On 29 August 2010 18:06, Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 5:43 PM, David Gerard
> Mandy Rice-Davies applies.
Is it safe to look that up?
"Well, he would say that, wouldn't he."
He's not even the author, he's a descendant on the gravy train.
> Speaking as an arbitrator, how would you square
such a thing with NPOV?
Surely if the ending is still described in the article
(as I was
careful to say), NPOV wouldn't be affected? All I'm saying is that if
there was a specific OTRS request that could be verified to be from
the relevant people, then it could be acted on. Requests from
Wikipedia editors and readers to add spoiler notices wouldn't count.
It would have to be a specific request from the "subject" of the
What you're talking about here is leaving complete information out, or
twisting the article content, due to a complaint from a financial
I ask again: if the case came to you that one side was saying "we must
do this to the article because someone with a financial interest asked
us to" and the other was saying "we are an encyclopedia and this is an
NPOV issue", what would your thinking be on the matter?