Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-17 Thread Rob Weir
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:25 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:27:53 GMT, Rob Weir  wrote:
>
>> Last word, in case the inference is unclear.   We're dealing with a
>> sophisticated serial infringer on Wikipedia.  Correcting erroneous
>> information, which is proper to do, is unlikely to be achieved via an
>> edit war.  Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.   Any progress would
>> only be made by showing Mr. Gerard's own conflict  and his bad will
>> (not hard to do),  and escalating it within the the formal Wikipedia
>> appeals process, patiently dealing with the ministerial types to whom
>> bureaucratic process is dear.  Since Dennis does not want to discuss
>> this on the list, feel free to contact me offline if anyone wishes to
>> discuss this further.
>
>
> When you're putting together a plan for marketing efforts concerning a
> Wikipedia article, it may help if you don't leave prima facie evidence
> of your coordinated effort on a public mailing list.
>
> Editing with a conflict of interest is not specifically disallowed by
> Wikipedia policies, but ideally it should be avoided. Note example on
> the talk page, where a list participant properly noted his involvement
> when this was brought to his attention.
>
> Relevant guideline: 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest
>
> You should note also that a "conflict of interest" does not mean a
> differing opinion, and also that improperly founded accusations of COI
> are held to constitute personal attacks and should ideally be avoided.
>
> There are those (e.g. Jimmy Wales) who believe public relations
> efforts on Wikipedia should work to the "bright line" standard, where
> you don't go near the article at all, and certainly don't try to
> coordinate an off-site attack on a Wikipedia contributor because you
> believe they are not helping your marketing. This is something the
> project, and the Foundation in general, should probably consider.
>


You are not reading very well today, David.  I'm not talking about, "a
plan for marketing efforts concerning a Wikipedia article."   I'm
talking about an effort to bring together evidence of your conflict of
interest as well as your tendentious editing (much of which I have
already collected over the past few years) and use that to lodge an
appeal, via official and public channels, to get a topic ban imposed
on you on Wikipedia articles relevant to this infringement.

Cheers.

-Rob

> Cheers!
>
>
> - d.
>
> -
> 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



Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-17 Thread Phillip Rhodes
All of the above said, maybe we should drop this whole discussion, and let
David have his way, and focus on getting a 4.1.2 release out the door. That
should settle the issue, and shipping code is more important than Wikipedia
anyway, right?

So, what can I do to help with 4.1.2?


Phil


This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Phillip Rhodes 
wrote:

> David, this has nothing to do with marketing, and I honestly feel like you
> are the one acting in bad faith here.  This is about Wikipedia being
> accurate, and the simple truth is, on a question like "what's the status of
> AOO" none of your "sources" are more accurate than a primary source like
> the internal project timeline / roadmap that I cited.
>
> If you have a grudge against AOO for some reason that's fine, I don't give
> a flying fuck and I doubt anybody else does either.  But Wikipedia is not
> the place for you to further some personal vendetta.
>
>
> Phil
>
>
> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:25 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:27:53 GMT, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>
>> > Last word, in case the inference is unclear.   We're dealing with a
>> > sophisticated serial infringer on Wikipedia.  Correcting erroneous
>> > information, which is proper to do, is unlikely to be achieved via an
>> > edit war.  Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.   Any progress would
>> > only be made by showing Mr. Gerard's own conflict  and his bad will
>> > (not hard to do),  and escalating it within the the formal Wikipedia
>> > appeals process, patiently dealing with the ministerial types to whom
>> > bureaucratic process is dear.  Since Dennis does not want to discuss
>> > this on the list, feel free to contact me offline if anyone wishes to
>> > discuss this further.
>>
>>
>> When you're putting together a plan for marketing efforts concerning a
>> Wikipedia article, it may help if you don't leave prima facie evidence
>> of your coordinated effort on a public mailing list.
>>
>> Editing with a conflict of interest is not specifically disallowed by
>> Wikipedia policies, but ideally it should be avoided. Note example on
>> the talk page, where a list participant properly noted his involvement
>> when this was brought to his attention.
>>
>> Relevant guideline:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest
>>
>> You should note also that a "conflict of interest" does not mean a
>> differing opinion, and also that improperly founded accusations of COI
>> are held to constitute personal attacks and should ideally be avoided.
>>
>> There are those (e.g. Jimmy Wales) who believe public relations
>> efforts on Wikipedia should work to the "bright line" standard, where
>> you don't go near the article at all, and certainly don't try to
>> coordinate an off-site attack on a Wikipedia contributor because you
>> believe they are not helping your marketing. This is something the
>> project, and the Foundation in general, should probably consider.
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>


Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-17 Thread Phillip Rhodes
David, this has nothing to do with marketing, and I honestly feel like you
are the one acting in bad faith here.  This is about Wikipedia being
accurate, and the simple truth is, on a question like "what's the status of
AOO" none of your "sources" are more accurate than a primary source like
the internal project timeline / roadmap that I cited.

