Well, he did it again... That is what he wrote to me on google+:
"And don't do what the previous AOO editor did and inexplicably fail to reveal their COI."
Am 14.09.2015 um 22:52 schrieb John D'Orazio:
Interestingly mr. David Gerard IS a moderator on Wikipedia it seems. He still has to abide by the rules though. And there is quite a bit of discussion on the talk page, where some users have opted to split the "Apache OpenOffice" project onto its own page as a completely separate derivative project. All that is needed is to chime in on the article talk page citing references to legal info about OpenOffice.org being officially in the hands of the Apache Software Foundation. If there is evidence of that (which seems obvious to me, I'm a newcomer but I go to the webpage and I see Apache OpenOffice on the OpenOffice.org webpage), it just needs to be cited on the talk page to back any kind of edits to the article that reflect that. Seems that the article has already been split and "Apache OpenOffice" has it's own wikipedia article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice), I wouldn't make a big deal about having a separate article but I would oppose the POV opinions about Apache not having legal rights to the OpenOffice.org project (hence the corrections to the infobox information). I don't know all of the technicalities, so the edits I just made might not be precise, for example which release was the first release to have the Apache license? On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com> wrote:On 09/14/2015 11:44 AM, John D'Orazio wrote:I'll try to change it too. If someone on wikipedia reverts an edit up to three times without founded reason, they can be blocked by a wikipedia moderator. So they won't be able to continue reverting forever...Well this is interesting information. I was wondering if there might be editing wars forever! :)On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Matthias Seidel <matthias.sei...@hamburg.dewrote:https://twitter.com/davidgerard Am 14.09.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Max Merbald:I changed it back. Who is this David Gerard person who obviously wants to damage OpenOffice? Am 14.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Donald Whytock:There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll beonethis week too...someone changed it to "moribund". On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes <motley.crue....@gmail.com> wrote: Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right,having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading. I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the4.1.2release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sittingaroundplanning to start a revert war over this. :-( Phil This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald <max.merb...@gmx.de> wrote: Hi Phil,what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it saysthatAOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in thecitations.Thepresence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info is in the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"they'llstart looking for different office software. Max Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes: I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don'tseeanysupportable rationale for removing anything that's there, althoughonecould question the motives of whoever made it a point to call outsomeconcerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of thearticle.Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will faceopposition.In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled"Should ISwitch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-officeI don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that'sspreading through the press, about AOO beingdead/dormant/whatever, orhowLO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to seethis kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-( Phil This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lui...@gmail.com>wrote: Hi Max,On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <max.merb...@gmx.de> wrote:Hi there, the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't seewheretheyhave the information from. The sources they use don't say so. Ithinkit's definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is doneaboutit.The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published itsversion 5.0 and is getting ahead of us. thanks for the alert. Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can changetheentryto reflect the facts.So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not arduous. Louis Max---------------------------------------------------------------------To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org---------------------------------------------------------------------To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.orgFor additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org---------------------------------------------------------------------To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org-- -------------------------------------------- MzK “The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” --Lao Tzu --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
