User talk:Duk/Archive5
User:Duk, editing since feb 2004, Administrator since dec 2004.
.
Wednesday October 23th 05:26
Archive1, Archive2, Archive3, Archive4
| This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Duk/Archive5. |
I'm writing to tell you the contest has begun and will take 3 weeks. Since you've shown interest, I thought you'd like to know. You'll be pleased to know copyvio rewrites will be included. - Mgm|(talk) 16:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
User:205.222.240.2
Hi Duk!
I'm a bit concerned that blocking a shared IP for six months might be a bit... drastic. Sometimes shared IPs are used by a number of legitimate users who have created accounts and such blocks affect them as well. Any thoughts? Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- You are right, this is a little drastic. Check the block log and contribution history for more information. If you would like to revise this block, go ahead - I won't mind. --Duk 14:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, from the block log I see that Shanes blocked it for 48 hours first, and when that one expires the IP will be unblocked, even the six month one. I know, vandals using shared IPs are a real pain. Who invented shared IPs in the first place? Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
VVAW
Thanks for the thorough explanation. TDC has been known to use copyvio to fudge his POV, for example at the WSI article, which I sorted out simply by removing the exised points. I disagree with the notion that any post-vio edits constitute a "derivative work" particularly if such is in areas not directly in question. But I understand that limiting such is good policy and forces attention on the vio issue. After looking at the history, this should have been a WP:RFAR / WP:3RR, and if TDC was simply and properly removing the copyvio sections, then the page should have been protected, and the WP:DR process instituted. This is all the more true, IMHO, if as you say nobodys wanted to touch it. -St|eve 19:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)