On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 04:20, james duffy wrote:
Regarding the following from someone purporting to be called Joe Canuck:
This public communication is filled with prevarications and libelous statements about me.I hereby demand that the person claiming to be someone named james duffy, working on Wikipedia.org using variations of the logged in User name Jtdirl, immediately retract these statements in a fomal (sic) public communication on this mailing list.
<snip>
CHUCKM DEFENDING CANUCK
In the aftermath of Canuck's banning, JeLuf placed an initial ban notice on Canuck's page. ChuckM left a message in response on JeLuf's page criticising that action and informing him that he would be reverting the page. (In the meantime, Martin had added in a stronger note on the ban on the page (provoking the response stating '"Your conduct is disrepectful and childish. Grow up and do something useful besides playing games.') Interestingly ChuckM did not revert the Canuck page to its pre-ban state. He rewrote it, keeping the word 'and' from the ban notice and tagging on the three words "proud of it'' the four words that Canuck had constantly put on his first page. DId he check back to know the words? If so, why not then revert? Or did he already know the wording of Canuck's page for the simple reason that he is Canuck?
Just to put the truth where it needs to be (good sigmonster!), that's just an artifact of how the diff works. If he just reverts it, the diff generator still recognizes the word "and", matches it to the previously existing one, and calls it the same word. It's got no way of knowing exactly how the word got there. Doesn't detract much from the point of your post, of course. John R. Owens http://www.ghiapet.homeip.net/ Commander Ivanova: Always finding good in every situation, Captain? Captain Sheridan: Absolutely. If I didn't, I might end up like you. Ivanova: Hey, what's that supposed to mean? Did anyone else hear that?