By the way what he actually did was delete the whole page and replace
"Obviously you will revert this. This is just an demonstration what
will happen if content is tagged to indicate material that is not to a
On 24 Feb 2005, at 6:17 pm, Christiaan Briggs wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
That's not even close to vandalism by any
reasonable definition. Wht
done is concisely outline the actual situation that you appear not to
to acknowledge in any way at all.
At best it was "disruption to make a point".
What Gerard actually did with the above edit was
take this paragraph:
This page originated from a discussion on the WikiEN-I mailing list
some level of consensus was reached between the free-speech and
suppression parties that a technical solution is possible that will
long way towards satisfying most mainstream positions in the debate.
- and add the following text:
However, it should be stressed that this page is ''not'' intended
that this is a <i>fait accompli</i>, but merely an initial
the specification and feasibility of a possible solution. The
described below are ''not'' currently under development, and will
not be made live until their desirability has been firmly
Are you saying that this is false, and making out that saying this is
Yes that is false, he did not add the second bit.