And it's been handled. Tagged and deleted per enwiki's own deletion policy. (CSD I3, for you policy mongers).

On 27/01/2008, Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com> wrote: Why would somebody use CSD when the deletion is already under discussion and there clearly isn't an overwhelming consensus? CSD is a shortcut to take advantage of an already established consensus to delete certain general kinds of articles/images - if that consensus clearly doesn't apply to a particular case, it should not be speedied...

It wasn't deleted with reference to foundation policy, it was speedy deleted - that's an enwiki policy. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Remember the dot wrote: whether or not This could soften Jimbo permission only must be

which squarely back in the hands to the rescue and tell us an ambiguous statement on That statement could all any relaxation of the has actually happened in

the future. Let's hope that the foundation keeps giving ambiguous responses! From a strictly legal point Mike would seem right in saying that the letter in question can't be used without the proper authorization from the letter writer. When asked questions about the law a lawyer must respond on the basis of how he sees the law. He can also say that within the strict terms of the licence a particular action is not free. A lawyer advises about the risk; the client ultimately decides how much risk is acceptable. There are many areas that are clearly red or green, but there is also a vast yellow middle It's very common to find ambiguous legal wordings, and as a group we have run into a lot of this in copyright law. The statutory provisions seem to say one thing, but there is absolutely no case law supporting either possible interpretation. Perhaps one reason is that the economic value of the material involved is trivial. Jimbo does tend to be categorical in his statements at times, and to the best of my knowledge he is still on the Board of the Foundation. Given the level of cluelessness that is often exercised it's easy to see why he tends to the categorical. I believe there should be common-sense exceptions to nearly every rule. The apology letter in question could be an exception, given that even for us there is no reason to put it in the main namespace. If the letter writer's apology is directed to the entire Wikipedia community it should be available to the entire Wikipedia community, but there is no apparent reason for it to be used by anyone else. An ambiguous statement could be "too easily" used in the way that you say, but it can just as easily be used to support the opposite view. A statement made about a particular example only applies to that example, and one should be careful about making unwarranted generalizations. Ec _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: