On 5/30/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, that's one of the two cases I've seen so far that might qualify,
someone who is running for a Wikipedia "office" and is also posting to
WR (or accused of it). The other would be the unlikely event that WR
was notable enough to actually warrant a Wikipedia article.
And your answers to the specific points I raised, please? The evasiveness
to answer and defend your stance is problematic.
If you stand by your convictions and can back them up, it shouldn't be a
problem, of course. Also, this doesn't appear to be about Wikipedia Review
at all, but a whole new implementation of policy that empowers anyone to
scream fire and get things they don't like arbitrarily removed from