h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The original term paper could have been up to two years earlier; despite copious references at the end, there's no reference more recent than 1996.

Still once again I feel that there is a very important issue at stake here, proper procedures not being followed, and damn it I dont like it.

Why do we have transgression procedures if they are not followed? Whe the HELL should I spend time writing for hootoo if stuff can be arbitrarily deleted and then lies about me requesting it be removed put up eh?

To any italics reading this thread:-

Please can you start explaining your descions relating to the removal of entrys as the way you are doing it at the mo really sucks.

Fb - you're being just silly. This entry appeared to have been plagiarized. The italics had no choice. Unlike some of us, they don't have infinite time to investigate these things

Oh, and "The fact that unlike Peet or Jodan I explicitly considered the possibility that *you* might have been plagiarised instead." is quite incorrect. I didn't say it at the time because I had no evidence to support it

By the way, good work Peet, Whisky et al

You should probably find a group to explain the word "explicitly" to you, Jodan.

You said "explicitly considered". That's different from explicitly stating something

I meant to add a to the end of that post.

I wasn't sure if this fell under the same mysterious removal progam we've been seeing lately, but I thought it should at least be mentioned. I was going through some old back logs of convos, (really don't remember exactly how I got to where this article got started) but I noticed when I clicked on the article in the thread I saw a very familiar looking page.

A239889

Here's a thread that came from the original article (you'll get the idea that it was probably a 'distasteful' article). I'm not sure if it ever made it into the EG.

F30559?thread=36570

I found it in a thread about biltong under an entry about jerky A222977 . It seems to have been instigated there.

F28562?thread=32137

Anyways, I'm not sure the author may not have actually deleted this as hir user space ( U93445 ) is quite gutted and this user hasn't posted anything since May 17, 2000. So I guess I'm just saying, "Hey, here's a familiar looking page."


Count Zero

Since the "Atomic Bomb" thread predated the transgression procedure by more than 2 years, I don't have a problem with it being bypassed in this case... It should have been spotted before the procedure came into play.

Peet ( )

Oooh, Count Zero, I clicked on your link and got the following XML error:

"Not enough storage is available to complete this operation."

Congratulations! You just brought the BBC to its knees!

It is very likely that the "Long Pork" one *was* deleted by the author. This researcher was ffmike who left shortly after this entry was written and, judging by comments made in various threads at the time, the waiting time for entries to make it from 'consider for Editing' (no Peer Review or Scouts back then) to 'Edited' was around 17 weeks.

I remember at the time that he removed all non-edited entries.

Hope this helps

shazz

Oooh, Count Zero, I clicked on your link and got the following XML error:

"Not enough storage is available to complete this operation."

Congratulations! You just brought the BBC to its knees!

Not only that, but the first time I submitted that, I got the same error...

Ooooheeer! Peet broke the Beeb!

I was having that for about 30mins an hour or so ago. It's stopped now, touch wood.

Don't blame ME! YOU broke it, you're the one who touched it last. I'm gonna tell!

AUUNTIEEE, Peet broke your website.


Count Zero, now about twelve years old apparently

> "they don't have infinite time"

How much time does it take to write "Deleted possible copyvio from [LINK]"? Is this more or less than the amount of time spent deciding whether to delete?

Clear communication takes surprisingly little time. Maybe the Italics (still plural, but for how long?) could try it out?

-Martin

You took that out of context. I was saying they don't have time to investigate each claim!

Just to let everyone know... I've had a mail from the editors explaining all...

I think the best way of describing it at the moment is

Whisky =



I'll get back to you with more information later on when I've a little more time (real life deadlines at work )

Incidentally, I love the word "copyvio".

It perfectly describes my friend Bob's Windows 3.x desktop back in 1990 - "Copious Yellow and Violet"!