Quoting Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>:
On Dec 9, 2007 10:10 PM,
<joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:
Quoting Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>:
It certainly doesn't satisfy the GFDL. But
then again, none of the
pages on the entire website satisfy the GFDL.
That argument has been made before and a number of lawyers have
considered it to
be incorrect. I'm not a lawyer so I won't comment too heavily in
that regard.
The only thing that'd
satisfy the GFDL would be to create a section, ==History==, and put
the names there, along with the years, title, and publisher. If
that's what we want to do, I'll be all for it.
Er no, as I understand it (again, I'm not a lawyer) having an
explicit link to
the history is ok because we treat them more or less as one document.
And in any event, there's an obvious good faith difference between
questionably
satisfying the GFDL and definitely not satisfying it. This is clearly in the
second category.
I agree, but do you believe that having the information in the history
of an article which redirects to the one in question does satisfy the
GFDL? And what about the part of the merge that went into a different
page from the one the redirect went to? How does that questionably
satisfy the GFDL? I don't see it.
That's actually a very good point. Is there anyway to merge page
histories into
multiple articles? Alternatively the closest thing is to copy and paste the
list of difs into a dif on the article noting that in the edit summary that it
has that there and then removing the list on the next dif (we've done this
before and somone I don't remember who commented that this was probably ok).
Not at all. Whether you get to
the information by following "What links here" and then clicking on
"history" or you get it by clicking on "Talk" and then "merged
page
history", it seems equally (non)compliant to me.
And what about the article on Angela? Are we sure that nothing has
been merged from that article anywhere? I have a copy of that one too
if someone wants the list of editors.
I'm pretty sure nothing's been merged from there. Point of fact even if a tiny
bit of content has been merged that's likely usable within fair use, but using
almost all the material of an article, not so much.
And again, GFDL issues aren't my only concern. We should know by now
that Daniel
Brandt doesn't stop. Ever. He just keeps demanding more and more. And
to do this
after we had a very difficult compromise just makes matters worse. The pages
that mention him still will still have very high google rankings. This just
sends the message to trolls that they can get anything changed on Wikipedia if
they harass us long enough. That's not good. Furthermore, there is no, I
repeat, no interpretation of BLP that allows for this deletion since it was
simply a redirect. Nor for that matter, does BLP justify deleting a page to
help lower google rankings at all. If I recall, Fred Bauder a while back
floated briefly the idea of having some BLPs not google indexed and the
response was pretty negative.