If you're objecting to articles, yes. What you do is replace the copyrighted text with a copyvio notice.
The problem here, as I hope you've figured out, is that you weren't accusing specific articles of being copyvio. You were accusing a whole project of being a copyvio. Thus the specific article replacement served only to make a mess that was hard to clean up. Pretty much this falls under "don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point." You picked a disruptive and difficult to deal with way of expressing your concern of copyvio that made a lot of work for people, was rude to people, and was rightly read by people as a slap in the face to an entire Wikipedia. You could have posted to the mailing list, to Meta, asked in IRC, or even, since I know you've had a conversation with Sonja on IRC, asked her specifically, since you knew she was involved in the project. You did none of these things. Instead, you caused trouble.
As I said, I hope you understand this point. Because, quite honestly, if you don't, that's even more troubling than your removal of a whole Wikipedia.
-Snowspinner
On Sep 22, 2004, at 10:21 AM, Mark Williamson wrote:
What? Who says I blanked any articles?
Replaced the full text of articles with copyvio notices, yes, but that's what you're supposed to do for such notices, no?
--node
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 05:08:51 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
As I said before, I was not aware of this.
My statement that I did what I did in good faith still stands (though obviously I will not do it ever again, in fact chances are I'll never post a copyvio notice anywhere again).
There's a difference between blanking an article, and merely putting a notice.
Ec
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l