Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
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
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
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
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: Release Notes page for version 4.1.2 creates
On 9/12/2015 12:51 AM, Marco A.G.Pinto wrote: > Hello Keith, > > On 12/09/2015 00:53, Keith N. McKenna wrote: >> The Release Notes page for version 4.1.2 has been created and the >> template text added to it. The page is located at >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.2+Release+Notes. >> Anyone with a white-listed Cwiki account can edit it. >> >> Regards >> Keith >> > > The following information is wrong: > *"Note: The extension contains multiple variants. Only the en-GB > dictionary has been updated."* > > en-US and en-CA have also been updated several times by Kevin Atkinson, > but the one with around 15'000 new words is the en-GB which I am > maintaining. > > > Kind regards from your friend, >>Marco A.G.Pinto > --- > > -- Marco; This is boilerplate text only and can be changed by anyone with a white-listed cwiki account. It is that way in the boilerplate text as the updates of the en-US and en-CA variants often lag behind the en-GB. As the 3 Variants have been updated with the latest extension release I will change that now. Regards Keith signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
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
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
help how to create a patch
I believe I have found what can be considered a bug, or at least not intended behaviour, in the way the OpenOffice API takes values from Java when setting certain text properties (in this case "CharBackColor") using the XPropertySet interface. I have been discussing this on a forum thread ( https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=79294&p=364347) and have opened an issue for it on the bugzilla tracker ( https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126531). I would be willing to look into it and work on a patch for this, if anyone can point me in the right direction of where exactly to look in the Open Office source code... I have been skimming over it in the svn repo ( https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/), but for a newcomer it's hard to know where to look (I'm guessing it might have to do with the XPropertySet interface, or wherever the Text Properties supported by the interface are defined). If anyone can point me in the right direction I can try to look into it... -- John R. D'Orazio
