Fred Bauder wrote:
No question it contained an attack, including a link to edit our user's page. The problem is that many of us like Michael Moore very much and don't care much for the viewpoint of the user involved. Applying our policy in a rote manner (Without consideration of the unwritten rule that we support prominent subjects that we like) yields removal of the link
Is this tongue-in-cheek, or are you actually suggesting that we ought to be applying this sort of "unwritten rule" in this manner?
(At least while it contained the personal attack).
Yeah, I just noticed that, too. The edit war died down and our link was restored not because all concerned agreed that the policy-that-must-not-be-called-BADSITES was nonsense, but because Moore removed his link. If his was still there, I'm sure our argument would still be raging.
Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking.
Oh, my. I really thought you were. How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?