Since the available storage space on competitors services in mentioned in the article, why isn't the storage from Yahoo included? Perhaps a link to the yahoo help area that says we get 30MB: http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/briefcase/basics/bc-01.html
There is a great deal of reporting on this event and some attributes the change to the new CEO, others acknowledge robots have been using it giving a 60 percent figure to them.
I have tried to provide resource here for people who are being denied access to there content. Two editors who remove content impulsively here ahve done so so far today, teh second one deliberately messing with the reverted page so as to make it more difficult to bring all the sources ironically back up.
In the meantime the clock ticks. I'm no vandal and anyone reading what I've added and checking the links which I was just about to update with what I learned noted above, would know that.
Anticipating this conduct I've referenced this entry with the history link in yahoo Q&A so that victims seeking insight from ther emight still find a central place here for the facts.
THe 'reverter' has by his immediate token not even improvement proven himself to be the vandal. If he owns stock or if not he can be named as a defendent should the content ultimately not be recovered.
This is about ordinary peoples most personal intellectual property- there thoughts, and it's reckless destruction. Someone should goto jail for not stopping it already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Folks, before inserting any more personal opinions or rants about whether Yahoo! closed this "without warning" or "prematurely", etc, please note our policies regarding verification, reliable sources, and maintaining a neutral point of view. This is not a soapbox for you to voice your grudges. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim talk 17:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
In fact what we have been saying is they closed it sooner then they told us they would. Either date was premature, but that is not what the edit's have pointed out. They have pointed out the discrepancy between what they said meant, and what we later learned they actually meant to convey or so some say (how could they possibly fail so profoundly to communicate a simple fact if not at least somewhat intentionally?). It does seem you have to disagree with us in order to delete for lack of source. (you know the policy I'm referring to and please link this to it so others can agree with me if you ahve time!)
Ranting in discussion (here) does not violate standards
I don't see the ranting even here. The comment in fact reeks of point of view, one obviously unexposed to the fact, the sources and even written by yahoo errors in notice. It is factual that people who exercised there right to login only every three months will not find out about there loss for more then a month from NOW.
Yahoo links over here- so perhaps the partiality is from that partnership.
Mainly those deleting content here are clearly not exposed to the facts by having there content currently hijacked by yahoo.