On 4/3/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 08:17:25 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You're slipping into something resembling Copyright Paranoia For Convenience.
Convenience? In what way is it convenient to me to have a days-long argument over the removal of cruft from a crufty article? Frankly I don't give a flying fuck about the content, but I *do* care if we violate copyright. Silly of me, I know - and evil, apparently, in that I'm just trying to wreck Wikipedia. I thought I was doing the right thing removing content with ambiguous at best copyright status, perhaps I will know better last time.
Noone thinks you're evil or trying to wreck Wikipedia.
But "removing content with ambiguous at best copyright status" is generally copyright paranoia.
We all make mistakes.
And sometime's we're right but the community consensus is in a strongly different direction. Discretion can be the better part of valor in those instances.