1,767
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 24:
Line 24: + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Unlock and revert - PLEASE.
::Okay, it's been a full day since TK locked the article and started his little copyright violation spree. He's had his fun, but can we now please unlock this thing and revert it? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:48, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::Okay, it's been a full day since TK locked the article and started his little copyright violation spree. He's had his fun, but can we now please unlock this thing and revert it? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:48, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Reverted as per [[User_talk:Sid_3050#Morality]] and this talk page. Thanks to Elamdri and Ed for their input, I am well aware that I'm skating on thin ice here. Here is my reasoning for this entire thing, along with a quasi-timeline:
:::*The initial version was already a copyright violation of three sources.
:::*After a revert back and forth, the article was locked so that TK could do his rewrite in peace
:::**No prior discussion about such a change on the Talk page, no reasoning given for removing the existing sections
:::**No word from TK on the copyright issues.
:::*At the end of the day, the article was still locked and completely copy-pasted from five sources.
:::*Only after some pressure appeared the claim that TK obtained permission for the Brewton section
:::**No proof was given, the admission only came indirectly through Ed - TK, where are you?
:::**No word of this before the pressure.
:::**No word on the other four sources.
:::As such, I reverted the article. TK, if you wish to revert, you better post a VERY good explanation here. I think that the potential link to religion should be covered, but it should be done in a neutral way and without page-long quotes. If you can't sum it up in your own words, post the source on the talk page and ask the other editors for help. When more than a third of such an article is quotes, that's a very bad sign in my book. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:26, 1 April 2007 (EDT)