On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 10:03:34 +0000, you wrote:
The article has been unprotected for nearly 24 hours
now and the world
hasn't ended.
I don't know how many contentious living person bios you've been
involved in. My first was a guy who, according to his detractors,
"should be granted a dictionary of his own, so far has he stretched
the meaning of the English language", and "has trodden the tightrope
of confusing semantics with the balance of Blondel and the focus of a
train spotter" (taken verbatim from the article as they wrote it). Any
attempt to rephrase this in neutral terms was met with reversion
(apparently it is forbidden to change "book text, approved by lawyers"
even when released under GFDL), followed by personal attacks, and in
fairly short order the publishing of my personal details on the
website of the attackers, characterised as a hagiographer.
Not surprisingly the subject contacted the help desk and the article
was stubbed and locked by Jimbo. It is now much more neutral, but
there is still a battle going on between the detractors and those who
have no evident vested interest. The most recent spat in which I was
involved had them wanting to add some screed about a lecture the guy
gave which, apparently due to credible threats of disruption, was
seemingly subject to a decision by the hosts to discourage external
audience. For some reason they think the venue (a college) and the
subject should be personally accountable to them for their failure to
be able to implement an effective protest.
I have grown wary of these things.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG