| Revision as of 02:27, 18 July 2006 editWilliam Pietri (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,585 edits added explanation to make mysterious removal clearer← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:40, 18 July 2006 edit undoMichael C Price (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,197 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ''Refactored comment later removed from AfD discussion. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 00:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)'' | ''Refactored comment later removed from AfD discussion. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 00:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)'' | ||
| ''deleted libelluous statement as per Wiki talk page policy'' | |||
| : I tried to remove the above libel, but it was reverted with the claim that it is sourced. It isn't, as an inspection of the "source" shows. --] <sup>]</sup> 01:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | : I tried to remove the above libel, but it was reverted with the claim that it is sourced. It isn't, as an inspection of the "source" shows. --] <sup>]</sup> 01:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| ::Libelous or not, we can't pretend it never happened. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with HowlinWolf's statement; I'm just maintaining the discussion. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 01:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | ::Libelous or not, we can't pretend it never happened. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with HowlinWolf's statement; I'm just maintaining the discussion. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 01:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :: Hi, Michael. I'm not sure wholesale deletion was necessary; I think a comment that in your view he was wrong would have sufficed. For those wondering, the removed content was a claim by a new user that "Langdon is a known fraud", with a link to this site: . I agree that the claim isn't supported by the link, although it does appear that Langdon was in violation of the law. Why this would matter for deciding whether to keep the Mega Society article, I can't fathom. ] 02:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | :: Hi, Michael. I'm not sure wholesale deletion was necessary; I think a comment that in your view he was wrong would have sufficed. For those wondering, the removed content was a claim by a new user that "Langdon is a known fraud", with a link to this site: . I agree that the claim isn't supported by the link, although it does appear that Langdon was in violation of the law. Why this would matter for deciding whether to keep the Mega Society article, I can't fathom. ] 02:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Wiki guidelines says libellous material must be struck out, even from the historical record. And the statement "Langdon was in violation of the law" looks factually dubious since it seems we are talking about whether a ''change'' in the law requred Langdon to be licenced or not in the future. All-in-all libellous and misleading. Better to delete the whole thing and pretend the mud-slinging never happened. --] <sup>]</sup> 07:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:40, 18 July 2006
Refactored comment later removed from AfD discussion. -- NORTH 00:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted libelluous statement as per Wiki talk page policy
- I tried to remove the above libel, but it was reverted with the claim that it is sourced. It isn't, as an inspection of the "source" shows. --Michael C. Price 01:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Libelous or not, we can't pretend it never happened. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with HowlinWolf's statement; I'm just maintaining the discussion. -- NORTH 01:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, Michael. I'm not sure wholesale deletion was necessary; I think a comment that in your view he was wrong would have sufficed. For those wondering, the removed content was a claim by a new user that "Langdon is a known fraud", with a link to this site: . I agree that the claim isn't supported by the link, although it does appear that Langdon was in violation of the law. Why this would matter for deciding whether to keep the Mega Society article, I can't fathom. William Pietri 02:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wiki guidelines says libellous material must be struck out, even from the historical record. And the statement "Langdon was in violation of the law" looks factually dubious since it seems we are talking about whether a change in the law requred Langdon to be licenced or not in the future. All-in-all libellous and misleading. Better to delete the whole thing and pretend the mud-slinging never happened. --Michael C. Price 07:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)