The best case we can make is a new release. So, even for this little
change it's good to make progress with 4.1.2.
I've my own opinion about Wikipedia and it's data quality. Maybe you can
guess in what direction is could go.
Am 09/15/2015 12:14 AM, schrieb John D'Orazio:
Yes I just received a message from him on my Wikipedia page, after he
reverted my edits twice. Looking at his own Wikipedia talk page and on the
OpenOffice talk page, more than one Wikipedia user has confronted him about
having COI as regards the OpenOffice project. He answers that he has no
issues or COI and that he is completely external. And guess what, he
participates in Wikipedia as a "resolver of COI". Sounds to me like someone
who becomes a police officer so as not to get arrested...
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Matthias Seidel<
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
I see Apache OpenOffice on the OpenOffice.org webpage), it just needs to
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
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Kay Schenk<kay.sch...@gmail.com>
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<
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 be
this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes
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 the
release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't
certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting
planning to start a revert war over this. :-(
This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald<max.merb...@gmx.de>
what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says
AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the
presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info
the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"
start looking for different office software.
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't
supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although
could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out
concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the
Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face
In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative
spreading through the press, about AOO being
LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see
kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-(
This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts<
On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald<max.merb...@gmx.de> wrote:
the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see
have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I
definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done
The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its
is getting ahead of us.
thanks for the alert.
Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change
to reflect the facts.
So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org