[Kctipton:]
>
> I'm not the one who removed the link. Someone else did. Take a hard
> look at the logs.

_Mea culpa_. You didn't remove the link. An anonymous Wikipedian removed the
link, then "Angela," who also happens to be a current ODP editor, removed the
link, and then you agreed with her fallback position that the link should be
annotated to reflect the lack of recent posts regarding ODP, a point that has
been wholly mooted by your current response here.

[Kctipton:]
>
> Since wikipedia lets anybody with a keyboard undo others' additions
> and changes, no wonder you've able to call everyone else ineffective
> in changing things. I'd rather call it this: Netesq has been
> effective at deleting/reverting anything he doesn't agree with or
> casts ODP in any sort of positive light.

Call it whatever you wish. It doesn't change the fact that the current
Wikipedia article is the result of more than one mediated discussions in which I
unswervingly deferred to the decisions of third parties.

[Kctipton:]
>
> I put in three damn hours reading, writing and revising that
> article, adding significant content that you, being 4 years out of
> touch with ODP, couldn't possibly have firsthand knowledge of.

You'd be surprised just how much firsthand knowledge I have had of ODP during
the past 4 years. During the last year alone, I have been contacted by more
than one attorney who has filed suit against ODP on behalf of his/their
client(s), and I am informed and believe that the information that I shared with
said attorneys helped at least one of them negotiate an out of court settlement
that was acceptable to all parties concerned. Incidental to these contacts was
a review of "confidential" information -- including posts in ODP's "private"
editor forums -- that had been obtained through pretrial discovery.

[Kctipton:]
>
> . . . Still, you deleted the content -- against Wikipedia policy no
> less.

At no point in time during my editing of the Wikipedia article on ODP did I
"violate" any of Wikipedia's policies, a point that is no doubt lost on someone
who is accustomed to the peculiar way that ODP formulates and enforces its own
policies and procedures. And even if I were technically "guilty" of violating
one of Wikipedia's policies, Wikipedians are free to "ignore all rules," a
Wikipedia policy that is endorsed by a number of Wikipedians, including
Wikipedia's primary benefactor Jimbo Wales. (See <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules >.)

IMHO, most of the changes that you made to the Wikipedia article on ODP did not
improve it. In any event, while I did revert your edits, I reinstated a
substantial amount of the content that you contributed, and the content that is
found in the current article is the product of your contributions and the
mediated discussions that preceded your contributions.

[Kctipton:]
>
> . . . You are NOT on the side of those who want to present a fair
> and full presentation of ODP, positive or otherwise.

This statement is qualified in such a way as to make it meaningless. To wit, by
virtue of the fact that there are a substantial number of people who find flaw
with ODP, a fair and full presentation of ODP could not be "positive or
otherwise." Rather, a fair and full presentation of ODP would comport with
Wikipedia's NPOV policy, which would require a balanced presentation of all
noteworthy viewpoints.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq