Recent Changes for "RemovedUserPage/Talk" - Rochester Wiki

RemovedUserPage/Talk

ReyTucker — 2008-11-27T18:09:06Z

-> peteb

Differences for RemovedUserPage/Talk

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 11:	Line 11:
- ''2007-03-27 15:42:25'' [[nbsp]] Is it appropriate to continue this discussion and not simply let her go as she requested? --["PeterBoulay"]	+ ''2007-03-27 15:42:25'' [[nbsp]] Is it appropriate to continue this discussion and not simply let her go as she requested? --["Users/PeteB"]
Line 15:	Line 15:
- ''2007-03-27 16:38:31'' [[nbsp]] Agreed Rot --["PeterBoulay"]	+ ''2007-03-27 16:38:31'' [[nbsp]] Agreed Rot --["Users/PeteB"]

RemovedUserPage/Talk

GrahamSaathoff — 2007-03-28T17:02:53Z

Differences for RemovedUserPage/Talk

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
- ["EmilyScorse?action=info"] -

RemovedUserPage/Talk

FarMcKon — 2007-03-28T16:29:44Z

fixed it so it does not underline a whole section of things with the underscores

Differences for RemovedUserPage/Talk

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 21:	Line 21:
- ''2007-03-27 22:53:39'' [[nbsp]] All of us, even politicians like George Bush, are private citizens in some capacity, and being a private citizen solely is a vague standard in consdering whether any figure merits an article. Journalism considers, for example, whether someone sought publicity. Does wearing colorful clothes count? Hmm, maybe not, but being the “coolest l_____ in Rochester” might, if she ever claimed herself as so. In this case, i agree with everyone. We should retain this discussion though, but elided for our subject, and placed under a different title, maybe as part of ["Wikiquette"] unless someone has another suggestion? --["JohnLam"]	+ ''2007-03-27 22:53:39'' [[nbsp]] All of us, even politicians like George Bush, are private citizens in some capacity, and being a private citizen solely is a vague standard in consdering whether any figure merits an article. Journalism considers, for example, whether someone sought publicity. Does wearing colorful clothes count? Hmm, maybe not, but being the “coolest l _____ in Rochester” might, if she ever claimed herself as so. In this case, i agree with everyone. We should retain this discussion though, but elided for our subject, and placed under a different title, maybe as part of ["Wikiquette"] unless someone has another suggestion? --["JohnLam"]
Line 23:	Line 23:
- ''2007-03-27 22:57:41'' [[nbsp]] John - Sounds good to me. If there are no objections, sometime tomorrow I will change the name of this page to remove ______ name. For the record, ____ never claimed to be "the coolest _____ in Rochester," but several others have described her this way, including myself. --["GrahamSaathoff"]	+ ''2007-03-27 22:57:41'' [[nbsp]] John - Sounds good to me. If there are no objections, sometime tomorrow I will change the name of this page to remove _____ name. For the record, ____ never claimed to be "the coolest _____ in Rochester," but several others have described her this way, including myself. --["GrahamSaathoff"]

