|
QTRS reply
|
Wikimedia commons
|
||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
[[User:Kirksmonkey|Kirksmonkey]] 05:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC) |
[[User:Kirksmonkey|Kirksmonkey]] 05:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Wikimedia commons == |
|||
Please check out your talk page on Wikimedia Commons. Thanks. --[[User:Polarlys|Polarlys]] 08:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
| This is the talk page for talking to, with or about me, Brian New Zealand
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A Descriptive Header==. The easiest way to do this is by clicking the [+] on the navigation bar above. Remember, this is my talk page and as such I reserve the right to archive, edit and remove posts as I see fit. I will reply on your talk page unless you ask me to reply here. NOTE: It is my policy not to delete or remove dialog from this page. Everything will be saved and archived. However, if you are anonymous and post on this page anything I consider vandalism or foolishness it may be deleted. |
Please click here to leave me a new message.
Brian:
With regards to your OTRS# 2007071410012042, I'm curious as to your justification/reason for removing a legally obtained (FOIA) police report a U.S. newspaper published? Searching wikipedia shows numerous links to police reports for criminals and public figures, so why is this any different? Now, if the party in question had resigned, I'd not have any issue, but they chose to remain in public office and this police report refutes claims Wiki vandals where making in deleting entire sections on this incident. I'm from the area this event occurred, and there have also been charges of a cover-up locally and I hate to see it spread to the wiki.
If there is justification for this censorship of public information, then exactly what news stories can be linked in and why is this different then any number of examples on the wiki already?
Thank you
Kirksmonkey 22:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
>Regarding OTRS, we received a complained about that link, and until we can work out, whether it is a acceptable site, I removed it. I hope that explains why. Brian
Well, do note two things:
1. The link (police report) published was a news story. That is, a newspaper, that had published the police report. This is no different then 100's of other police reports published on the Wiki, in fact, in the U.S. it is acceptable to do this since the paper recieved it under the Freedom of Information Act. Nothing improper here at all. This was a direct law enforcement report.
2. Lots of vandelism/deletions going on on this page.
Please advise when you reach a decision.
Thank you
Kirksmonkey 05:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please check out your talk page on Wikimedia Commons. Thanks. --Polarlys 08:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
