On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, David Gerard wrote:
The industry response? An apparently unanimous our bad behaviour is
totally Wikipedia's fault:
http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1159206/pr-industry-blames-cumbersome-wikipedia-finsbury-editing-issue/
Guys, this really doesn't help your case.
Doesn't
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
The Roth situation was WP between a rock (celeb culture with its ohmigod
you dissed X) and a hard place (academic credibility requires that, yes,
you do require verifiable additions and don't accept argument from
authority). It would tend to
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
You might be justified in saying this if he was really told he wasn't
credible. If he was told that he wasn't a reliable source in WP's
terms, that is a different kettle of fish.
How's he supposed to know the difference?
Besides, once he is verified
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
Besides, once he is verified to be himself, he is a reliable source. The
issue was that he was a primary source and the secondary sources had
preference.
The issue appears to be something different. Roth's biographer wanted the
existing secondary
I just stumbled on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Polyplay_menu.png .
The screenshot is 511x256. According to the article, the resolution of
the screen is 512x256, which means that this is basically a full image. The
fair use template requires that images be web resolution and there's
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012, WereSpielChequers wrote:
I'm not inclined to shed a tear for hotel articles, many of which are I
suspect being created by spammers, but David makes an important point re
cultural bias from our lack of sources in certain parts of the world.
Wasn't there a probem where Jimbo
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012, David Gerard wrote:
If someone tells you to drive at 5 miles under the speed limit rather than
to drive at the speed limit, he may be trying to keep you from getting too
close to a line.
If someone tells you *not to drive at all* rather than to drive at the speed
limit, that
On Thu, 19 Apr 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
If someone tells you to drive at 5 miles under the speed limit rather than
to drive at the speed limit, he may be trying to keep you from getting too
close to a line.
If someone tells you *not to drive at all* rather than to drive at the
speed
limit,
This directly conflicts with the Wikipedia FAQ/Article subjects (2012) page
that specifically
asks public relations professionals to remove vandalism, fix minor errors
in spelling,
grammar, usage or facts, provide references for existing content, and add
or update facts
with references such
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
Let me get this straight. You are arguing It is okay to for Jimbo to tell
the company something which contradicts policy because it's more likely
the company will understand the non-policy than the actual policy.
The COI guideline is not an official
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012, George Herbert wrote:
The particular case here where the local radio personality objected so
much, we're reading too much in to. They had an idiosyncratic
reaction and did a bunch of actions that made the situation worse and
called more attention to themselves. Their press
On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, George Herbert wrote:
BLP is a good idea and we got it for good reasons. These recent developments,
however, forget that we are *an encyclopedia*. It's into barking mad territory.
No. We will not go to removing bios on demand on my watch.
I would suggest as a modest
On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia constantly gets misinterpreted to mean we
may never allow other concerns to take precedence over being
encyclopediac. This is wrong.
Mmm. There is a certain rather blinkered singlemindedness that can set in
with some
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
Reading what you have written above, and then
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Chris
Butler_(private investigator)
and other serious discussions on that page, I'm unconvinced that you
actually have a
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, David Gerard wrote:
The key point to remember about BLPs is: no eventualism. If an article
about someone dead 200 years says something nasty and wrong, that's
not great, but it's not urgent. If an article about a living person
says something nasty and wrong, that is urgent,
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
In almost all cases, a stub with the basic information is better than
a loose aggregation of factoids. The problem is that well-meaning
people (and sometime less well-meaning people) come along later and
try and 'expand' what is there. I'd be in favour
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012, David Gerard wrote:
For some reason a lot of BLP policy is like that: here we have the same
policy we use for everything else, but we really mean it this time. This
never works, of course.
I think that's an overstatement - it sometimes doesn't work, which is
quite distinct
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012, David Gerard wrote:
The policy doesn't work doesn't mean that all BLPs are bad, it just means
that they are *as* bad as they would have been without the policy. The
cases you refer to as it working are cases where other policies work and
these polices provide no extra
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012, Carcharoth wrote:
*WP contributors will not start biographies on lesser-known living
people without their permission. The project is full of three-sentence
stubs on people of minor notability, more often than not started by
contributors eager to increase their number of
n Fri, 23 Mar 2012, Carcharoth wrote:
[Some say] Notability, once attained, does not diminish.
