On 6/14/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I pointed out that this would violate the GFDL I got a response from Slim Virgin that "This is no time to worry about the GFDL."
This demonstrates the best example of SlimVirgin's little crusade against Brandt, because it demonstrates that she is willing to risk Wikipedia's legal integrity for the sake of winning it.
Any "violation of the GFDL", as you phrase it, creates a situation of questionable legal status. If a true "violation" occurs, then Wikipedia is infringing upon copyright, and that is a problem.
Then again, most Wikipedians don't seem to understand that the GFDL doesn't require half as much attribution as they seem to think, so this is probably another false cry...
Rob Church
On 6/14/07, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/14/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I pointed out that this would violate the GFDL I got a response from Slim Virgin that "This is no time to worry about the GFDL."
This demonstrates the best example of SlimVirgin's little crusade against Brandt, because it demonstrates that she is willing to risk Wikipedia's legal integrity for the sake of winning it.
"little crusade against Brandt"? What does that mean?
Anyway, it's actually a good example of selective quoting; read further in the thread to understand what was actually said.
jayjg wrote:
On 6/14/07, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/14/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I pointed out that this would violate the GFDL I got a response from Slim Virgin that "This is no time to worry about the GFDL."
This demonstrates the best example of SlimVirgin's little crusade against Brandt, because it demonstrates that she is willing to risk Wikipedia's legal integrity for the sake of winning it.
"little crusade against Brandt"? What does that mean?
Anyway, it's actually a good example of selective quoting; read further in the thread to understand what was actually said.
Yeah, if the material is fully purged from the articles it's been merged into it wouldn't be a GFDL violation to delete the source too. My point is more the great joyful rush to go to such lengths when the AfD's result was explicitly _not_ to delete.
On 6/14/07, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
This demonstrates the best example of SlimVirgin's little crusade against Brandt, because it demonstrates that she is willing to risk Wikipedia's legal integrity for the sake of winning it.
What exactly is my "little crusade" against Brandt? I created a stub because his name was red-linked. He asked me to delete it and I did. Since its recreation, I've argued consistently that it should be deleted.
Please explain.