On 8 Oct 2006 at 22:18, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 15:30:59 -0500, "Richard
So, that leaves open the possibility of someone
else creating the
Nope. Fleshlight demand editorial control. We can't give them
that. The only way we can prevent their "advertising value" from
being ruined is by not carrying it.
Since when do we have any obligation to preserve somebody else's
Since 1 October 2006, evidently. I don't know what the Fleshlight
people told Danny, but it must have been bloody good to make him take
such a rash action. It sounds like they weren't saying "we don't want
an article", but rather "we demand to have a say in what you publish,
and if we can't have that then ... uhh ... we're non-notable ... yeah,
that's it ...". An alternate reading is they called up and said, "How
come people are able to edit our article?" and Danny said, "YOUR
article?" and pulled the plug, cackling maniacally all the while.
Either way, 'twas a goof.
This is not the first time Danny has done the Wrong Thing, nor the first
time he's used his this-is-my-treat-me-as-a-normal-editor account for
OFFICE actions. Now, fair enough, nobody can be right all the time, but
a man with as much power on Wikipedia as Danny wields should a) have a
better strike rate, and b) bloody-well admit it when he gets things
Wrong. At the very least, I think we'd all appreciate being informed of
the reasons why the redirect suggested by Keepsleeping and SPUI is
inappropriate, because ISTM that there's no reason not to redirect the
article, except that Danny hath decreed it shall be deleted, and doesn't
want to encourage alternative solutions if they go against what he's
(Gosh, it's much easier to criticise now that I'm no longer contributing
"I've got to start listening to those quiet, nagging doubts."
-- Calvin & Hobbes