Unfortunately, WP:N says that too. What you're saying makes sense, but it is
contradicted by our policies. If someone can meet the requirements for
notability at one moment in time, they are
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012, David Gerard wrote:
This is a rather broad and (as I've noted) hideously vague proposed
solution to a very specific problem, viz. someone who is apparently
well within notability guidelines wanting an article deleted because
he doesn't have control of it, and is abusive
http://www.pcenginefx.com/forums/index.php?topic=11381.30
The situation:
1) Wikipedia says game on PSP is emulated.
2) Person who looked at code himself says it's not emulated.
3) Since Wikipedia got its information from a reliable source, wrong
information remains on Wikipedia. (Actually, if
Here's another big one: The message says There are better ways, like the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act, to find the right approach to legitimate
copyright enforcement without trampling on free expression.
However, the page links to an EFF summary which includes a mention of how
the DMCA has
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Nathan wrote:
There are so many good candidates, in fact, we will need some way of
narrowing them down. A SOPA protest fits a somewhat narrow range - a United
States law that could effect a Wikimedia project.
There you go. I don't see the point of coming up with a whole
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, Charles Matthews wrote:
And the more you use it's in the
rules as a club to hit bad users with, the more others can use it as a
club
to force bad ideas through; there's just no defense to what I want
follows the
rules. You see this all the time for BLPs: Don't you have
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Gwern Branwen wrote:
I have just completed and written up a little research project of mine:
http://www.gwern.net/In%20Defense%20Of%20Inclusionism#the-editing-community-is-dead-who-killed-it
The rest of that, about deletionism, may be at least as interesting.
I wonder how
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPN#Peggy_Meggars_.28archeologist.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive139#Henry_Hardy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive138#Stephen_O.27Doherty
On Sat, 3 Dec 2011, Steve Summit wrote:
Summary: Demi Moore, in a tweet but verified as being her, says that her own
birth name is Demi. Wikipedians do not want to use this statement because
the reliable sources say otherwise.
And, per that talk page, they've got some pretty darn good
On Mon, 5 Dec 2011, Steve Summit wrote:
Even if Demi Moore is
perfectly reliable on the truth surrounding her birth name,
common sense tells you that a 140-character tweet (or two) is not
the sort of place where you can make nuanced distinctions between
I was born Demi, which is to say,
On Mon, 5 Dec 2011, Nathan wrote:
Well, no. Common sense here is that she changed her name and, in the
interests of keeping a consistent public image, has no interest in
promoting the old one. Common sense is that the fact checkers at
People magazine double-checked the name they listed as her
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Demi_Moore
Summary: Demi Moore, in a tweet but verified as being her, says that her own
birth name is Demi. Wikipedians do not want to use this statement because
the reliable sources say otherwise.
___
WikiEN-l mailing
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011, Marc Riddell wrote:
Without knowledge, myths are born. With myths, fear is born. With fear,
intolerance is born. With intolerance, ignorance is born. With ignorance,
nothing is born.
I recall a Scientific American article (I believe it was in Mathematical
Games or its
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Without knowledge, myths are born. With myths, fear is born. With fear,
intolerance is born. With intolerance, ignorance is born. With ignorance,
nothing is born.
I recall a Scientific American article (I believe it was in Mathematical
Games or its
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Erik Moeller wrote:
I doubt that the responsible Slashdot editor was aware that they were
falling for a troll. Is there a lesson here somewhere? If so, it's
perhaps that documentation of subcultures in Wikipedia is very much
worth doing.
Wikipiedia has a general problem
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, Phil Nash wrote:
That's an entirely different proposition from merely being vindictive for
its own sake, which seems to be the current modus operandi of ArbCom.
Let's not forget Arbcom doesn't make policy, which usually ends up meaning
Arbcom constantly makes de-facto policy
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Scott MacDonald wrote:
I've never understood people's problem with WP:DICK.
Because invokin g it is equivalent to calling the other person a dick.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011, Charles Matthews wrote:
But bias of the kind he works with is a really unhelpful concept for
us, in practice: especially when trivialised by being metricated.
What other way is there to claim bias than being metricated? Is he just
supposed to give his subjective opinion,
On Sun, 14 Aug 2011, Richard Farmbrough wrote:
However they will obviously enjoy the spoiler more, since the warning
has spoiled it.
Why don't we set up Wikipedia so that it's impossible to get certain
information without watching a few episodes of Pokemon first? After all (if
I was a fan of
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, geni wrote:
But things the white nerds who wrote Wikipedia care about, like comic
books or MUDs or text games or anime which are underserved by RSs?
Well, if they don't have RSs, they can go screw themselves. (If you
care so much about fancruft, go work on a Wikia! We're
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, David Gerard wrote:
This is false. Print sources do not require a legal scan to be available.
