I reverted the [[Easter Bradford]] article to the (Revision as of 11:00, 15 Oct 2002), which is credited to user:Easterbradford.
What's this all about? And why no discussion first?
Ed Poor
Ed Poor wrote:
I reverted the [[Easter Bradford]] article to the (Revision as of 11:00, 15 Oct 2002), which is credited to user:Easterbradford.
I don't think that Jimbo's message was meant to tell us to comply; he could have reverted the article himself had he wanted to.
What's this all about? And why no discussion first?
We /should/ discuss first! I strongly believe that we shouldn't give in to such threats, except to follow established legal procedures (like the DMCA takedown notices, to cover our collective ass). IIRC, this has come up before, and Bradford's charges were without merit.
-- Toby
Toby Bartels wrote:
I don't think that Jimbo's message was meant to tell us to comply; he could have reverted the article himself had he wanted to.
Right. But, I personally think that we should just delete it and be done with it. It's not worth fighting him over.
IIRC, this has come up before, and Bradford's charges were without merit.
In this case, someone is accusing him of fraud, etc., and these sort of serious charges ought not to be made, even in the article history. It seems that the simplest thing to do is delete the article. If someone wants to start a new article on him after the deletion, then save the text you want to insert, and start a new article after the deletion, taking great care to be NPOV.
But, really, I'm not sure why we should care to force the guy to have an article about himself, if he doesn't want one. He's not really all that famous. It's not like Madonna is asking us not to have an article, or Tony Blair. It's just some guy.
--Jimbo