On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:45 AM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 22 January 2013 15:36, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > >> So this does not suggest "good faith". In fact, it suggests a >> profound ignorance of the project and what we've been doing, as well >> as having an axe to grind. > > > An opinion is not the same as a conflict of interest; I am of course > open to persuasion. >
I did not say "conflict of interest". We were talking about "good faith", the term that you introduced. > As I noted, Wikipedia is a do-ocracy; I certainly don't own the page > in any way. If your desired outcome is for the issues you perceive to > be dealt with, I *suggest* (not require) following the pointers I've > listed. See you on the talk page! > I suggest that bulldozing the article with hundreds of edits is a form of asserting control, if not outright ownership. As I said before, the prudent course is to simply wait for you to engage in your next obsession and then let cooler heads prevail. This means not me, and certainly not you. -Rob > > - d.
