All of the above said, maybe we should drop this whole discussion, and let
David have his way, and focus on getting a 4.1.2 release out the door. That
should settle the issue, and shipping code is more important than Wikipedia
anyway, right?

So, what can I do to help with 4.1.2?


This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Phillip Rhodes <>

> David, this has nothing to do with marketing, and I honestly feel like you
> are the one acting in bad faith here.  This is about Wikipedia being
> accurate, and the simple truth is, on a question like "what's the status of
> AOO" none of your "sources" are more accurate than a primary source like
> the internal project timeline / roadmap that I cited.
> If you have a grudge against AOO for some reason that's fine, I don't give
> a flying fuck and I doubt anybody else does either.  But Wikipedia is not
> the place for you to further some personal vendetta.
> Phil
> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:25 AM, David Gerard <> wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:27:53 GMT, Rob Weir <> wrote:
>> > Last word, in case the inference is unclear.   We're dealing with a
>> > sophisticated serial infringer on Wikipedia.  Correcting erroneous
>> > information, which is proper to do, is unlikely to be achieved via an
>> > edit war.  Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.   Any progress would
>> > only be made by showing Mr. Gerard's own conflict  and his bad will
>> > (not hard to do),  and escalating it within the the formal Wikipedia
>> > appeals process, patiently dealing with the ministerial types to whom
>> > bureaucratic process is dear.  Since Dennis does not want to discuss
>> > this on the list, feel free to contact me offline if anyone wishes to
>> > discuss this further.
>> When you're putting together a plan for marketing efforts concerning a
>> Wikipedia article, it may help if you don't leave prima facie evidence
>> of your coordinated effort on a public mailing list.
>> Editing with a conflict of interest is not specifically disallowed by
>> Wikipedia policies, but ideally it should be avoided. Note example on
>> the talk page, where a list participant properly noted his involvement
>> when this was brought to his attention.
>> Relevant guideline:
>> You should note also that a "conflict of interest" does not mean a
>> differing opinion, and also that improperly founded accusations of COI
>> are held to constitute personal attacks and should ideally be avoided.
>> There are those (e.g. Jimmy Wales) who believe public relations
>> efforts on Wikipedia should work to the "bright line" standard, where
>> you don't go near the article at all, and certainly don't try to
>> coordinate an off-site attack on a Wikipedia contributor because you
>> believe they are not helping your marketing. This is something the
>> project, and the Foundation in general, should probably consider.
>> Cheers!
>> - d.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

Reply via email to