The following I received via wiki's "Email a user" function. I vaguely recall this article. I told him that he could remove any statements he feels are false, and that as far as purging the history, there's no policy for doing that.
Kelly
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Allan jenkins allan.jenkins@observer.co.uk Date: Jul 19, 2005 12:49 PM Subject: Wikipedia e-mail To: Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com
Current Folder: Sent Items[allanpjenkins@blueyonder.co.uk]
Message List|Delete|Edit Message as New Previous|Next Forward|Forward as Attachment|Reply|Reply All Subject: help please From: allanpjenkins@blueyonder.co.uk Date: Tue, July 19, 2005 6:37 pm To: kmartin@jabber.org(more) Cc: allan.jenkins@observer.co.uk Priority: Normal Options: View Full Header| View Printable Version | Add to Addressbook | Block Sender | Add Sender to Allow list
(Removed at Allan's request)
Download this as a file
The initial edit, by an anonymous editor, seems to be a vicious "outing", none of it sourced. I see no reason the article and its history should not be removed and an apology made to Allan Jenkins.
Advising someone to edit an article on themselves is not wise. Nor would it be wise for him to try.
Fred
On Jul 19, 2005, at 5:14 PM, Kelly Martin wrote:
The following I received via wiki's "Email a user" function. I vaguely recall this article. I told him that he could remove any statements he feels are false, and that as far as purging the history, there's no policy for doing that.
Kelly
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Allan jenkins allan.jenkins@observer.co.uk Date: Jul 19, 2005 12:49 PM Subject: Wikipedia e-mail To: Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com
Current Folder: Sent Items[allanpjenkins@blueyonder.co.uk]
Message List|Delete|Edit Message as New Previous|Next Forward|Forward as Attachment|Reply|Reply All Subject: help please From: allanpjenkins@blueyonder.co.uk Date: Tue, July 19, 2005 6:37 pm To: kmartin@jabber.org(more) Cc: allan.jenkins@observer.co.uk Priority: Normal Options: View Full Header| View Printable Version | Add to Addressbook | Block Sender | Add Sender to Allow list
(Removed at Allan's request)
Download this as a file _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/20/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
The initial edit, by an anonymous editor, seems to be a vicious "outing", none of it sourced. I see no reason the article and its history should not be removed and an apology made to Allan Jenkins.
Advising someone to edit an article on themselves is not wise. Nor would it be wise for him to try.
Normally, I'd suggest selected deleting the problematic versions, but since the current article is a derivative work of the first vandalistic edit, that can't be done without violating the GFDL. Perhaps it would be better to rewrite the article from scratch since VfD has claimed the person notable enough for an article. Could a new one just be formed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Jenkins/Temp and moved to [[Allan Jenkins]] when finished?
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive/Juli_2005_2#alla... the current article contains inaccuracies since these have been kept from the first revision even though they have no sources.
If that can't be done, perhaps correcting the article to only contain sourced information, and telling Allan Jenkins that the history versions are not Googlable might suffice.
Angela.
Are we 100% sure that e-mail is genuine? Assume good faith etc aside for a moment, and call me a cynic, but I'd have expected the editor of the Observer to be able to type and capitalize properly.
Has anyone mailed the Observer e-mail address asking for confirmation of the original e-mail?
Dan
On 20/07/05, Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com wrote:
Are we 100% sure that e-mail is genuine? Assume good faith etc aside for a moment, and call me a cynic, but I'd have expected the editor of the Observer to be able to type and capitalize properly.
Has anyone mailed the Observer e-mail address asking for confirmation of the original e-mail?
I followed my own advice and mailed him - yes it is genuine (being super-cynical I even checked the IPs in the header - they resolve to The Guardian).
Dan
It appears someone (Fred?) has deleted the offending article and put a stub in place. Allan also asked me if the comment he left on Sam Spade's talk page could be removed.
Dan
On 20/07/05, Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com wrote:
Allan also asked me if the comment he left on Sam Spade's talk page could be removed.
Which has been done...
I'll shut up now.
Dan
Sounds like a good idea.
Fred
On Jul 20, 2005, at 3:54 AM, Dan Grey wrote:
It appears someone (Fred?) has deleted the offending article and put a stub in place. Allan also asked me if the comment he left on Sam Spade's talk page could be removed.
Dan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Doesn't matter, the article was nonsense anyway.
Fred
On Jul 20, 2005, at 3:02 AM, Dan Grey wrote:
Are we 100% sure that e-mail is genuine? Assume good faith etc aside for a moment, and call me a cynic, but I'd have expected the editor of the Observer to be able to type and capitalize properly.
Has anyone mailed the Observer e-mail address asking for confirmation of the original e-mail?
Dan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
The initial edit, by an anonymous editor, seems to be a vicious "outing", none of it sourced. I see no reason the article and its history should not be removed and an apology made to Allan Jenkins.
I completely agree. The article should be deleted and a stub of verified info left in its place.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 20/07/05, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
I completely agree. The article should be deleted and a stub of verified info left in its place.
-- mav
...which, as I've said, has been done.
Dan