If you have a grudge against AOO for some reason that's fine, I don't give
a flying fuck and I doubt anybody else does either.  But Wikipedia is not
the place for you to further some personal vendetta.


Phil


This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:25 AM, David Gerard  wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:27:53 GMT, Rob Weir  wrote:
>
> > Last word, in case the inference is unclear.   We're dealing with a
> > sophisticated serial infringer on Wikipedia.  Correcting erroneous
> > information, which is proper to do, is unlikely to be achieved via an
> > edit war.  Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.   Any progress would
> > only be made by showing Mr. Gerard's own conflict  and his bad will
> > (not hard to do),  and escalating it within the the formal Wikipedia
> > appeals process, patiently dealing with the ministerial types to whom
> > bureaucratic process is dear.  Since Dennis does not want to discuss
> > this on the list, feel free to contact me offline if anyone wishes to
> > discuss this further.
>
>
> When you're putting together a plan for marketing efforts concerning a
> Wikipedia article, it may help if you don't leave prima facie evidence
> of your coordinated effort on a public mailing list.
>
> Editing with a conflict of interest is not specifically disallowed by
> Wikipedia policies, but ideally it should be avoided. Note example on
> the talk page, where a list participant properly noted his involvement
> when this was brought to his attention.
>
> Relevant guideline:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest
>
> You should note also that a "conflict of interest" does not mean a
> differing opinion, and also that improperly founded accusations of COI
> are held to constitute personal attacks and should ideally be avoided.
>
> There are those (e.g. Jimmy Wales) who believe public relations
> efforts on Wikipedia should work to the "bright line" standard, where
> you don't go near the article at all, and certainly don't try to
> coordinate an off-site attack on a Wikipedia contributor because you
> believe they are not helping your marketing. This is something the
> project, and the Foundation in general, should probably consider.
>
> Cheers!
>
>
> - d.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-17 Thread David Gerard
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:27:53 GMT, Rob Weir  wrote:

> Last word, in case the inference is unclear.   We're dealing with a
> sophisticated serial infringer on Wikipedia.  Correcting erroneous
> information, which is proper to do, is unlikely to be achieved via an
> edit war.  Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.   Any progress would
> only be made by showing Mr. Gerard's own conflict  and his bad will
> (not hard to do),  and escalating it within the the formal Wikipedia
> appeals process, patiently dealing with the ministerial types to whom
> bureaucratic process is dear.  Since Dennis does not want to discuss
> this on the list, feel free to contact me offline if anyone wishes to
> discuss this further.


When you're putting together a plan for marketing efforts concerning a
Wikipedia article, it may help if you don't leave prima facie evidence
of your coordinated effort on a public mailing list.

Editing with a conflict of interest is not specifically disallowed by
Wikipedia policies, but ideally it should be avoided. Note example on
the talk page, where a list participant properly noted his involvement
when this was brought to his attention.

Relevant guideline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

You should note also that a "conflict of interest" does not mean a
differing opinion, and also that improperly founded accusations of COI
are held to constitute personal attacks and should ideally be avoided.

There are those (e.g. Jimmy Wales) who believe public relations
efforts on Wikipedia should work to the "bright line" standard, where
you don't go near the article at all, and certainly don't try to
coordinate an off-site attack on a Wikipedia contributor because you
believe they are not helping your marketing. This is something the
project, and the Foundation in general, should probably consider.

Cheers!


- d.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-17 Thread toki


On 17/09/15 15:30, Phillip Rhodes wrote:

> This is about Wikipedia being accurate, and the simple truth is, 


Wikipedia is not about accuracy, nor is it about truth. What it is
about, is whether or not the delusions and hallucinations of the editors
can be supported by an appeal to an external authority.

jonathon

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-17 Thread Andrea Pescetti

Phillip Rhodes wrote:

All of the above said, maybe we should drop this whole discussion


Well, it remains the fact that "OpenOffice moribund" is false.

The primary sources cited in the article (all of which are clearly 
misinterpreted) are:
- A message from Juergen saying that he won't be Release Manager for 
4.1.2; release managers are appointed per-release, so this is not 
relevant to the health of the project (actually Juergen's mail is very 
well-written, and very hard to misinterpret if one read carefully)
- A message from Kay saying that we had not found a new volunteer for 
Release Manager yet; this is obsolete as we have now had a Release 
Manager (me) for several weeks, but no account is given of this.
- My January 2015 report to Board. I'm sure I never wrote that 
OpenOffice is moribund or anything similar. I announced my resignation 
in that report, but I resigned as I had been 2 years in the role, just 
like Dennis plans to stay one year and then resign.



shipping code is more important than Wikipedia anyway, right?


Yes, but it is also important that users and potential users are not 
scared away.



So, what can I do to help with 4.1.2?


I like your approach! Are you looking for coder or non-coder tasks? I 
suggest that you seek inspiration at 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.2 but if 
you need more details just open a "What can I do to help with 4.1.2?" 
discussion and I'll be happy to give more details.


