On Oct 28, 2008, at 6:00 PM, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
No body was stopping you Phil from doing so.
If I had been aware of it at the time, I would have.
There is no big brother here, who evaluates all
to talk space or edits to article space. Lanier (or somebody
claiming to be
him) made edits, claiming to be him. They were rightly reverted,
based on the
Good Faith we give to original editors that they are properly
Well, more accurately they were rightly reverted because they
consisted of blanking the article and replacing it with a note
criticizing the article.
His claim to be the subject should not color our view
to remove non-
claims merely based on unsubstantiated claims that they are
That would be a giant leap in our BLP methodology.
Again, nobody has said that we should have removed the information
"merely based on" those claims. I have said that those claims should
have been sufficient cause to look at the information, which would
have fallen apart under even the slightest scrutiny.
On the other hand, should you wish to form an
action-patrol to do
thing, then go ahead and see how it goes. I feel no compulsion to
unsourced claims (or claims of bad sourcing) by anonymous editors
VIS A VIS good
faith that previous editors did a good job writing up their sources.
Well then, I hope you'll consider leaving the project, because that
attitude is unhelpful and destructive.