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(a)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(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l