Frankly when I see how some of us react I understand that she use a pseudo.

They try to do a database that may or may not (giving what is your definition of this word) be called an encyclopedia. Anyway it contains a lot of infos. and the concept of the possibility to edit is very interesting. The problem is the imaturity of the trolls and other bashers.

To help them to make the "Byrne" article more accurate instead of trolling back would be more constructive.

I can understand that John Byrne, after trying during 2 days to correct what is wrong or at least to delete the bashing and rumors about him is upstet. Most of all hearing some of it called "actual fact" (which was an error from Gamaliel, about which it's seems she's sorry. )

But the rest of us could try to make things right. instead of embitter the discussion.

This sort of stuff happens when the prevailing opinion does not match the actual "facts" of a matter. I recently had it out with a wiki editor over the entry on Society Ordo Templi Orientis and Marcelo Ramos Motta. Not something you guys might be familiar with but this wiki was focused on my religion and figures etc. from it. I eventually wound up winning the Ordeal and my entries now stand but I had to get the guy who was changing my stuff back to the overtly biased and hypocritical article he had originally writter. Example being that Motta required his students to keep a diary of their spiritual experiences that would be reviewed yearly to gauge their progress according to a strict criteria of Qabalistic signifigance and according to the visions of the Raja Yoga system. Well, the original article took Motta to task for this but Motta got the practice from an organization called the A.'.A.'. The original article implied it was a cultic exercise but the thing was that the original author of the entry required the same thing from his students, a yearly journal to review for spiritual progress etc!!!! There were several other hypocritical elements to the article but originally they would not let me alter them. My arguement was strong enough to merit the changes.

Look at the entry for Rob Liefeld and Chuck Austen. Both are rants and filled with opinion expressed as fact. Liefeld's entry has been locked into a very negative one. It seems that Wiki locks these things a lot, especially when the subject of the entry gets involved.

Jason

Can someone please, please, PLEASE explain what's wrong with the following sentences?

"John Byrne was born on July 6, 1950, near West Bromwich, England. His first exposure to the American superheroes that would dominate his professional life was at the age of six when he first watched The Adventures of Superman on the BBC."

Actually (!), there is something wrong with the second sentence. JB would have seen The Adventures of Superman on the then new ITV channel rather than the BBC.

My oh my, what a wonderful world we live in...