In the meantime I could go to Wikipedia, write that Johnny Depp is 
moribund and provide as source a blog post by a fan who complains that 
she hasn't seen Johnny as handsome as usual in his last public 
appearance... but I'll spend my time on more productive activities 
instead. I understand Dennis' point that discussing actions of one 
individual on Wikipedia is off-topic on this list, but still I wanted to 
provide some feedback on how messages sent to this list are misused.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-16 Thread John D'Orazio
By golly you are right, I didn't notice that mr. David Gerard has really
turned this into a personal crusade of his.

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:35 AM, Larry Gusaas 
wrote:

> On 2015-09-15, 5:17 PM John D'Orazio wrote:
>
>> Well actually the case of the wikipedia article is different, because the
>> adjective that is used for the project whether "dormant" or "moribund" is
>> not in fact actually being referred to the Apache project  but to the
>> pre-Apache project.
>>
>
> No. It is Apache OpenOffice that is being called "moribund".
> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice
>
> The Apache project is indicated as being a derivative
>> project, and has been given a separate page as such. T
>>
>
> No. The Apache OpenOffice page states:
> "Apache OpenOffice (AOO) is an open-source office productivity software
> suite. It is a successor project of OpenOffice.org "
>
> he issue there is
>> that one or two users (who happen to also be moderators) are very set on
>> considering the Apache project a different project, and not the
>> "successor"
>> of the Oracle project. So it's actually the Oracle project that is being
>> called dormant.
>>
>
> Wrong. Check the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice
>
> --
> _
>
> Larry I. Gusaas
> Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
> Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
> "An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind
> theirs." - Edgard Varese
>
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


RE: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-16 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
Time, gentlemen, time.

We're far across the ad hominem boundary and it is time to let this thread go 
night-night.

Whatever is thought of about what happens on Wikipedia, it is not ASF and AOO 
business.  We have our own business to attend to.  If folks want to keep 
fussing about it, there are many better places to do that than here on dev@.

 - Dennis

[ ... ]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-16 Thread Louis Suárez-Potts

> On 16 Sep 15, at 13:56, Rob Weir  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:52 PM, John D'Orazio
>  wrote:
>> 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?
>> 
> 
> Is this the same David Gerard discussed here?
> 
> https://encyclopediadramatica.se/David_Gerard
> 

Oh, I hope so!

Louis



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-16 Thread Louis Suárez-Potts

> On 16 Sep 15, at 15:38, Dennis E. Hamilton  wrote:
> 
> Time, gentlemen, time.
> 
> We're far across the ad hominem boundary and it is time to let this thread go 
> night-night.
> 
> Whatever is thought of about what happens on Wikipedia, it is not ASF and AOO 
> business.  We have our own business to attend to.  If folks want to keep 
> fussing about it, there are many better places to do that than here on dev@.
> 
> - Dennis
> 
> [ … ]


?? I don’t think this is a) a gentleman kind of thing, if only for gender 
reasons; b) I think I rather like Mr G. and hardly deem this to be an ad 
hominem event. If others are like me, once you read over Mr G’s bio, a *lot* 
gets forgiven. He’s a card, a character, a source of necessary comic inversion. 
No one is flaming anyone here and we are actually kind of having fun.

Louis

> 
> 
> -
> 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



Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-16 Thread Max Merbald

According to the links on that page it's him.



Am 16.09.2015 um 19:58 schrieb Louis Suárez-Potts:

On 16 Sep 15, at 13:56, Rob Weir  wrote:

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:52 PM, John D'Orazio
 wrote:

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?


Is this the same David Gerard discussed here?

https://encyclopediadramatica.se/David_Gerard


Oh, I hope so!

Louis



-
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



Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-16 Thread Rob Weir
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:52 PM, John D'Orazio
 wrote:
> 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?
>

Is this the same David Gerard discussed here?

https://encyclopediadramatica.se/David_Gerard



> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Kay Schenk  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.de
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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 be
>> one
>>  this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
>> 
>>  On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes
>>  
>>  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 the
>> 4.1.2
>> > release schedule that Andrea just provided.  I just hope there aren't
>> > certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting
>> around
>> > planning 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 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Phil,
>> >>
>> >> what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says
>> that
>> >> AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the
>> citations.
>> >>
>> > The
>> >
>> >> presence 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'll
>> >
>> >> start 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't
>> see
>> >>>
>> >> any
>> >
>> >> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although
>> one
>> >>> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out
>> some
>> >>> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the
>> article.
>> >>> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face
>> opposition.
>> >>>
>> >>> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
>> >>>
>> >> "Should I
>> >
>> >> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
>> >
>> > I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
>> >>> spreading through the press, about AOO being
>> dead/dormant/whatever, or
>> 

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-16 Thread Louis Suárez-Potts

> On 16 Sep 15, at 14:31, Max Merbald  wrote:
> 
> According to the links on that page it's him.

Fantastic.

One hopes he’s reading this. 

