On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 5:43 PM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > Rob Weir wrote: > >>Take a look at the lovely new page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice >>Some choice bits of distortion: > > > Thanks for publicising this. I really did mean I wanted more eyes on it. > > Useful pages in dealing with contentious topics (which is everything): >
I'm not going to do this on your timing or your terms. That would be foolish and merely lead to edit warring. A look at the article history [1] shows that as most of us were enjoying conviviality with friends and family, you were spending your Christmas and New Year's holidays making hundreds of edits to the OpenOffice article. This suggests to me a more than slightly obsessive nature. So the prudent course would be to simply wait for you to find another axe to grind, another crusade, another target for your attentios. Then, when you are immersed in some other grand mission, calmer heads will prevail, and I would not be surprised if the article were then totally rewritten. Regards, -Rob [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OpenOffice&action=history > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources > > Cheers, looking forward to help. The talk page welcomes you! > > Anyone with a good clippings file for the history of OO from 2000? > Such a history, that gets across *why* OO is as historically important > as it is, is not yet written, as far as I know. I went through the OO > clippings pages and archive.org but didn't find a lot. > > > - d.
