Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 17:47:32 -0600, Bryan Derksen
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
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
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!
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.