[...] I see a point, what we try to improve is not space or memory usage. The point is to promote NPOV. Don't you think that the opposite of objectivity is subjectivity, so to say being both the topic and the writer, or the judge and the trialed. I don't it is possible for anyone to write about himself «objectively» therefore the behaviour in itself is flawed. Having NPOV articles also means promoting NPOV behaviour. It is my opinion and I agree with it. ;) Jul "The poetry of heroism appeals irresitably to those who don't go to a war, and even more so to those whom the war is making enormously wealthy." -- Celine

--- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee(a)piclab.com> wrote: I only half agree with you and TC, Lee I agree with the fact we don't lack space, and I have been (nearly alone, thanks ffx) strongly supporting keeping Daniel page. I see not where is the pb in keeping it. Of course, I see nothing wrong with edits made by Daniel, or by any anonymous ip on this article. The facts reported by Daniel or another are strictly exact. If there were biased, someone would edit them, and that would be all there would be to say about it. But there is no sense in discussing it any further since the page will be deleted anyway. Most french-speaking prefer removing information rather than risking offering a little bit of fame to an artist, boo!. However, where I *disagree*, is that the place where Alvaro asked the question was the right one. Maybe you didnot understand the question ? Alvaro thinks it is wrong that Daniel himself edit his article page. He thinks that is another good reason to delete the article. So, he wanted facts to support his case. He wanted to know whether that anonymous ip was Daniel or someone else. In short, he wanted to know how he could retrieve Daniel IP address. I guess his question was a technical one; so it is quite natural his reaction was to ask that question here. It was perhaps a wrong question, but it was, to his view, the right place. And I don't think he was offered the right answer. Not everyone is aware of unspoken rules. Anthere (without accent) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com

The Cunctator, Lee Daniel Crocker, Wrong question, wrong place to ask. :-( I apologize to you. Goodbye Alvaro

On Thu, 22 May 2003, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote: I've been thinking about this myself. I certainly don't think that noteworthy people should be excluded just because they are also Wikipedians, but I can see that people might not trust people's edits to articles about themselves, so I think maybe we should discourage people from making such edits. Quite apart from the NPOV issue, I think we should only include information which is verifiable from publically available sources, and if people edit articles about themselves, they are likely to include things which no-one else can check. And on the same subject, I think that the founders of the world's largest open content encyclopaedia could do with having their own articles. Would it be possible to make [[Jimbo Wales]] and [[Larry Sanger]] into articles instead of redirects to their user pages, or would that just mess everything up? Oliver +-------------------------------------------+ | Oliver Pereira | | Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science | | University of Southampton | | omp199(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk | +-------------------------------------------+