"Karl A. Krueger" <kkrueger(a)whoi.edu> wrote in message
news:20060215223318.GA4712@whoi.edu...
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 05:29:15PM +0000, David
Gerard wrote:
So if I revert all and remake the good edits, the
good edits stay in
Wikipedia but aren't associated with the banned editor - so that if
others are also following him about, they don't accidentally revert a
good edit. It's a bit more work for me, but hopefully means less work
for others.
Banned editors are disallowed from editing. However, banned editors
still hold copyright over their own words. If you revert their good
contributions and then re-post their own words under your name, you
might be seen as illicitly taking credit for their work.
"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed
by
others, do not submit it."
Dude, the words have been submitted under the GFDL. Provided that DG notes
in his edit summary that he is restoring a good edit by a bad editor, the
number of legs upon which a claim might stand rapidly approaches zero.
Which way round do you want it? Do you want all edits by a bad editor to
be
removed, even if they contribute good information? Or do you want even
their
bad edits to be left alone?
HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l