If you try using an illegal scan of a print source, you'll be told that
you have no reason to believe the copy accurately represents the source.
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, David Gerard wrote:
That's a rather different claim than that it is standard and accepted
practice, which is what Ken was clearly implying.
I ran into it a number of times but didn't have a particular situation
in mind. I was sure that sooner or later someone would find
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, Carcharoth wrote:
My rule of thumb for self-published sources is to see if they cite
their sources. If they do, then you can check what they say. If they
don't, then you can't, and that can be a problem even with so-called
'reliable' sources.
This fails to be a useful
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011, WereSpielChequers wrote:
But for kerry swift boat the first two hits are
both Wikipedia.
Anyone searching for that is specifically searching for the controversy,
not just searching for Kerry. If the santorum article only showed up when
searching for santorum sexual slang
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Rob wrote:
Part of it is that we're talking about different types of things. The Kerry
controversy is ultimately about factual claims, and therefore whether our
article harms John Kerry depends on whether we give undue weight to those
claims. This one isn't about factual
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Rob wrote:
I don't think BLP needs this kind of mission creep. It's important to
protect Santorum and others from malicious editing and bad sourcing
and undue weight, but it isn't our job to protect Santorum from Dan
Savage or the news media or the world.
Santorum is not
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, WereSpielChequers wrote:
8 letters, three syllables doth not a four letter word make, and the
term itself is somewhat more obscure. I suspect that unless further
flames are added to the fire, such as it provoking a sea change in
Wikipedia policy, it will fade into
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Rob wrote:
We're just recording what has already been discussed in 132 reliable
sources. We're not victimizing him any more than we are victimizing
Silvio Berlusconi
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlusconi#Sexual_scandals) or John
Edwards
On Wed, 25 May 2011, George Herbert wrote:
You are conflating the term (which associates someone with human
waste) and our coverage of the term (which describes the term,
descriptively, historically, and cultural and political contexts).
No, I am not. I am conflating what the article says and
On Thu, 26 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
As a matter of fact, it would help Wikipedia if the article were retitled,
[[Dan Savage Google-bomb campaign against Rick Santorum]].
The fact that it would help is exactly why it's not going to happen--all the
people who are promoting the article
On Thu, 26 May 2011, Tom Morris wrote:
If there weren't a tea party movement, we wouldn't have an article on
the tea party movement.
The tea party movement isn't mainly an Internet campaign, and even the aspects
of it that are Internet-based don't involve attempts to increase its search
engine
On Thu, 26 May 2011, George Herbert wrote:
The *term* shows him in a negative light, but the *incident* actually
shows him responding maturely and responsibly.
This is an artificial distinction that happens to fit Wikipedia rules, but not
reality. Spreading the term automatically shows him in
On Tue, 24 May 2011, Tom Morris wrote:
The reason: Wikipedia is on the Internet. If Wikipedia has an article
about something whose promoter specifically intends to spread it on the
Internet, it is impossible to separate reporting from participation. It's
a loophole in the definition of
Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced.
Having an article that associates someone with human waste be reasonably
balanced is like claiming that an article about the Richard Gere gerbil
rumor (as long as it stated the rumor was false) would be reasonably balanced.
The
On Wed, 25 May 2011, David Gerard wrote:
Except you did not say PR style, with call-out box - you said gay
porn company, as if those three words were enough to make your point.
You lose.
In this context, gay porn company is legitimate, because it implies a
COI.
I'm skeptical that we should have an article.
The reason: Wikipedia is on the Internet. If Wikipedia has an article
about something whose promoter specifically intends to spread it on the
Internet, it is impossible to separate reporting from participation. It's
a loophole in the definition of
On Mon, 23 May 2011, geni wrote:
When you Google for Santorum's last name this Wikipedia article is the
second result. This means that people who are looking for legitimate
information about him are not going to find it right away - instead we are
going to feed them information about a biased
On Mon, 23 May 2011, The Cunctator wrote:
The reason: Wikipedia is on the Internet. If Wikipedia has an article
about something whose promoter specifically intends to spread it on the
Internet, it is impossible to separate reporting from participation. It's
a loophole in the definition of
Disclaimer: I don't actually use ED and what I know of it comes from mentions
on the talk page and here, which seems to be quite enough to understand this:
Summary: This site is a controversial site that is often considered an attack
site, but we have an article about it anyway. The site shut
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Fred Bauder wrote:
So, instead of working on the article, and adding something about
astrology, there has been a sterile POV conflict. Meanwhile the article
is piss poor with one of the POV warriors, now he's gotten rid of the
opposition, re-writing it and making it even
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
A personal note from the subject needs to be added, and accepted, as
reference. It is by most authors and editors, for appropriate matters.
