On 8/24/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Without looking at the situation beyond your post here, I'd say that you sound correct. (i.e. if you were misrepresenting it, I wouldn't know)
Then why on earth would you comment?
Because I can comment on a hypothetically. My position stands so long as the input was good. I've now read into the matter some, and I see nothing counter my initial impression.
Although it may be true that in practice we may apply a weaker NPOV requirement to image, the idea that you must find some explicit requirement in policy is ludicrous, and it is offensive to hear that an arbcom member would make such a claim.
It is even more offensive for you to make such a claim without actually knowing what is going on. I haven't argued for any "weaker NPOV requirement" for the image; rather, the image is perfectly NPOV as it stands, as it make *no* claims as to its true meaning.
So, I'm guessing you'd think it would be perfectly NPOV to add a picture of you to [[Psychopathy]]? If not, then explain why.