The problem with your non answer above  I have is that all art talent being subjective, equal and superior talent are in the eyes of the beholder. For instance some people may disagree with you regarding Neal Adams being a superior artist than Ross Andru. Some people (not myself) may consider Erik Larsen an equal or superior talent than both yourself and Neal Adams.

It's ever so easy to parse posts on a message board in an effort to paint someone in a negative light.  What's often most hard for some people is to take what is written, here and in other threads, at face value. 

I have no hidden agenda or ulterior motive. Just want an honest answer to an honest question.

What is your position on one peer(your own definition) making unsolicited changes to another peers work?

That phrase gets bandied about often and normally is the last line of defense for many.  Art is not only what a person may visually put on a page or a canvas, but also what one puts on a stage, a movie screen, in a novel or a classic car.  Choices made by the artist are subjective, yes, insomuch as no two artists will make the exact same choices.  But "all art is subjective" does not automatically mean that "there is no right or wrong".  Choices come with the risk of making either a good choice or a bad choice*.  Playing "Lenny" in OF MICE AND MEN as a homicidal maniac would be a choice, but it would be the wrong choice.  That's not subjective.  An actor who made that choice, even if it were Olivier, wouldn't be imune to people correctly pointing that out.  He doesn't get a pass because he happens to work in a field where people excuse his choice as being "subjective". Sure, there would be some who liked that choice, but it doesn't make it right.  

In the end, I get oh so tired of people tossing about that phrase as if it's the end of a conversation or using it to mean that there are no wrong choices.  Human beings make choices every day.  Artists in any field are not somehow in a special and distinct category where none of their choices can ever be considered wrong. 

*Of course I realize "good" and "bad" are themselves subjective in nature. One person's "good" is another person's "bad".  Here, though, I do mean right or wrong.  Important to note for those looking to parse the post, there is not one single right choice and one single wrong choice.  It's a spectrum, which is where I think people often get confused and ultimately just cop out and say it's all subjective no matter the choice made.  That's where nuances like "it didn't work for me, but..." come into play.  Again, though, that can also be a copout.  In the aforementioned "Lenny" as homicidal maniac example, I think it would be a copout for someone to say "if it worked for you, great, but not for me".  It's wrong, plain and simple, based on any reading of the work by Steinbeck.