Louis

PS in case others didn’t bother to follow up on Rob’s link, the title 
(self-appointed, I assume) held by Mr Gerard is enough to earn his keep, I’m 
sure.
> 
> 
> 
> Am 16.09.2015 um 19:58 schrieb Louis Suárez-Potts:
>>> On 16 Sep 15, at 13:56, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:52 PM, John D'Orazio
>>>  wrote:
 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?
 
>>> Is this the same David Gerard discussed here?
>>> 
>>> https://encyclopediadramatica.se/David_Gerard
>>> 
>> Oh, I hope so!
>> 
>> Louis
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> 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
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-16 Thread Rob Weir
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton  wrote:
> Time, gentlemen, time.
>
> We're far across the ad hominem boundary and it is time to let this thread go 
> night-night.
>
> Whatever is thought of about what happens on Wikipedia, it is not ASF and AOO 
> business.  We have our own business to attend to.  If folks want to keep 
> fussing about it, there are many better places to do that than here on dev@.
>

Ad hominem?  Excuse me?   The web page has a record of Wikipedia
abuses attributed to Mr. Gerard and cites several cases where he was
sanction for it.   One can talk about his actions without slurring his
person, especially when such acts are directly relevant to the topic
of this thread.

-Rob

>  - Dennis
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
> -
> 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



Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-16 Thread Louis Suárez-Potts

> On 16 Sep 15, at 17:27, Rob Weir  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton  
>> wrote:
>>> Time, gentlemen, time.
>>> 
>>> We're far across the ad hominem boundary and it is time to let this thread 
>>> go night-night.
>>> 
>>> Whatever is thought of about what happens on Wikipedia, it is not ASF and 
>>> AOO business.  We have our own business to attend to.  If folks want to 
>>> keep fussing about it, there are many better places to do that than here on 
>>> dev@.
>>> 
>> 
>> Ad hominem?  Excuse me?   The web page has a record of Wikipedia
>> abuses attributed to Mr. Gerard and cites several cases where he was
>> sanction for it.   One can talk about his actions without slurring his
>> person, especially when such acts are directly relevant to the topic
>> of this thread.
>> 
> 
> Last word, in case the inference is unclear.   We're dealing with a
> sophisticated serial infringer on Wikipedia.  Correcting erroneous
> information, which is proper to do, is unlikely to be achieved via an
> edit war.  Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.   Any progress would
> only be made by showing Mr. Gerard's own conflict  and his bad will
> (not hard to do),  and escalating it within the the formal Wikipedia
> appeals process, patiently dealing with the ministerial types to whom
> bureaucratic process is dear.  Since Dennis does not want to discuss
> this on the list, feel free to contact me offline if anyone wishes to
> discuss this further.
> 
> -Rob
> 

But Dennis does not control the lists, just as King Canute did not control the 
waves. :-/

Rob, your points are good; I was being too facetious, stunned by the attitude 
of Mr Gerard. Clearly, unless we are reading him wrongly, he would seem more 
likely to stick to his position, regardless of reason and logic, than accept 
the ignominy of somebody else being right.

louis
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-16 Thread Rob Weir
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton  wrote:
>> Time, gentlemen, time.
>>
>> We're far across the ad hominem boundary and it is time to let this thread 
>> go night-night.
>>
>> Whatever is thought of about what happens on Wikipedia, it is not ASF and 
>> AOO business.  We have our own business to attend to.  If folks want to keep 
>> fussing about it, there are many better places to do that than here on dev@.
>>
>
> Ad hominem?  Excuse me?   The web page has a record of Wikipedia
> abuses attributed to Mr. Gerard and cites several cases where he was
> sanction for it.   One can talk about his actions without slurring his
> person, especially when such acts are directly relevant to the topic
> of this thread.
>

Last word, in case the inference is unclear.   We're dealing with a
sophisticated serial infringer on Wikipedia.  Correcting erroneous
information, which is proper to do, is unlikely to be achieved via an
edit war.  Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.   Any progress would
only be made by showing Mr. Gerard's own conflict  and his bad will
(not hard to do),  and escalating it within the the formal Wikipedia
appeals process, patiently dealing with the ministerial types to whom
bureaucratic process is dear.  Since Dennis does not want to discuss
this on the list, feel free to contact me offline if anyone wishes to
discuss this further.

-Rob

> -Rob
>
>>  - Dennis
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>
>> -
>> 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



Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-16 Thread Kay Schenk


On 09/16/2015 02:32 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
> 
>> On 16 Sep 15, at 17:27, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>>>  wrote:
 Time, gentlemen, time.
 
 We're far across the ad hominem boundary and it is time to let
 this thread go night-night.
 
 Whatever is thought of about what happens on Wikipedia, it is
 not ASF and AOO business.  We have our own business to attend
 to.  If folks want to keep fussing about it, there are many
 better places to do that than here on dev@.
 
