On 6/4/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/4/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/4/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
What encyclopedic end would be achieved by someone trawling through this mix of discarded rubbish in a belated attempt to make it licence-compliant? Why should anyone make the effort? Let it go.
Clearly BJAODN is not part of the main namespace. Clearly it is an important part of Wikipedia's history and its ongoing development.
It's not important. It was just a dumb idea that might have appeared sensible one Friday evening after the pubs closed, back when there were only a few hundred Wikipedia editors. Let it go.
I don't want to be uncivil, but you just don't get it.
It doesn't matter whether you don't think it matters at all. It matters how the community as a whole feels about it. There are a lot of people within the community as a whole who wanted it back. Apparently a majority.
If the answer is "This is dumb, how come there's so much of a community uproar about it?", then you're asking the wrong question.