Wikipedia tries to establish notability with reliable sources. So if you had a couple articles written about said hill by reliable sources (for example a credible newspaper) you could probably get an article about it. That's why, for example, high schools are considered inherently notable even though most are only relevant to local residents.
But isn't the EULA for the downloadable content itself, not the hardware? Sure, you can mod your console freely, but Nintendo doesn't have to grant you a license to play games on said console.
"yea private strangers going through your underwear, cupboards, pc definitely do not constitute any violation of privacy, ethics or morals. then, please explain what obligations in regard to privacy do these individuals have. lets say they have noticed that you have various sex fetishes. can one of them expose that information on the net ? what are the legal guidelines for these ?"
Well you'd have to be pretty dumb to let a stranger search your house, wouldn't you?
Except with for example an Epson you have to "clean" the print cartridges constantly which wastes most of your ink no matter how much you actually print.
Downloaders are also uploaders though.
So you're implying that Wikipedia should be censored for "gross" things, right?
Wikipedia tries to establish notability with reliable sources. So if you had a couple articles written about said hill by reliable sources (for example a credible newspaper) you could probably get an article about it. That's why, for example, high schools are considered inherently notable even though most are only relevant to local residents.
As has been pointed out already, that's a user page, not an article. A userpage can contain things that are unsuitable for an article.
What a coincidence! Being a "starting reference point" is the purpose of an encyclopedia.
How so?
You're talking about Taelus right? I don't see anything objectionable there. Could you be more specific?
Can you be any more specific, or are you just making things up as you go along?
You can't win. Use "common sense" and you're being "arbitrary"; stick to a strict set of rules and you're "wikilawyering".
But isn't the EULA for the downloadable content itself, not the hardware? Sure, you can mod your console freely, but Nintendo doesn't have to grant you a license to play games on said console.
"yea private strangers going through your underwear, cupboards, pc definitely do not constitute any violation of privacy, ethics or morals. then, please explain what obligations in regard to privacy do these individuals have. lets say they have noticed that you have various sex fetishes. can one of them expose that information on the net ? what are the legal guidelines for these ?"
Well you'd have to be pretty dumb to let a stranger search your house, wouldn't you?
"you can NOT go to a citizen's home and ask to search their house without being a police or a p.i." Yes you can. What law makes this illegal?
How on earth is this flamebait?
You would not be able to move the stick fast enough. It would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate the other end to the speed of light.
How long has the word "resolve" been used in this context ("the nation's resolve")?
Then people buy their coffee from Starbucks and walk across the street to park their laptop at your place.
So this makes it OK for you to steal from content creators yourself?
It's ironic that you would say that considering your sig.
It's a "-1, Troll" mod, not "-1, Wrong". I just brought up how instead of responding, people mod down posts they don't agree with to try to hide them.
People paid for music before.
Yet you still want to listen to that "generic, least common denominator" music for free.
Sorry, that opinion's not allowed on Slashdot.
Damn right. Fucking musicians should get real jobs.
This isn't 1940- no one's forcing you to drive a manual. Get a useful car and leave the toy at home.
Except with for example an Epson you have to "clean" the print cartridges constantly which wastes most of your ink no matter how much you actually print.