sure what's going on in the edit history of [[Sam Walton]]. There
are a number of grey crossed out links. At first I
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Kanon kanon...@gmail.com wrote:
Those edits have been oversighted.
More information on oversight can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight
How odd. As far as I recall, there wasn't anything in those edits
except simple vandalism and
On 24 February 2010 12:54, Rob gamali...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Kanon kanon...@gmail.com wrote:
Those edits have been oversighted.
More information on oversight can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight
How odd. As far as I recall,
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Such edits are now more routinely being suppressed because (a) we have the
technical ability to do so without creating problems in the database and (b)
there is greater sensitivity to the potential for serious harm for
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
As an oversighter, I can review these edits, and I can tell you that, while
some may consider it simple vandalism, the edits contained potentially
libelous information about a person or persons that is unsuitable for public
On 24 February 2010 13:49, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Does this case have implications for Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8533695.stm
Google employees
I thing compromise IS the solution.
I said that the sort of compromise by deciding the individual cases half one
way half the other on a more or less random basis is the worst way to do a
compromise.
I didn't go into the best way to form a compromise. The way that works in
the outside world is
This is of course true too. People don't think video game composers deserve
to have articles; so they argue for non-notability.
Whether this should be the case is another story. I consider this to be
an abuse of the rules.
That's an example of a fairly common human prejudice against new
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
This is of course true too. People don't think video game composers deserve
to have articles; so they argue for non-notability.
Whether this should be the case is another story. I consider this to be
an abuse of the
Incidentally, if the oversighted edits concerned a certain gentleman
and his alleged predilection for oral copulation, then that vandal has
returned to the article.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing
On 24 Feb 2010, at 18:15, Risker wrote:
As an oversighter, I can review these edits, and I can tell you
that, while
some may consider it simple vandalism, the edits contained potentially
libelous information about a person or persons that is unsuitable
for public
consumption. The
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
I don't see the need for this. Can't we simply delete it as per
normal, rather than oversighting? Do we not trust the administrators?
Do we really need an extra layer of bureaucracy on top of them for
this sort of thing?
Hey everyone!
On Thursday, February 25, the Office Hour will once again be hosted by
Mike Godwin, Legal counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation, who you can
read about at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Mikegodwin
Office hours are from 1800 to 1900 UTC (9:00 AM to 10:00 AM PST) so that
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Carcharoth wrote:
Interesting comparison with historical antecedants! This is more the
sort of level of debate I'd like to see at AfD. I wonder what a
closing admin would make of it... :-)
You
18 matches
Mail list logo
