User talk:Just passing by

Nietzsche
I generally agree, and I don't support Petrejo's changes at all. What I do support is adding differing views in articles, when they can be attributed to some notable and (in this case) academic source, which I think is something that Petrejo can handle (I mean, really, s/he seems to be one of the few who is interested in researching negative views on Nietzsche). So, I'm all for the wait-and-see approach with this. Hopefully, s/he will dig up some good stuff. If not, well, changes can always be reverted, although hopefully s/he will take my advice and post proposed changes to the talk page first. -Smahoney 17:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I do find his claims of objectivity (and the implied non-objectivity of anyone who disagrees with him) obnoxious, but I don't think it will be a problem in the end. As far as his excessive quoting goes, I actually think that's good - it gives all the editors more to work with, and it is unfortunate that the other editors aren't also contributing.  -Smahoney 14:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah. The thing is that, aside from a couple revert wars (which we've all been in) and some low-level insulting behavior (which we've all done), there's nothing that he's doing that's all that bad.  He's POV-pushing, sure, but in a way that, if closely supervised, I think would be good for the article.  Then again, I'm not an administrator, nor am I the final arbiter, nor am I especially closely involved with that article, so if you think that trying something like formal mediation would be a good idea, you're welcome to start the process.  -Smahoney 02:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)