On 13/08/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Ah, yes, I find problem's with the president's
overseas policy, so I
should shut up or run?
On a wiki, everyone is Jimbo.
I wouldn't actually give people access to the
database for any reason,
though. I'm a bit shocked that's how it's done, too.
I think there'd be a fun old time running the finicky
gaffer-tape-and-string wonders of MySQL without anyone having access
to the database. But as I said, I look forward to your solution.
> What the whuh? Link?
It was a fairly recent post, in the past week or so,
where something
came up about checkuser, and a list member offered to share his
results of the check user with others with the privilege so they
wouldn't have to look it up.
That you didn't even notice is what I am talking about, that this post
went by without a blink, is what I am talking about--there are no
privacy considerations, a little sharing of what was revealed is all
fun and fair.
No, it's that I'm not even going to attempt to address a complaint of
malfeasance of such ridiculous vagueness. Shit or get off the pot.
> Indeed, much as every man is a potential fabulous
drag queen. That is,
> theoretically.
Nice try. Well, not really.
Your logic has floored me.
This will still come back and bit Wikipedia real ugly.
There is no
security and Wikipedia does not take user's privacy seriously enough
to demand that those with the potential to invade it strictly limit
everything they do with the knowledge they gain possession of.
I look forward to your proposed rewrite of [[m:CheckUser]] then.
- d.