On 1/22/13 4:06 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > 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.
nothing to add, if I would write something on wikipedia I would ensure that the facts are well researched and true. Especially if I would never have had any relation to the topic. Juergen > > 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.
