User talk:Aldus Marius Peregrinus

Amici dignitatis article

Thanks for adding that information about the name and the reasoning behind it. Does the article in general strike you as reasonably fair and accurate? If anything I tried to err on the side of being too positive about the group, on the assumption that there are fewer people around to stick up for it than there are who are likely to disparage it; but as for accuracy, I'm limited by not having been around at the time and being reliant on the public archives of the 'main list', which have holes in them at some important moments (in particular about four weeks of messages are missing between the middle of February and the middle of March 2001 - a rather crucial moment, I imagine!).

- Cordus 21:06, 16 July 2007 (CEST)

I thought the article was more than fair; I was quite impressed with it actually. I think it would have taken someone who was not there at the time to really pull it off. Being able to read our "statement" for themselves will really help those who hear the group mentioned and wonder what all the fuss was about.

I am actually rather concerned about the fairness (or NPOV, if you prefer) of anything I might contribute about events during my tenure. I don't rant about these things...but one must understand that it is impossible for me to be truly objective about them. I think this was understood when I was asked to join the Wiki project. Barring complete objectivity, then, I see my role as a clarifier, an explainer, a filler-in of missing pieces. I've been asked to remember things. To the extent possible, I shall do so without intentionally causing divisions in the community. But the events involving me were divisive in themselves. There's no getting around that. I suspect most of my stuff will still need to be reviewed by a neutral party.

Gratias ago for "putting us in our place"! <g> -- Marius Peregrinus 05:39, 17 July 2007 (CEST)