>>> 
>>> Ad hominem?  Excuse me?   The web page has a record of Wikipedia 
>>> abuses attributed to Mr. Gerard and cites several cases where he
>>> was sanction for it.   One can talk about his actions without
>>> slurring his person, especially when such acts are directly
>>> relevant to the topic of this thread.
>>> 
>> 
>> Last word, in case the inference is unclear.   We're dealing with
>> a sophisticated serial infringer on Wikipedia.  Correcting
>> erroneous information, which is proper to do, is unlikely to be
>> achieved via an edit war.  Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.   Any
>> progress would only be made by showing Mr. Gerard's own conflict
>> and his bad will (not hard to do),  and escalating it within the
>> the formal Wikipedia appeals process, patiently dealing with the
>> ministerial types to whom bureaucratic process is dear.  Since
>> Dennis does not want to discuss this on the list, feel free to
>> contact me offline if anyone wishes to discuss this further.
>> 
>> -Rob

I love "serial infringer". :)

>> 
> 
> But Dennis does not control the lists, just as King Canute did not
> control the waves. :-/
> 
> Rob, your points are good; I was being too facetious, stunned by the
> attitude of Mr Gerard. Clearly, unless we are reading him wrongly, he
> would seem more likely to stick to his position, regardless of reason
> and logic, than accept the ignominy of somebody else being right.
> 
> louis 
> -
>
> 
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



Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-15 Thread John D'Orazio
Well actually the case of the wikipedia article is different, because the
adjective that is used for the project whether "dormant" or "moribund" is
not in fact actually being referred to the Apache project  but to the
pre-Apache project. The Apache project is indicated as being a derivative
project, and has been given a separate page as such. The issue there is
that one or two users (who happen to also be moderators) are very set on
considering the Apache project a different project, and not the "successor"
of the Oracle project. So it's actually the Oracle project that is being
called dormant. I do believe that it is a bit confusing for any normal user
that goes to read wikipedia, a lot of simple users don't even realize the
history behind this (I myself didn't until just recently, as I've been
reading up on the evolution of the project). But it's fairly useless trying
to clear it up any, as there are a couple users who are very intent on
keeping everything as is, any changes will spark debate (as has already
happened). It's probably not worth it...

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Phillip Rhodes 
wrote:

> Fair enough.   That is the dictionary definition.  I was thinking of how
> it's used colloquially, which seems
> to be more like a synonym for "stagnant."   I'd be OK with either
> "stagnant" or "stalled", if the change
> can be made without someone immediately reverting it.   I probably won't do
> it myself since I quickly tire
> of dicking around with wikipedia edit wars, but I fully support anybody who
> does.
>
>
> Phil
>
>
> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Donald Whytock 
> wrote:
>
> > "Moribund" means "dying".  It's a goofy word, yes, which means it's an
> > attention-getting word, which means people will look at it and say, "What
> > the hell does THAT mean?" and focus on why someone would call AOO that.
> >
> > Is "dying" more accurate than "dormant" to describe AOO?  "Dying"
> suggests
> > the project is in decline and will only continue to decline.  Does anyone
> > here think "dying" is more accurate than, say, "Stalled"?
> >
> > Don
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Phillip Rhodes <
> motley.crue@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "Moribund" is a goofy word that almost nobody uses in conversation, but
> > > it's probably more accurate than "dormant".   I've spent enough time
> > > goofing around on Wikipedia lately, so, for myself, I'm quite happy to
> > > leave it as is, until the 4.1.2 release comes out.  At that point, I
> > think
> > > it's clear that it should then be made "Active".
> > >
> > > *shrug*
> > >
> > >
> > > Phil
> > >
> > > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Donald Whytock 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > There was a minor skirmish last week over it.  Looks like there'll be
> > one
> > > > this 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 the
> > 4.1.2
> > > > > release schedule that Andrea just provided.  I just hope there
> aren't
> > > > > certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting
> > > around
> > > > > planning 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 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Phil,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it
> says
> > > that
> > > > > > AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the
> > > citations.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > presence 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'll
> > > > > > start 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't
> > > see
> > > > > any
> > > > > >> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there,
> although
> > > one
> > > > > >> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call
> out
> > > some
> > > > > >> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the
> > > article.
> > > > > >> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify 

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-15 Thread Larry Gusaas

On 2015-09-15, 5:17 PM John D'Orazio wrote:

Well actually the case of the wikipedia article is different, because the
adjective that is used for the project whether "dormant" or "moribund" is
not in fact actually being referred to the Apache project  but to the
pre-Apache project.


No. It is Apache OpenOffice that is being called "moribund".
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice


The Apache project is indicated as being a derivative
project, and has been given a separate page as such. T


No. The Apache OpenOffice page states:
"Apache OpenOffice (AOO) is an open-source office productivity software suite. It is a 
successor project of OpenOffice.org "



he issue there is
that one or two users (who happen to also be moderators) are very set on
considering the Apache project a different project, and not the "successor"
of the Oracle project. So it's actually the Oracle project that is being
called dormant.


Wrong. Check the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice

--
_

Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - 
Edgard Varese



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-15 Thread Marcus
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.


PS:
I've my own opinion about Wikipedia and it's data quality. Maybe you can 
guess in what direction is could go.


Marcus



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<
matthias.sei...@hamburg.de>  wrote:


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
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.de


wrote:




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 be



one



this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".


