Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
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.
Since when? Perhaps you're thinking of Wikinfo's "sympathetic point of view" policy, which is incompatible with NPOV and IIRC the reason why Wikinfo split.
There's nothing wrong with showing compassion but it has to fit within our more fundamental NPOV policy.
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.
No, this is simply wrong. I was responding to you accusing Jeff Raymond of bad faith when he called your argument "a load of hooey." Danny's actions weren't the subject here.