Update on the farrago. Apparently they printed my letter in the 25 April
edition of The Spectator.
Liddle responds:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/the-week/3573521/part_2/letters.thtml
Spectator readers respond to recent articles
I did foul Ronaldo
Sir: Let me assure Charles
2009/5/6 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
On reflection, there is lots of vandalism to that talk page, and it
doesn't match Liddle's description of what he claims to have added.
i.e. Unless he gives more details, he is almost certainly having us on
here. But doing so in a magazine
Follow-up letter I have emailed to the editor of The Spectator:
Sir,
An appeal to Rod Liddle’s better nature was indeed a long shot; he is
after all paid to dispense laddish rudeness. Your salaried jester of a
columnist has been given an opportunity to retract his fanciful account
of what he
of the question.
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Friday, 17 April, 2009 11:36:28 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Rod Liddle, Spectator, on his Wikipedia
Andrew Turvey wrote:
Criminal sanctions takes it a step higher of course, but it's a tool open to
us and I think we should consider using it when we can and when it's
appropriate. You're probably right that this isn't exactly the right case -
but I still think it's quite shocking and
Charles Matthews wrote:
Andrew Turvey wrote:
Criminal sanctions takes it a step higher of course, but it's a tool open to
us and I think we should consider using it when we can and when it's
appropriate. You're probably right that this isn't exactly the right case -
but I still think
2009/4/17 Oldak Quill oldakqu...@gmail.com:
I'm not sure why we're discussing legal options. Even if there were
legal avenues open to us, it would be silly to pursue them.
I endorse this comment entirely. It seems a little surreal to read
some of the discussion in this thread, which whilst no
2009/4/17 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
Basically we should (if anything) ask someone to write a polite letter
to the editor of the Spectator, pointing out a few things:
/me hands job to Charles, to write as a long-term editor and administrator
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
2009/4/17 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
Basically we should (if anything) ask someone to write a polite letter
to the editor of the Spectator, pointing out a few things:
/me hands job to Charles, to write as a long-term editor and
Anything I can do to help, please just let me know.
Giano.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.ukwrote:
2009/4/16 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com:
I had a brief flip through the history and didn't see anything like that.
Looks like there are a few editors who
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3540166/stop-being-sanctimonious-about-the-mcbride-emails-make-your-own-minds-up.thtml
He was upset it was in what he considered an unsuitable state, tried
fixing it, was reverted and started putting silly stuff in other bios.
I didn't comment on
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
I went into the profile of the footballer Cristiano Ronaldo and added
the words ‘cheating Portuguese c***’ in every sentence and was
delighted to see that my alterations remained in place for a week or
so.
Now,
In a message dated 4/16/2009 1:11:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
I went into the profile of the footballer Cristiano Ronaldo and added
the words ‘cheating Portuguese c***’ in every sentence and was
delighted to see that my alterations remained in place for a
2009/4/16 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 4/16/2009 1:11:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
I went into the profile of the footballer Cristiano Ronaldo and added
the words ‘cheating Portuguese c***’ in every sentence and was
delighted to see that my
- in practice he'd probably
get off with a caution!)
Andrew
Original Message -
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, 16 April, 2009 20:52:27 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
Portugal
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Rod Liddle, Spectator
2009/4/16 Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com:
I hope someone's reported him to the police for this criminal offense. Under
the Computer Misuse Act 1990, deliberately making an unauthorized
modification to computer data which impairing the reliability of the data can
land you up to
In a message dated 4/16/2009 2:17:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
andrewrtur...@googlemail.com writes:
Under the Computer Misuse Act 1990, deliberately making an unauthorized
modification to computer data which impairing the reliability of the data
---
Unauthorized implies that there
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/16/2009 2:17:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
andrewrtur...@googlemail.com writes:
Under the Computer Misuse Act 1990, deliberately making an
unauthorized modification to computer data which impairing the
reliability of the data
---
2009/4/16 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com:
I had a brief flip through the history and didn't see anything like that.
Looks like there are a few editors who keep a close eye on the page, so it
seems unlikely. Perhaps he made it up?
Oh, lord, it's the Hattersley thing all over again...
--
- Andrew
April, 2009 23:01:14 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
Portugal
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Rod Liddle, Spectator, on his Wikipedia article
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/16/2009 2:17:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
andrewrtur...@googlemail.com writes:
Under the Computer Misuse
2009/4/16 Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com:
Glad to have an expert on hand!
Personally I think this would be more a section 3 offense (unauthorized
modification) rather than section 1 (unauthorized access). Could there be a
case here?
I think it is arguable that although editors
Andrew Turvey wrote:
Glad to have an expert on hand!
Personally I think this would be more a section 3 offense
(unauthorized modification) rather than section 1 (unauthorized
access). Could there be a case here?
The problem is that the *unauthorised modification* under section 3 must
be
Whether the law applies is moot, for a few reasons but including the fact
that it appears he didn't do anything except use Wikipedia as a prop for his
column.
Nathan
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing
Spectator-quality material? I presume you're being ironic!
- Original Message -
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Friday, 17 April, 2009 00:10:00 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Rod Liddle
2009/4/17 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com
Whether the law applies is moot, for a few reasons but including the fact
that it appears he didn't do anything except use Wikipedia as a prop for
his
column.
Well, he also does appear to be libelling the wikipedia, and he's doing it
from the UK, which is
...@blueyonder.co.uk
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Friday, 17 April, 2009 00:18:42 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Rod Liddle, Spectator, on his Wikipedia article
Andrew Turvey wrote:
Glad to have an expert on hand!
Personally I
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/17 Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com:
2009/4/17 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com
Whether the law applies is moot, for a few reasons but including
the fact that it appears he didn't do anything except use
Wikipedia as a prop for his
column.
Well, he also does
27 matches
Mail list logo
