user name ,PW

Duh! I forgot my log-in user name and password on account of not logging in recently. (Unless, my user account has not been
updated for whatever version is now employed....)

So, I either need my memory refreshed as to the particulars for my account or a new account registered.

Gary

Hi :frowning:
Grrr, me too :(  I tried all the usual sorts of things and misspellings but couldn't figure my Alfresco password.

Sorry David.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Some advice (to whomever)...

Quit tweaking the damn system all the time, lest the project lose users in disgust. As if the project hasn't lost enough volunteers already...

Just set up the account system (and whatever...) intelligently; then step back and leave it run by itself alone (i.e., quit meddling), unless it really requires any further intervention.

Gary

Fixed you both up, check your mail... :wink:

It works and a new PW was installed.

BTW, a new client wants an OOo or LO template created from their older DOT version, starting this week or the next. So, I am now going over the LO /Writer Guid/e Chapter 10 in order to see if it differed in any respects with LO, or OTOH, it was merely a rebranding from the older OOo doc that I had a hand in rewriting and technical editing since 2006.

There are a fair amount (meaning a helluvalot...) of copyedit errors, BTW, in Chapter 10 of the LO /Writer Guide/, in addition to some substantive errors. I will post my corrected chapter ODT file on my forum site later tonight or tomorrow and anybody at LO who is concerned with improving its documentation can download the edited chapter file (and any other such files in the future) at any time.

Gary

Hi :slight_smile:

Thanks David :slight_smile:

Gary i think it is usually better to start a new thread.  I think it's mostly just re-branding work and screen-shots.  Some chapters got a lot more extra work done than others but chapter 10 probably wasn't one of those.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

It appears as if some newer, LO-specific material was added to LO Writer Chapter 10. However, there were dozens of manual overrides instead of using the appropriate character styles, an inaccurate chapter reference, and a couple of unresolved cross-references. In addition, a little line editing/rewriting was added.

The editing is about half done--only started on it a little while ago. And the local baseball team here is playing later today in the ALCS, plus my favorite team (in my hometown, Milwaukee) is also in the NLCS.

Gary

Hi :slight_smile:
Sounds like tomorrow might be a better day for you to really get things done.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Hi :slight_smile:
It is very much better for the changes and i have just worked out my old password and worked out why i couldn't remember it when i needed it earlier.

Anyway, all good now
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Actually, even "tomorrow" was not the day. Those postseason baseball games leading up to the World Series are still ongoing.

I did finish a somewhat quick single-pass edit of Chapter 10, though but did not upload it to my website yet. The nags on the administration control panel on the phpBB3 forum site kept urging me to update to the latest version over the past several days, so I did that software updating first yesterday.

Chapter 10 had over 150 edits made to it. I suspect that the original source file from OOo was responsible for most, if not all, of those errors--not the rebranding efforts. The only LO-caused problem that I can remember was related to its not being updated for version 3.4 yet--a screenshot had a version 3.3 name for a dialog-box title. (Somebody should fix that, though...)

Because the OOo source file for Chapter 10 contained so many errors due to, perhaps, careless lapses, mostly with improper character formatting and manual overrides, I reckon that all of the remaining OOo Writer Guide chapter files used in rebranding might have been similarly "contaminated."

I would prefer not having to perform all of those tedious copyediting repair jobs myself for those several other chapters, so maybe some volunteers might help out. No experience would be necessary, as I can readily instruct each and everybody in how to perform the copyediting and technical editing tasks that are necessary.

The edited chapter 10 (edit-tracked and commented) source file could be employed for giving general and specific instructions in how to carry out the many repetitious editing changes necessary in order to bring the LO chapter source files up to more-professional standards.

In any event, I will load the edited Chapter 10 source file onto my forum site soon and will include mucho exposition there also--relating to what was done in greater detail.

Gary

Hi :slight_smile:
Please try to use the Alfresco site as everyone else manages to do so.  Different versions scattered around the internet on people's personal websites makes it difficult to work out which version has which edits and which should or shouldn't be being worked on.  I think you are proposing a really messy muddle. 
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Actually, my way--working off the forum site--would be much better because I intend to utilize my edited source files as training experiences with the expectation for developing a cadre base of future copyeditors, reviewers, and technical editors. Therefore, it does not matter at all if there are several versions of individual training files, as the individuals could submit their own edited versions of previously improperly edited source files on the Alfresco site themselves, if they so choose to.