RemovedUserPage/Talk

GrahamSaathoff — 2007-03-28T14:28:09Z

removed identifying information for privacy reasons

Differences for RemovedUserPage/Talk

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 3:	Line 3:
	+ ==Background== + This page was created after a private citizen's page was removed (as requested). The user's name and identifying information has been stripped from the conversation below, but the discussion about removal of this user remains for: + * Historical purposes + * Hopefully this discussion will result in uniform guidelines for removing the personal page of a "private" citizen if he or she requests this. +
Line 4:	Line 9:
- With a description such as “coolest librarian in Rochester…well known for her interesting and colorful attire” i might too request it be deleted, but this sets a bad precedent. Shall the wiki now upon request remove any entry, even not libelous? Had the removal taken down only an initial entry, i might not be too concerned, but it had accrued comments. Had the entry more substantive writing or concerned a public figure, removing entries upon request would smack of censorship. Removing even one entry threatens future contributions if writers feel censorship, especially any need to self-censor. Why did Emily request her page be deleted? Could this precedent have been avoided by not creating a short, caricatured, page stub?	+ With a description such as “coolest _____ in Rochester…well known for her interesting and colorful attire” i might too request it be deleted, but this sets a bad precedent. Shall the wiki now upon request remove any entry, even not libelous? Had the removal taken down only an initial entry, i might not be too concerned, but it had accrued comments. Had the entry more substantive writing or concerned a public figure, removing entries upon request would smack of censorship. Removing even one entry threatens future contributions if writers feel censorship, especially any need to self-censor. Why did _____ request her page be deleted? Could this precedent have been avoided by not creating a short, caricatured, page stub?
Line 10:	Line 15:
- ''2007-03-27 15:52:36'' [[nbsp]] If Emily were someone in the public eye, I'd be against deleting her entry. In this case, she's a private citizen and someone else created a page about her. She wanted it deleted. So be it. I don't see a censorship issue. I suggest we delete this page since it defeats the purpose of deleting her original page. --["RottenChester"]	+ ''2007-03-27 15:52:36'' [[nbsp]] If _____ were someone in the public eye, I'd be against deleting her entry. In this case, she's a private citizen and someone else created a page about her. She wanted it deleted. So be it. I don't see a censorship issue. I suggest we delete this page since it defeats the purpose of deleting her original page. --["RottenChester"]
Line 14:	Line 19:
- ''2007-03-27 20:17:24'' [[nbsp]] Emily is a bit of a public figure, and is well known in her neighborhood. She's also a good friend of mine, but as she's a rather shy, private person, she asked that the page be removed, and I complied. Personally, I think that she's well-known enough to have a page, but I think she has a right to remain unknown on RocWiki if she likes. --["GrahamSaathoff"]	+ ''2007-03-27 20:17:24'' [[nbsp]] ____ is a bit of a public figure, and is well known in her neighborhood. She's also a good friend of mine, but as she's a rather shy, private person, she asked that the page be removed, and I complied. Personally, I think that she's well-known enough to have a page, but I think she has a right to remain unknown on RocWiki if she likes. --["GrahamSaathoff"]
Line 16:	Line 21:
- ''2007-03-27 22:53:39'' [[nbsp]] All of us, even politicians like George Bush, are private citizens in some capacity, and being a private citizen solely is a vague standard in consdering whether any figure merits an article. Journalism considers, for example, whether someone sought publicity. Does wearing colorful clothes count? Hmm, maybe not, but being the “coolest librarian in Rochester” might, if she ever claimed herself as so. In this case, i agree with everyone. We should retain this discussion though, but elided for our subject, and placed under a different title, maybe as part of ["Wikiquette"] unless someone has another suggestion? --["JohnLam"]	+ ''2007-03-27 22:53:39'' [[nbsp]] All of us, even politicians like George Bush, are private citizens in some capacity, and being a private citizen solely is a vague standard in consdering whether any figure merits an article. Journalism considers, for example, whether someone sought publicity. Does wearing colorful clothes count? Hmm, maybe not, but being the “coolest l_____ in Rochester” might, if she ever claimed herself as so. In this case, i agree with everyone. We should retain this discussion though, but elided for our subject, and placed under a different title, maybe as part of ["Wikiquette"] unless someone has another suggestion? --["JohnLam"]
Line 18:	Line 23:
- ''2007-03-27 22:57:41'' [[nbsp]] John - Sounds good to me. If there are no objections, sometime tomorrow I will change the name of this page to remove E.S.'s name. For the record, E.S. never claimed to be "the coolest librarian in rochester," but several others have described her this way, including myself. --["GrahamSaathoff"]	+ ''2007-03-27 22:57:41'' [[nbsp]] John - Sounds good to me. If there are no objections, sometime tomorrow I will change the name of this page to remove ______ name. For the record, ____ never claimed to be "the coolest _____ in Rochester," but several others have described her this way, including myself. --["GrahamSaathoff"]

RemovedUserPage/Talk

GrahamSaathoff — 2007-03-28T14:19:30Z

Renamed from "(redacted)/Talk" (name removed to protect privacy)

Differences for RemovedUserPage/Talk

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+ ["EmilyScorse?action=info"] + + == Talk Page== + With a description such as “coolest librarian in Rochester…well known for her interesting and colorful attire” i might too request it be deleted, but this sets a bad precedent. Shall the wiki now upon request remove any entry, even not libelous? Had the removal taken down only an initial entry, i might not be too concerned, but it had accrued comments. Had the entry more substantive writing or concerned a public figure, removing entries upon request would smack of censorship. Removing even one entry threatens future contributions if writers feel censorship, especially any need to self-censor. Why did Emily request her page be deleted? Could this precedent have been avoided by not creating a short, caricatured, page stub? + + [[Comments()]] + ------ + ''2007-03-27 15:42:25'' [[nbsp]] Is it appropriate to continue this discussion and not simply let her go as she requested? --["PeterBoulay"] + ------ + ''2007-03-27 15:52:36'' [[nbsp]] If Emily were someone in the public eye, I'd be against deleting her entry. In this case, she's a private citizen and someone else created a page about her. She wanted it deleted. So be it. I don't see a censorship issue. I suggest we delete this page since it defeats the purpose of deleting her original page. --["RottenChester"] + ------ + ''2007-03-27 16:38:31'' [[nbsp]] Agreed Rot --["PeterBoulay"] + ------ + ''2007-03-27 20:17:24'' [[nbsp]] Emily is a bit of a public figure, and is well known in her neighborhood. She's also a good friend of mine, but as she's a rather shy, private person, she asked that the page be removed, and I complied. Personally, I think that she's well-known enough to have a page, but I think she has a right to remain unknown on RocWiki if she likes. --["GrahamSaathoff"] + ------ + ''2007-03-27 22:53:39'' [[nbsp]] All of us, even politicians like George Bush, are private citizens in some capacity, and being a private citizen solely is a vague standard in consdering whether any figure merits an article. Journalism considers, for example, whether someone sought publicity. Does wearing colorful clothes count? Hmm, maybe not, but being the “coolest librarian in Rochester” might, if she ever claimed herself as so. In this case, i agree with everyone. We should retain this discussion though, but elided for our subject, and placed under a different title, maybe as part of ["Wikiquette"] unless someone has another suggestion? --["JohnLam"] + ------ + ''2007-03-27 22:57:41'' [[nbsp]] John - Sounds good to me. If there are no objections, sometime tomorrow I will change the name of this page to remove E.S.'s name. For the record, E.S. never claimed to be "the coolest librarian in rochester," but several others have described her this way, including myself. --["GrahamSaathoff"] + ------ + ''2007-03-28 08:32:46'' [[nbsp]] Graham, I assume you'll remove any content on the page that has her full name, right? Otherwise the Google will still find it. Thanks. --["RottenChester"] + ------ + ''2007-03-28 09:12:10'' [[nbsp]] Rot - yes, I will. Thanks for reminding me to do this. --["GrahamSaathoff"]