On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes

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 the


4.1.2



release schedule that Andrea just provided.  I just hope there aren't

certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting


around



planning 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
wrote:

Hi Phil,



what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says


that



AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the



citations.





The


presence 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'll


start 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't


see





any




supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although



one



could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out



some



concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the



article.



Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face



opposition.





In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled

"Should I




Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".











Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-15 Thread Phillip Rhodes
"Moribund" is a goofy word that almost nobody uses in conversation, but
it's probably more accurate than "dormant".   I've spent enough time
goofing around on Wikipedia lately, so, for myself, I'm quite happy to
leave it as is, until the 4.1.2 release comes out.  At that point, I think
it's clear that it should then be made "Active".

*shrug*


Phil

This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Donald Whytock 
wrote:

> There was a minor skirmish last week over it.  Looks like there'll be one
> this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes  >
> 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 the 4.1.2
> > release schedule that Andrea just provided.  I just hope there aren't
> > certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting around
> > planning 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 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Phil,
> > >
> > > what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that
> > > AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations.
> > The
> > > presence 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'll
> > > start 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't see
> > any
> > >> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one
> > >> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some
> > >> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article.
> > >> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition.
> > >>
> > >> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
> > "Should I
> > >> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
> > >>
> > >> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
> > >> spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or
> > how
> > >> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see
> this
> > >> 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 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi Max,
> > >>>
> > >>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald  wrote:
> > 
> >  Hi there,
> > 
> >  the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where
> > they
> > 
> > >>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think
> > >>> it's
> > >>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about
> > it.
> > >>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version
> 5.0
> > >>> and
> > >>> is getting ahead of us.
> > >>>
> > >>> thanks for the alert.
> > >>>
> > >>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the
> > entry
> > >>> to 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.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
> > >
> > >
> >
>


Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-15 Thread Donald Whytock
"Moribund" means "dying".  It's a goofy word, yes, which means it's an
attention-getting word, which means people will look at it and say, "What
the hell does THAT mean?" and focus on why someone would call AOO that.

Is "dying" more accurate than "dormant" to describe AOO?  "Dying" suggests
the project is in decline and will only continue to decline.  Does anyone
here think "dying" is more accurate than, say, "Stalled"?

Don

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Phillip Rhodes 
wrote:

> "Moribund" is a goofy word that almost nobody uses in conversation, but
> it's probably more accurate than "dormant".   I've spent enough time
> goofing around on Wikipedia lately, so, for myself, I'm quite happy to
> leave it as is, until the 4.1.2 release comes out.  At that point, I think
> it's clear that it should then be made "Active".
>
> *shrug*
>
>
> Phil
>
> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Donald Whytock 
> wrote:
>
> > There was a minor skirmish last week over it.  Looks like there'll be one
> > this 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 the 4.1.2
> > > release schedule that Andrea just provided.  I just hope there aren't
> > > certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting
> around
> > > planning 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 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Phil,
> > > >
> > > > what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says
> that
> > > > AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the
> citations.
> > > The
> > > > presence 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'll
> > > > start 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't
> see
> > > any
> > > >> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although
> one
> > > >> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out
> some
> > > >> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the
> article.
> > > >> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face
> opposition.
> > > >>
> > > >> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
> > > "Should I
> > > >> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
> > > >>
> > > >> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative
> that's
> > > >> spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever,
> or
> > > how
> > > >> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see
> > this
> > > >> 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  wrote:
> > > 
> > >  Hi there,
> > > 
> > >  the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where
> > > they
> > > 
> > > >>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I
> think
> > > >>> it's
> > > >>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done
> about
> > > it.
> > > >>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version
> > 5.0
> > > >>> and
> > > >>> is getting ahead of us.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> thanks for the alert.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the
> > > entry
> > > >>> to 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
> > > 
> > > 
> > 

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-15 Thread Phillip Rhodes
Fair enough.   That is the dictionary definition.  I was thinking of how
it's used colloquially, which seems
to be more like a synonym for "stagnant."   I'd be OK with either
"stagnant" or "stalled", if the change
can be made without someone immediately reverting it.   I probably won't do
it myself since I quickly tire
of dicking around with wikipedia edit wars, but I fully support anybody who
does.