OTOH, if you care to keep your LO chapter source files in their present, unprofessional condition... Well that is OK by me, too. I am offering a training experience to any prospective editors and such--so that a sufficient amount of them might be available in the future. Having them see how the files should be edited (and written in the first place) is really what needs to happen if the LO documentation project is to continue and "prosper."

Gary

Hi Gary,

Actually, my way--working off the forum site--would be much better because I
intend to utilize my edited source files as training experiences with the
expectation for developing a cadre base of future copyeditors, reviewers,
and technical editors. Therefore, it does not matter at all if there are
several versions of individual training files, as the individuals could
submit their own edited versions of previously improperly edited source
files on the Alfresco site themselves, if they so choose to.

OTOH, if you care to keep your LO chapter source files in their present,
unprofessional condition... Well that is OK by me, too. I am offering a
training experience to any prospective editors and such--so that a
sufficient amount of them might be available in the future. Having them see
how the files should be edited (and written in the first place) is really
what needs to happen if the LO documentation project is to continue and
"prosper."

The material is free for you to do what you want with, but - if you
want to contribute to the LibreOffice docs team, it would be
preferable to use LibreOffice resources for the collaboration. Your
material is likely to stay on your forum without anyone benefiting
from it.

Dave,

That is perfectly fine by me. Actually, I intend to offer the same technical-editor training on the other side of the aisle--over at OOo docs also. It seems obvious (to me, at least) that the source of the (expected...) super abundance of technical errors in the current LO documentation chapter source files had originated in the OOo source files used as the basis for the current LO documentation.

I intend to offer the training without any specific targets, be they volunteers at OOo docs or LO docs or from whatever. That is primarily why I will conduct it online on the forum site instead of having it buried under the rug and unused at LO docs or elsewhere.

I am on the OOo docs email list also as you, so we both clearly know that OOo docs is getting a fair number of recent volunteers--such as OOo getting a new volunteer right before I am posting this message, whereas LO is not receiving many such new volunteers, for what that is worth. OOo docs appears to be promoting itself much better effectively relative to LO docs--even though you have appealed to some new OOo volunteers recently over at OOo docs to entice them to come over to this side of the aisle also.

Anyway, I will continue to post the original (improperly edited) LO source file and the edited LO source file for Chapter 10 on the forum site and then add the exposition that indicates the specific areas of sloppiness and technical errors therein and how any technical-editor trainees, who might ever meander over there (from anywhere), should eradicate and remedy the errors.

Gary

Hi Gary,

That is perfectly fine by me. Actually, I intend to offer the same
technical-editor training on the other side of the aisle--over at OOo docs
also. It seems obvious (to me, at least) that the source of the
(expected...) super abundance of technical errors in the current LO
documentation chapter source files had originated in the OOo source files
used as the basis for the current LO documentation.

I intend to offer the training without any specific targets, be they
volunteers at OOo docs or LO docs or from whatever. That is primarily why I
will conduct it online on the forum site instead of having it buried under
the rug and unused at LO docs or elsewhere.

May I ask if this training is going to be offered free of charge?

One thing I don't really get is why you don't post content back to a
LibreOffice resource, like Alfresco or the Documentation wiki - at
least in parallel to whatever you want to conduct on your own site?

I am on the OOo docs email list also as you, so we both clearly know that
OOo docs is getting a fair number of recent volunteers--such as OOo getting
a new volunteer right before I am posting this message, whereas LO is not
receiving many such new volunteers, for what that is worth. OOo docs appears
to be promoting itself much better effectively relative to LO docs--even
though you have appealed to some new OOo volunteers recently over at OOo
docs to entice them to come over to this side of the aisle also.

Frankly, I'm wondering if they don't have some kind of spam thing
going on over there. I've noticed regular posts from supposedly
prospective docs contributors, but not one of them has ever posted
back a second time, which is kind of strange. In the past, here on the
LibO docs ML, when people volunteer then you usually see follow-up
activity and some kind of work contribution thereafter.

