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? Phil This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Phillip Rhodes <motley.crue....@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:27:53 GMT, Rob Weir <r...@robweir.com> 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: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest >> >> 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: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> >
