On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 17:47:32 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
It's based on the premise that we have an obligation to accommodate the company's concern over the dilution of the advertising value of their article. We actually have guidelines and policies _against_ that sort of thing; Wikipedia:Spam, Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
We have an obligation to living individuals to show them a decent level of human compassion. Here I think we can accommodate the company's concerns by redirecting to artificial vagina, which means that their Google presence will not be tainted by directly associating their product with competitors.
And by the way, disagreement with your arguments is not automatically an assumption of bad faith even though in this case it was a bit harshly worded.
The bad faith was directed at Danny, in my view. There is a world of difference between "hey, Danny, what's the story here?" and "ZOMG! You deleted fleshlight! The encyclopaedia is suddenly of no value to humanity" or words to that effect.
Guy (JzG)