Anthere wrote:
Unfortunately, there were many edits afterwards. I asked the two authors, Treanna and Marc Mongenet whether they would agree for the simple deletion of the version from the 17th of february and up.
Unfortunately, Treanna has not answered to my request (thank you Treanna) and Marc Mongenet asked that the following discussion be preserved as explaining the current state of the article.
Hence, I would like to ask only for the deletion of the defaming paragraph
We don't really have a good way of doing that.
My recommendation would be to delete the page and restore the surrounding discussion.
Brion
-----------
Okay. Then I will copy the expurged version of the page somewhere. I would like you to delete the page afterwards. Then I will recreate a new page and paste the discussion on it. Is that procedure okay with you ?
Now, I thought it was possible to remove part of texts. It is important to know it is not possible. So, if I understand well, only entire page, or individual versions can be deleted ?
If so, we should be very careful when we see a potentially illegal comment on a page such as the pump. Because we will not be able to remove it by other means than deleting all subsequent versions made by other editors where the comment is still visilble. It may be no big deal on a discussion page, but I do not exactly foresee deleting the pump...
Though...perhaps an idea to explore to clean up the pump here
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
Anthere wrote:
Now, I thought it was possible to remove part of texts. It is important to know it is not possible. So, if I understand well, only entire page, or individual versions can be deleted ?
Hypothetically we could alter the contents of individual revisions, but a) this is very hard to do right now b) this will get much much harder in the future c) it may become more or less impossible in the future (technical requirements for immutable revision contents to make the storage backend work and replicate cleanly) d) tampering with the contents of historical revisions strikes me as morally repugnant, even if it's legal. It sets a precedent for altering history according to whim. It's the *edit history*, not the *current public version*, for a reason.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org