I have some serious problems with all of this.
The article was created in 2004, and its first version was obviously
not advertising. It had three AfDs deciding to keep it.
I recognize that the company's demand of editorial control absolutely
cannot be met. But I am gravely concerned that the Foundation
Office's response to such a demand is to delete the page outright and
salt the earth. Whether we keep an article or not should not be based
on whether the article's subject has been a problem for us. The
community has repeatedly indicated a desire to keep [[Fleshlight]],
and the claim that the page was created for promotional purposes is
demonstrably untrue. For the Office to unilaterally delete it marks
an unfortunate and dangerous turning point in the relationship
between the Office and the community.
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a
boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
On Oct 8, 2006, at 7:15 PM, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 8 Oct 2006 at 22:18, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 15:30:59 -0500, "Richard
So, that leaves open the possibility of someone
else creating the
Nope. Fleshlight demand editorial control. We can't give them that.
The only way we can prevent their "advertising value" from being
ruined is by not carrying it.
Since when do we have any obligation to preserve somebody else's
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: