Andrew Turvey wrote:
- Sam Blacketer sam.blacke...@googlemail.com wrote:
Without any knowledge of who is involved and which article is
involved I would hope the edits were oversighted
They were.
When did they start answering whether an oversight have taken place?
KTC
--
Experience
On 02/12/2009, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
Telegraph today: A senior judge has ordered Wikipedia, the online
encyclopedia, to disclose the identity of one of its contributors
after a mother and her young child pleaded for help in identifying an
alleged blackmailer.
On 2 Dec 2009, at 16:20, michael west wrote:
On 02/12/2009, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
Telegraph today: A senior judge has ordered Wikipedia, the online
encyclopedia, to disclose the identity of one of its contributors
after a mother and her young child pleaded for help in
On 02/12/2009, michael west michaw...@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/12/2009, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
Telegraph today: A senior judge has ordered Wikipedia, the online
encyclopedia, to disclose the identity of one of its contributors
after a mother and her young child pleaded for help
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
While the Telegraph may possibly be correct that this is the first
time for a British court to make such an order, I doubt this is the
first instance of that clause being invoked.
Yes, but the Telegraph is
Magnus Manske wrote:
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
While the Telegraph may possibly be correct that this is the first
time for a British court to make such an order, I doubt this is the
first instance of that clause being invoked.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Agreed, but my point really is that anyone dealing with the media would
be better prepared with some knowledge of other instances. And I don't
instantly have the facts (some of what I know about this might
On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 17:36 +, Bod Notbod wrote:
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Agreed, but my point really is that anyone dealing with the media would
be better prepared with some knowledge of other instances. And I don't
2009/12/2 Sam Blacketer sam.blacke...@googlemail.com:
The judgment is here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3148.html
Note WMF not represented but the judgment quotes the privacy policy
extensively.
Seems reasonable. Someone was being a [[WP:DICK]] of the first order.
Turned out
On 2 Dec 2009, at 20:23, geni wrote:
I see no problem with the court's or WMF's actions. Slightly worried
about the attempt by the plaintiff to prevent the WMF's name from
being released but the court didn't grant that I can understand why
that might have been attempted.
Um... that's not
2009/12/2 Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net:
On 2 Dec 2009, at 20:23, geni wrote:
I see no problem with the court's or WMF's actions. Slightly worried
about the attempt by the plaintiff to prevent the WMF's name from
being released but the court didn't grant that I can understand why
that
2009/12/2 Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net:
On 2 Dec 2009, at 20:23, geni wrote:
I see no problem with the court's or WMF's actions. Slightly worried
about the attempt by the plaintiff to prevent the WMF's name from
being released but the court didn't grant that I can understand why
that
On 2 Dec 2009, at 20:53, geni wrote:
2009/12/2 Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net:
On 2 Dec 2009, at 20:23, geni wrote:
I see no problem with the court's or WMF's actions. Slightly worried
about the attempt by the plaintiff to prevent the WMF's name from
being released but the court didn't
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:53 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/2 Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net:
On 2 Dec 2009, at 20:23, geni wrote:
I see no problem with the court's or WMF's actions. Slightly worried
about the attempt by the plaintiff to prevent the WMF's name from
being
14 matches
Mail list logo
