On 10/19/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, it sounded like you were belittling the concern, I'm glad that you've clarified your position. In the future you could avoid causing me to draw such incorrect conclusion by avoiding characterizing our response to a terrible attack on a private person as a response to "an angry celebrity". :)
The person I was thinking about when I wrote "angry celebrity" was the artist John Byrne, who repeatedly blanked his article until I locked it. He refused to say what was wrong with the article despite being repeatedly asked by myself, Jimbo, and others, including people on his own personal message board. We (well,mostly me) rewrote the article from scratch and he was still mad. You do all you can but you aren't telepathic and you are never going to satisfy complaints that you do not know anything about. That was my point but I didn't feel like going on and on about some editing experience I had so I left that part out of my original email.
For the record I obviously support the removal of that attack from the article on the person whose article started this discussion, who is someone I've briefly met in real life, by the way. I think that any reasonable person would support removing such an attack. I thought that this list was filled with mostly reasonable people who would universally share that assumption and that I did not need to qualify my message by pointing that out. Also, I support kittens, apple pie, and world peace. Anything else I need to point out to you before you assume that I'm the sort of person who is in favor of unwarranted vicious personal attacks in encyclopedia articles?