Where do you suggest to store it?
There's no reason an ordinary comment on the talk page can't be used for
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Fred Bauder wrote:
Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is still policy.
Unfortunately, whenever there is a dispute between someone who wants
to obey rules (possibly to the extent of obsessive/compulsive behavior)
and someone who wants to ignore rules, the system is extremely slanted
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, Will Beback wrote:
The article doesn't say that a conspiracy within Wikipedia tried to bias
articles. It says that a prominent industrialist and political contributor
paid professional writers to alter Wikipedia articles to change the
descriptions of his involvement in a
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, George Herbert wrote:
Someone organizing an off-wiki organized group intended to push
on-wiki bias one way or the other is an unfair advantage for their
viewpoint and biases.
*If* someone was organizing a group to push bias, they'd have an unfair
advantage against others
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, The Cunctator wrote:
Oh, certainly, left wing blogs are attacking the Kochs. And awareness among
hard-core political activists and junkies is probably pretty high.
There you go.
But we're talking a very small percentage of the US population.
There are only a few
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, Ian Woollard wrote:
The thing is, it takes a conspiracy within the Wikipedia's rank and
file to bias an article significantly over a long period; otherwise
normal editing and then RFCs and so forth will tend sort it out.
Yeah, that Siegenthaler thing was corrected in a few
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, David Goodman wrote:
It is possible to provide arguments against the reliability of any
source whatever. (And in the other direction, it is possible to take
most sources and selectively quote them to provide evidence for
support for any position whatever.) It is possible
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, The Cunctator wrote:
The Koch brothers are mostly unknown. ...
... It is Ken's assertion that there are many
people highly motivated to write misrepresentations and
unbalanced articles, though the evidence seems to point to there being
maybe a handful of such people.
It's not clear if they understand Wikipedia's image licensing policy. The
way that article is phrased, it sounds like they are licensing the picture
to Wikipedia.
The article also has this:
To mitigate this, we wrote an official biography on our client’s site. This
biography carried more
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Fred Bauder wrote:
Clearly there are issues. I'm on Jimbo's side with this though. Some of
my earliest edit wars were over whether The People's Republic of China
could be described in the introduction as a totalitarian dictatorship.
What has currently been hit on is
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, wiki wrote:
The notion that what new editors really value is the ability to participate
in policy discussions, and that any move away from that is dangerous is
just more nonsense of the libertine variety. We are building an encyclopedia
- remember that? The rest is just
So does that mean we can restore the article on the?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
#167 is the allegation that we fail to understand what the Tea Party
guys are all about. AFAIK we don't claim to understand anything much,
just to compile articles from sources.
I think that as a serious response, this is disingenuous. People don't
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Carcharoth wrote:
Actually, I'd like to read the article about the play without finding
out the ending. Is that an unreasonable thing to ask? (And yes, I know
this is a completely different argument to the one I used before).
With other things, I just read the articles
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, David Levy wrote:
Indeed, that's a different matter altogether. It's reasonable to
argue that Wikipedia articles should contain spoiler warnings for the
benefit of readers (though the English Wikipedia community has reached
consensus to the contrary). This is very
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, FT2 wrote:
So I would be okay with a solution that
extended and built upon SELFPUB. For example:
It's a nice try, but it still has the limitation to not being about third
parties. We clearly can't just do away with that completely, but it needs
to be relaxed somehow.
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Bod Notbod wrote:
Put the character on a comics Wikia with all the desired information
and have Wikipedia link to it. Presumably a Wikia on comics can
establish its own reliable sources list to allow comic fan journals
We'd then have Wikipedia linking to something that's
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
You are shifting ground there, of course. It is true that in a sense we
have subordinated NPOV to RS, by saying we are not going to allow vague
assertions that there is more than one side to a story, only things we
can verify.
I'm disputing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm_Fall_Off_Boy
Summary: A joke character with a similar name existed in comics fandom. The
writer who put this character in the comic book mistakenly thought he was
a preexisting character, and it's possible he confused him with the character
who had the similar
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Carcharoth wrote:
But really, if something is obscure enough that it doesn't get
published in reliable sources, you are stuck. What I would support in
such cases is an external link to a page documenting this. Kind of
like further reading.