Phil


This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Donald Whytock  wrote:

> "Moribund" means "dying".  It's a goofy word, yes, which means it's an
> attention-getting word, which means people will look at it and say, "What
> the hell does THAT mean?" and focus on why someone would call AOO that.
>
> Is "dying" more accurate than "dormant" to describe AOO?  "Dying" suggests
> the project is in decline and will only continue to decline.  Does anyone
> here think "dying" is more accurate than, say, "Stalled"?
>
> Don
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Phillip Rhodes  >
> wrote:
>
> > "Moribund" is a goofy word that almost nobody uses in conversation, but
> > it's probably more accurate than "dormant".   I've spent enough time
> > goofing around on Wikipedia lately, so, for myself, I'm quite happy to
> > leave it as is, until the 4.1.2 release comes out.  At that point, I
> think
> > it's clear that it should then be made "Active".
> >
> > *shrug*
> >
> >
> > Phil
> >
> > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Donald Whytock 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > There was a minor skirmish last week over it.  Looks like there'll be
> one
> > > this 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 the
> 4.1.2
> > > > release schedule that Andrea just provided.  I just hope there aren't
> > > > certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting
> > around
> > > > planning 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 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Phil,
> > > > >
> > > > > what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says
> > that
> > > > > AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the
> > citations.
> > > > The
> > > > > presence 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'll
> > > > > start 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't
> > see
> > > > any
> > > > >> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although
> > one
> > > > >> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out
> > some
> > > > >> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the
> > article.
> > > > >> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face
> > opposition.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
> > > > "Should I
> > > > >> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative
> > that's
> > > > >> spreading through the press, about AOO being
> dead/dormant/whatever,
> > or
> > > > how
> > > > >> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see
> > > this
> > > > >> 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  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >  Hi there,
> > > > 
> > > >  the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see
> where
> > > > they
> > > > 
> > > > >>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I
> > think
> > > > >>> it's
> > > > >>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is 

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-14 Thread Donald Whytock
There was a minor skirmish last week over it.  Looks like there'll be one
this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes 
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 the 4.1.2
> release schedule that Andrea just provided.  I just hope there aren't
> certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting around
> planning 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  wrote:
>
> > Hi Phil,
> >
> > what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that
> > AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations.
> The
> > presence 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'll
> > start 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't see
> any
> >> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one
> >> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some
> >> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article.
> >> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition.
> >>
> >> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
> "Should I
> >> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
> >>
> >>
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
> >>
> >> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
> >> spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or
> how
> >> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see this
> >> 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 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Max,
> >>>
> >>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald  wrote:
> 
>  Hi there,
> 
>  the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where
> they
> 
> >>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think
> >>> it's
> >>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about
> it.
> >>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0
> >>> and
> >>> is getting ahead of us.
> >>>
> >>> thanks for the alert.
> >>>
> >>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the
> entry
> >>> to 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.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
> >
> >
>


Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-14 Thread 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 one
this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes 
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 the 4.1.2
release schedule that Andrea just provided.  I just hope there aren't
certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting around
planning 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  wrote:


Hi Phil,

what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that
AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations.

The

presence 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'll

start 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't see

any

supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one
could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some
concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article.
Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition.

In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled

"Should I

Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".



http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office

I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or

how

LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see this
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 
wrote:

Hi Max,

On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald  wrote:

Hi there,

the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where

they

have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think
it's
definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about

it.

The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0
and
is getting ahead of us.

thanks for the alert.

Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the

entry

to 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.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





-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-14 Thread 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  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.de
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> 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 be
> one
>  this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
> 
>  On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes
>  
>  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 the
> 4.1.2
> > release schedule that Andrea just provided.  I just hope there aren't
> > certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting
> around
> > planning 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 
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi Phil,
> >>
> >> what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says
> that
> >> AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the
> citations.
> >>
> > The
> >
> >> presence 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'll
> >
> >> start 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't
> see
> >>>
> >> any
> >
> >> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although
> one
> >>> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out
> some
> >>> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the
> article.
> >>> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face
> opposition.
> >>>
> >>> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
> >>>
> >> "Should I
> >
> >> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
> >
> > I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
> >>> spreading through the press, about AOO being
> dead/dormant/whatever, or
> >>>
> >> how
> >
> >> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see
> >>> this
> >>> 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, 

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-14 Thread Rory O'Farrell
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 23:20:18 +0200
Matthias Seidel  wrote:

> 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."

For those who don't know, "COI" means "Conflict of Interest".

COIs cut both ways; Mr G should be invited to quote chapter and verse (fact, 
not opinion) for his alteration.  

If there is dispute on the matter it should be referred higher on Wikipedia; 
he, as moderator on Wikipedia, should not arbitrate on any entry in which he is 
personally involved.  The legal maxim is "Nemo judex in sua causa" (No man 
should judge in his own case) and the UK legal precedent is that of Coke in Dr 
Bonham's case.

Rory O'Farrell

> 
> 
> 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  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.de
>  wrote:
> >>>
>  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 be
> >> one
> >> this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes
> >> 
> >> 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 the
> >> 4.1.2
> >>> release schedule that Andrea just provided.  I just hope there aren't
> >>> certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting
> >> around
> >>> planning 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 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Phil,
> 
>  what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says
> >> that
>  AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the
> >> citations.
> 
> >>> The
> >>>
>  presence 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'll
> >>>
>  start 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't
> >> see
> >
>  any
> >>>
>  supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although
> >> 

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-14 Thread 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 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  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.de

wrote:



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 be

one

this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes

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 the

4.1.2

release schedule that Andrea just provided.  I just hope there aren't
certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting

around

planning 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 
wrote:

Hi Phil,


what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says

that

AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the

citations.



