On 10/19/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)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?