The *character* is in a reliable
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Ian Woollard wrote:
And the real point is that our reliable source concept is utterly broken
when
it comes to using blogs and other modern sources. Saying if it's not in a
reliable source, there's nothing you can do misses the point. Sure there's
something you can do:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
Why is this any different from any other kind of arcana? And do people
really lose sleep over this sort of thing? There must be a huge amount
of insider-like knowledge associated with politics, sport, business,
whatever. If we wait until this
On Thu, 20 May 2010, Carcharoth wrote:
The combination results in a badly distended view of knowledge that has
wrecked more than a handful of articles on Wikipedia.
Some examples may help.
I already gave an example of the Marion Zimmer Bradley article: a published
author has a dispute with a
On Sun, 16 May 2010, Nathan wrote:
Obviously it would be an impossible task to study all potential
sources and make a proactive determination of reliability. We hope to
some extent that folks citing academic sources have vetted them in
some way as to their credibility, but with mainstream news
But I can't say that these points really apply in many cases that we
appear to be applying them: We would reject as reliable sources many
hobbyist blogs (or even webcomics) with a stronger reputation to
preserve, less obviously-compromised motivations, and _significantly_
greater circulation
On Tue, 11 May 2010, David Goodman wrote:
Censorship is normally used to mean a refusal to include something on
the basis of content, not on the basis of form or external
characteristics. Not including a picture because it does not have a
free license is not censorship, not including it
It's obvious some of Jimbo's idea is ill-considered. But what bothers me is
the responses that this violates some kind of blanket policy. Wikipedia is an
encyclopedia, and we may not remove useful information for any reason.
Wikipedia is not censored, we are not allowed to have exceptions.
I
On Mon, 10 May 2010, David Gerard wrote:
On the talk page, I mostly see people calling it out for the
censorship stalking horse it was.
You can tag a goat a very special sort of chicken, but people will
see through that.
Well, it is a form of censorship, but just removing someone's private
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010, David Goodman wrote:
The criteria are the same as for any other source: whether it is used
in publications that are acknowledged to be reputable. It is the way
the outside world looks at it.
You are replying to the question what rules make sense by answering
the question
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
Something that has a Rush Limbaugh episode
dedicated to it is probably notable in any sane sense, even if Rush Limbaugh
isn't a reliable source.
Sorry, what if I say that I neither know nor care about anything Rush
Limbaugh does or says (which is
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
As usual, one has to sift the arguments. Why aren't blogs included under
RS? That would be because they are generally unreliable?
One of the things that's bizarre about notability is that it requires reliable
sources to establish notability.
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, George Herbert 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 shouldn't *need* to go through this level of debate just to keep a page
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, David Goodman wrote:
The existing situation is of great assistance to another species: the
wiki-barrister, expert is using whatever legal processes are available to
achieve equity. . If such a person intuitively think an article should be
kept, they will find arguments
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
I never understood, why does notability require a reliable source anyway?
Doesn't - urban myth put about by people with a kindergarten version of
logical positivism. But no reliable sources means nothing can actually
be said in an article that has
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
You are paraphrasing from [[Wikipedia:Notability]]. However, as is
common enough in this (endless, unresolved) discussions, you are not
doing so accurately enough. Firstly, [[Wikipedia:Notability]] is only a
guideline, not an official policy for
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010, Carcharoth wrote:
I would look up
some sources, but I really hate those pseudonym in another language
in an obscure and emerging genre (video music) cases. You really
can't make much progress with those unless someone actually goes and
writes a book about it, or you know
I stumbled into this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kinuyo_Yamashita
My personal summary: Notability requirements shown to be utterly broken for
popular culture topics.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, SlimVirgin wrote:
Imagine that one of those victims were here now, part of this discussion.
Please explain to him why we can't develop image policies that avoid that
outcome.
If one of the victims was here now, and he took the picture, he could grant
a free license and we
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, William Pietri wrote:
The problem is that even if you're only supposed to remove contentious
unsourced material, there's absolutely nothing anyone can do to you if you
remove noncontentious material.
I think it's reasonable to ask the remover if they're actually
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Adam Koenigsberg wrote:
I oppose this mass deletion but support the theory behind it, that is to
say, I would support this deletion criteria but believe this to be out of
process. Being Bold doesn't extend to administrator tools, IMHO. This
reminds me of the Userbox mass
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Apoc 2400 wrote:
It is commonly said that anyone can remove unsourced information, and that
the burden lies on the editor who wants to include information to provide a
source. I have always taken this to mean that if I think something is wrong
or otherwise does not belong
1 - 100 of 197 matches
Mail list logo
