Those edits have been oversighted.
More information on oversight can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight
2010/2/24 Rob gamali...@gmail.com
Not sure what's going on in the edit history of [[Sam Walton]]. There
are a number of grey crossed out links. At first I
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Kanon kanon...@gmail.com wrote:
Those edits have been oversighted.
More information on oversight can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight
How odd. As far as I recall, there wasn't anything in those edits
except simple vandalism and
On 24 February 2010 12:54, Rob gamali...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Kanon kanon...@gmail.com wrote:
Those edits have been oversighted.
More information on oversight can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight
How odd. As far as I recall,
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Such edits are now more routinely being suppressed because (a) we have the
technical ability to do so without creating problems in the database and (b)
there is greater sensitivity to the potential for serious harm for
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
As an oversighter, I can review these edits, and I can tell you that, while
some may consider it simple vandalism, the edits contained potentially
libelous information about a person or persons that is unsuitable for public
Incidentally, if the oversighted edits concerned a certain gentleman
and his alleged predilection for oral copulation, then that vandal has
returned to the article.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing
On 24 Feb 2010, at 18:15, Risker wrote:
As an oversighter, I can review these edits, and I can tell you
that, while
some may consider it simple vandalism, the edits contained potentially
libelous information about a person or persons that is unsuitable
for public
consumption. The
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
I don't see the need for this. Can't we simply delete it as per
normal, rather than oversighting? Do we not trust the administrators?
Do we really need an extra layer of bureaucracy on top of them for
this sort of thing?
