Talk:OpenOffice

message: Hal, please explain why you call my changes vandalism.  If you feel strongly about it, you should put a vandalism warning on my Talk page.  If it's true, I will need to learn to behave myself.  Thanks.  —Fleminra 09:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You deliberatly change a wel known wikilink to Office Open XML to a non existing OpenXML (OXML) combination. That even whilst you are well aware of the correct article name as you have editted the Office Open XML article several times in the recent past. That means your edit is in bad faith as you are knowingly removing correctly working wikilinks with the correct naming and substituting them for non-working wiki links and alternative naming of an article. Such a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia constitutes Wikipedia:Vandalism hAl 10:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't change a link.  I rewrote the article, because the previous version (and now current version) made unreferenced claims.  In my version, I quoted text from a reference that you nominated.  According to that text, OXML is an acronym for Office Open XML.  I have no evidence to suggest otherwise.  I actually expected you to create a redirect at OXML to Office Open XML.  Or are you saying now that that reference is unreliable?  —Fleminra 17:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There were no unreferenced claims. The Office Open XML article, which reference you removed, supports what was there. But regardless of that. There was a wiki link that was well known to you namely Office open XML. There was no need to remove that wiki link and insert a broken link whatever your edit was. Even in your edit you could have used the correct wiki link. It was purely intentional as you know the correct article name and link and you changed the text to represent a reference to a non correct article name and broken wiki link.  Also the Office Open XML article does not contain an acronym OXML so now you ar making up things that are just not true. hAl 09:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hal, you're wasting my time by writing incomprehensible English (your first sentence is not parsable), and not reading what I write.  For starters, you would do everyone a favor if you started using Firefox — it has a built-in spell checker.  Otherwise please compose your thoughts in your beloved Microsoft Word and paste them into IE.  It detracts from your credibility.  Please re-read my comments and the "OXML" reference that you introduced, and explain your reckless accusation of me making things up.  Thanks.  —Fleminra 18:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You fail to explain why you deliberatly editted a wiki page to remove a valid wiki link to the Office Open XML article and replace it with a broken link and a changed naming. Also I do not understand what you mean by me introducing a reference to that zdnet article in the context of this disambiguity page. That reference never was on this page untill you yourself put it in. So you introduced it to this page, not me. hAl 21:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did I say that you introduced the link to this article?  You introduced it to Wikipedia (AFAIK) and to me — as an example of text that uses the phrase "open office" in the generic sense.  What better place to quote that text than Wikipedia's article called "open office"?  So that's what I did.  That article says "OXML" is an acronym for Office Open XML.  You haven't convinced me that it's not.  Is your zdnet article only selectively reliable as a reference?  Why don't you just go and create the OXML redirect?  Obviously you have a reference for it.  Besides all of this, since when is so-called "minor vandalism" justification for wholesale reversion of an entire edit?  That is, if the OXML/OOXML link (which you call vandalism or something I "made up"; and I call a fully referenced quotation) was your only problem with my edit, why did you revert the whole thing?  Spell checker, Hal — my eyes are bleeding.  —Fleminra 01:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Please do not make personal attacks, Fleminra. Thank you. —Joshua Issac (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: vandalism accusation

message: I've never seen LibreOffice referred to as OpenOffice.  Does anyone have a reliable source that suggests this?  If not then LibreOffice should not be suggested as a disambiguation term.   See Wikipedia:Disambiguation.  50.138.228.216 (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  LibreOffice is not referred to as OpenOffice 

message: We could utilize Template:Clade to illustrate the entire history: from StarOffice to OpenOffice to OpenOffice.org to Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice. E.g.
ScotXW (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clade 

message: Created with Wikipedia imagemap, this means you can click on it the items and will be forwarded to the according article. I hope this lifts the whole confusion. ScotXW (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not appropriate for the disambiguation page, but certainly for OpenOffice.org and StarOffice. Let's continue at Talk:OpenOffice.org ... - David Gerard (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:StarOffice derivates 

message: Anon from Bogota, Colombia has made three changes to the article recently all focused on what I would call "re-branding" information.  and  are the two most detailed examples. It seems that editor is primarily concerned with detailing licensing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogota, Colombia 

message: Two questions:
1. Should this dab page disambiguate (a) only articles that have titles that are ambiguous with the term OpenOffice; or (b) also articles that may be ambiguous with the topic of OpenOffice.org but are not called OpenOffice (e.g. LibreOffice, NeoOffice, etc.)?
2. If articles such as LibreOffice, NeoOffice etc. are included here, should we include them (a) in the See also section; or (b) in the main body of the dab page?
Example versions:
* NeoOffice, etc. in the See Also section
* NeoOffice, etc. in the main body
--Tóraí (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Read what I wrote again. Firstly, I didn't suggest people were calling LibreOffice open office, nor did I call your interpretation "the most literal", I called it a narrow reading of a misunderstanding, because nothing in any guideline or policy supports your position. On the otherhand, the MoS does support it being included for the reason I already gave. "Commonly associated" is a red herring, and trying to turn the DAB page only into things that contain the word given in the DAB title is turning it into a list article: "List of articles that contain the word OpenOffice", and that's not the purpose of a DAB page. - Aoidh (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The lede of MOS:DAB says otherwise. - Aoidh (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No more a stretch than to suggest that it should be removed, when no policy or guideline supports such a removal. Disambiguation pages are not articles; they are aids in searching. Hindering that aid just because an article doesn't contain the exact phrase used in the DAB page serves no useful purpose to a reader whatsoever. - Aoidh (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding extraneous entries to link to articles that aren't ambiguous with the title hinders the aid. If there's a useful purpose to such a list, a list article should be created. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As others have said, this DAB page is not so large that there is any information overload, and many other DAB pages are much, much larger, so that is not an issue. I would say the reverse, if there is a useful purpose for a List of articles with OpenOffice in the title, that should be created, because that's what you're suggesting we turn this DAB page into, and that's not the purpose of DAB pages. - Aoidh (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The other, larger dab pages have longer lists of things are actually ambiguous. Please don't make up silly suggestions and claim that that's my position (this is the red herring, not your position of "commonly associated"). I'm certainly not suggesting that we ignore WP:PTM and list things with OpenOffice in the title. The purpose of Wikipedia disambiguation pages is to disambiguate topics on Wikipedia that could have the same title -- that is, that are commonly referred to by the same name. They needn't have it somewhere in the title, but they do need to be referred to by the title, not simply be associated with it or forked from it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: How/if to include NeoOffice, LibreOffice, etc.

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:OpenOffice.org which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 20:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress