hmmm.... I'm never sure how best to engage in this context, because the line
between disagreement and disruption has occasionally seemed subjective to
me. Two small points though;
Firstly, the admin.s amongst you will be able to review what was described
privately as the edit which was most irresponsible and which was the work of
a "dangerous fool" (an arb.s comment);
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Privatemusings/diStefano&…
The non admin.s amongst you can only see that this has been deleted as
'libelous content'. It certainly isn't a wonderful draft, and I've
benefited
greatly from watching the recent development at our current article (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_di_Stefano ), but I just don't think
it's fair to label me guilty of libel - it's a s serious charge and I really
don't think it's right.
So let me be clear - my choice of words may well have been clumsy, my
approach hugely flawed, and certainly I had little understanding at the time
of the ramifications my editing would cause. These are lessons well worth
learning, and represent the silver lining from my perspective.
Matt, you've commented briefly here about me in the third person, I'd like
to ask you directly that if you have a spare moment, I'd really really
appreciate it if you'd consider 'undeleting' the revisions identified by the
arb.s as irresponsible and rash (just the draft above, maybe?) - I remain
unclear as the rationale for their deletion, and I'd hope in examining them
both I and others could avoid running into trouble in the future.
Secondly - I agree with the basic tenet of your post in many ways, but have
you had the chance to take a look at the suggestions I've been making over
the last month or so? I rather felt progress was being made! :-)
best,
Peter
PM.