Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-13/Scandal fallout continues

This week's story is also dual-licensed under the GFDL and the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license. Ral315 (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Merkey link

"currently-banned user Jeff Merkey" points to the article about the person, but not the User account of the banned user. It should link to the banned user's user page, no? Please fix. Kingturtle (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed (but please, feel free to make such changes yourself in the future). Ral315 (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize anyone could edit signpost articles. Interesting. Kingturtle (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We prefer that users not make dramatic edits, because people usually only read an article once (any major new content should go in the next week's article). However, minor fixes are always okay. Ral315 (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently banned user Jeff Merkey is editing this article.

Please note he is attempting to hide information

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikipedia_Signpost%2F2008-03-13%2FScandal_fallout_continues&diff=198032358&oldid=197951363

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/166.70.238.45

http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/tracert.ch?domain=166.70.238.45

Frankly, the claim he's removed is so insignificant (in terms of the story, anyway) that I'm not willing to argue the point by adding it back. The user account Waya sahoni was blocked for being a sockpuppet of Merkey, but I don't think it was ever "proven" that the account was Merkey's, so much as it was assumed based on evidence and editing patterns. Like I said, I'll concede the point, because the article's fine without it. Ral315 (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sin of omission

It should be pointed out that before protecting the Jeff Merkey article, Jimbo deleted what had been contributed before 22:58, 23 May 2006 leaving the article to be re-written from scratch. --Argav ۞ 20:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be, and now it is. I meant to mention that point. Ral315 (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise

Wow! Nasty...

While the whole issue of Marsden and Jimbo is hardly edifying, the Sunrise segment was just plain horrible! Good to see that Sunrise is having to stoop to that level to get ratings. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]