In a message dated 2/24/2008 4:06:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
No just interested in playing games. Either you have a logically consistent evidence based problem with BCB or you don't. If you do produce it if you don't admit it.>>
---------------------------------------------------- The evidence has been presented. BC's response or lack thereof is noted there. The actions of the bot were unnecessarily aggressive. The actions of its owner elicited vocal calls from established editors.
Ignoring the situation does not improve the project.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duf... 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 4:24 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
The evidence has been presented. BC's response or lack thereof is noted there. The actions of the bot were unnecessarily aggressive. The actions of its owner elicited vocal calls from established editors.
Ignoring the situation does not improve the project.
Please provide a link to the specific evidence, of Betacommandbot making tags which are policy uncompliant.
On 25/02/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
The evidence has been presented.
It has not
BC's response or lack thereof is noted there.
Doesn't appear to be anything to respond to.
The actions of the bot were unnecessarily aggressive.
Really? So why are there still all these problem images. The date of the deadline has been know for nearly a year.
the actions of its owner elicited vocal calls from established editors.
Enforcing copyright policy has never made anyone popular.
Ignoring the situation does not improve the project.
The situation is not being ignored. Many many answers have been provided. Copyright law and wikipedia policy have been explained in more ways and to more people than any sane person would want to. The workings of the but have been covered ad nasuam. Now either produce an evidence based logical objection that you are prepared to defend or admit you can't.