Quoting Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Dec 9, 2007 10:34 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
I agree, but do you believe that having the information in the history of an article which redirects to the one in question does satisfy the GFDL? And what about the part of the merge that went into a different page from the one the redirect went to? How does that questionably satisfy the GFDL? I don't see it.
That's actually a very good point. Is there anyway to merge page histories into multiple articles?
It *could* be done with the import function, but it'd be very very ugly. The histories would be intertwined, such that doing a diff of one version to the next would give you a diff of two different articles.
Alternatively the closest thing is to copy and paste the list of difs into a dif on the article noting that in the edit summary that it has that there and then removing the list on the next dif (we've done this before and somone I don't remember who commented that this was probably ok).
Honestly, I don't understand what that means.
Ok, say article X needs the first five edits of an article deleted for privacy concerns. Admin Y deletes those edits, and makes an edit to the article with the edit summary of something like "Look at this dif for list of authors who had edits deleted" and in that edit append to the bottom a list of editors. Then Y makes another edit to remove the list from the page.
A different, probably more acceptable variation is what was done at Justin Berry . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Berry See the note at the end of the article.
And again, GFDL issues aren't my only concern.
Right, but as I said, I can't help you on your other concerns. I haven't even decided my position on them. You're gonna have to argue with someone else about that part :).
<whine> But I wanna argue now! </whine>
You mean you are slowly thinking about a position rather than going with your gut instinct and defending it to the death? What kind of Wikipedian are you?