The


presence 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'll


start 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't

see



any



supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although

one

could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out

some

concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the

article.

Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face

opposition.


In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled


"Should I



Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".







http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office


I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's

spreading through the press, about AOO being

dead/dormant/whatever, or



how



LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see

this
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  wrote:


Hi there,

the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see

where



they



have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I

think

it's
definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done

about



it.



The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its

version 5.0
and
is getting ahead of us.

thanks for the alert.

Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of 

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-14 Thread John D'Orazio
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...

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Matthias Seidel  wrote:

> 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 be one
>>> this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes
>>> 
>>> 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 the 4.1.2
 release schedule that Andrea just provided.  I just hope there aren't
 certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting around
 planning 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 
 wrote:

 Hi Phil,
>
> what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that
> AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations.
>
 The

> presence 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'll

> start 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't see
>>
> any

> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one
>> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some
>> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article.
>> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition.
>>
>> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
>>
> "Should I

> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
>>
>>
>>
 http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office

 I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
>> spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or
>>
> how

> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see
>> this
>> 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 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Max,
>>
>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald  wrote:
>>>
 Hi there,

 the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where

>>> they

> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think
>>> it's
>>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about
>>>
>> it.

> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its
>>> version 5.0
>>> and
>>> is getting ahead of us.
>>>
>>> thanks for the alert.
>>>
>>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the
>>>
>> entry

> to 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.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
>
>
>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-14 Thread Matthias Seidel

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 be one
this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes

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 the 4.1.2
release schedule that Andrea just provided.  I just hope there aren't
certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting around
planning 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 
wrote:


Hi Phil,

what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that
AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations.

The

presence 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'll

start 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't see

any

supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one
could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some
concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article.
Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition.

In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled

"Should I

Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".



http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office


I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or

how

LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see
this
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 
wrote:

Hi Max,

On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald  wrote:

Hi there,

the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where

they

have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think
it's
definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about

it.

The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its
version 5.0
and
is getting ahead of us.

thanks for the alert.

Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the

entry

to 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.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





-
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


Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-11 Thread Andrea Pescetti

On 10/09/2015 Max Merbald wrote:

If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"


OpenOffice is not dormant, as of today. A link that can dispel the myth is

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.2

(and blog posts that will come, but this is enough for the time being).

Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-11 Thread 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 4.1.2
release schedule that Andrea just provided.  I just hope there aren't
certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting around
planning 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  wrote:

> Hi Phil,
>
> what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that
> AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations. The
> presence 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'll
> start 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't see any
>> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one
>> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some
>> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article.
>> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition.
>>
>> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled "Should I
>> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
>>
>> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
>>
>> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
>> spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or how
>> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see this
>> 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 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Max,
>>>
>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald  wrote:

 Hi there,

 the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where they

>>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think
>>> it's
>>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about it.
>>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0
>>> and
>>> is getting ahead of us.
>>>
>>> thanks for the alert.
>>>
>>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the entry
>>> to 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.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
>
>


Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-10 Thread Max Merbald

Hi Phil,

what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that 
AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations. 
The presence 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'll start 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't see any
supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one
could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some
concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article.
Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition.

In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled "Should I
Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office

I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or how
LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see this
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  wrote:


Hi Max,


On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald  wrote:

Hi there,

the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where they

have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think it's
definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about it.
The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0 and
is getting ahead of us.

thanks for the alert.

Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the entry
to 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.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



Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-04 Thread Wolf Halton
One solution is to write small but hopeful press releases of progress on the 
blog or otherwhere and have someone else update wikipedia. 

Wolf Halton
Atlanta Cloud Technology
Broadening Your Vision to Broaden Your Reach
678-687-6104
--
Sent from my iPhone. Creative word completion courtesy of Apple, Inc. 

> On Sep 3, 2015, at 5:12 PM, Phillip Rhodes  wrote:
> 
> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -
> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations.  IOW, I don't see any
> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one
> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some
> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article.
> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition.
> 
> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled "Should I
> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
> 
> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
> spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or how
> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see this
> 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  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Max,
>> 
>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi there,
>>> 
>>> the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where they
>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think it's
>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about it.
>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0 and
>> is getting ahead of us.
>> 
>> thanks for the alert.
>> 
>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the entry
>> to 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.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



Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-03 Thread 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 see any
supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one
could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some
concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article.
Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition.

In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled "Should I
Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office

I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or how
LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see this
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  wrote:

> Hi Max,
>
> > On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald  wrote:
> >
> > Hi there,
> >
> > the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where they
> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think it's
> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about it.
> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0 and
> is getting ahead of us.
>
> thanks for the alert.
>
> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the entry
> to 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.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-03 Thread Louis Suárez-Potts
Hi Max,

> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald  wrote:
> 
> Hi there,
> 
> the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where they have 
> the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think it's 
> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about it. The 
> problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0 and is 
> getting ahead of us.

thanks for the alert.

Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the entry to 
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.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org