Anyway, I will continue to post the original (improperly edited) LO source
file and the edited LO source file for Chapter 10 on the forum site and then
add the exposition that indicates the specific areas of sloppiness and
technical errors therein and how any technical-editor trainees, who might
ever meander over there (from anywhere), should eradicate and remedy the
errors.

If you're planning to do something that's "in parallel" to the LibO
docs effort, insofar as you don't contribute work via LibreOffice
resources, and yet you produce derived content in respect of what's
offered by the LibO project, then you might at least want to bear in
mind the question of LibO's copyright and logo usage rules.

But I don't yet have a very clear idea about what your plans are, so
these are just thoughts that come to mind.

Hi Gary,

That is perfectly fine by me. Actually, I intend to offer the same
technical-editor training on the other side of the aisle--over at OOo docs
also. It seems obvious (to me, at least) that the source of the
(expected...) super abundance of technical errors in the current LO
documentation chapter source files had originated in the OOo source files
used as the basis for the current LO documentation.

I intend to offer the training without any specific targets, be they
volunteers at OOo docs or LO docs or from whatever. That is primarily why I
will conduct it online on the forum site instead of having it buried under
the rug and unused at LO docs or elsewhere.

May I ask if this training is going to be offered free of charge?

One thing I don't really get is why you don't post content back to a
LibreOffice resource, like Alfresco or the Documentation wiki - at
least in parallel to whatever you want to conduct on your own site?

Of course you may ask...

Myself, I have been mostly retired the past year or two but still get invited to work on technical-editing or book-layout projects that I receive from various referrals and such. So, I have not been active lately at either OOo docs or LO docs.

Why would I consider charging for my offering advice on my or any other websites? How would that work? (Rhetorical questions, BTW.)

No animus on my part, but... Just what is with you that I or anybody else should cater to your whims, etc? When you went through your two (or three) power-control temper tantrums in the past at LO docs, I never intervened in any way but merely observed. (IOW, it is not important to me whether or not you don't really get anything about whatever I do.)

If I simply edited a rather poorly "edited" LO source document (e.g. the LO, and very likely OOo, Chapter 10 source document) and submitted it through Alfresco--not a problem with me, though--there would be little, if any, future benefit to be derived from my doing so. A forum can offer an avenue for publicly demonstrating technical-editing techniques on a source document, and that could have some lasting value at any time in the future. BTW, employing a lousy file for editing practice offers many more opportunities for remediation and demonstration purposes.

On a forum with its accompanying exposition, any prospective technical editors could see and learn the nuts-and-bolts involved in the technical-editing process--instead of merely using LO's Alfresco as a database, which does not offer much opportunity for teaching, learning, demonstration and such, which a forum can easily do. And then there could be opportunities for anybody to intervene interactively with their own inputs. And so on.

In addition, I do not want my training exposition to be tied to just one project or whatever. So, why limit it to just Alfresco at LO, which would likely serve more as a burial site than anything else? It is rather obvious to me that LO docs at present is doing next to nothing about editing their own source files. Otherwise, the LO/OOo chapter 10 source document would very likely not contain over 150 errors...

I am on the OOo docs email list also as you, so we both clearly know that
OOo docs is getting a fair number of recent volunteers--such as OOo getting
a new volunteer right before I am posting this message, whereas LO is not
receiving many such new volunteers, for what that is worth. OOo docs appears
to be promoting itself much better effectively relative to LO docs--even
though you have appealed to some new OOo volunteers recently over at OOo
docs to entice them to come over to this side of the aisle also.

Frankly, I'm wondering if they don't have some kind of spam thing
going on over there. I've noticed regular posts from supposedly
prospective docs contributors, but not one of them has ever posted
back a second time, which is kind of strange. In the past, here on the
LibO docs ML, when people volunteer then you usually see follow-up
activity and some kind of work contribution thereafter.

Anyway, I will continue to post the original (improperly edited) LO source
file and the edited LO source file for Chapter 10 on the forum site and then
add the exposition that indicates the specific areas of sloppiness and
technical errors therein and how any technical-editor trainees, who might
ever meander over there (from anywhere), should eradicate and remedy the
errors.

If you're planning to do something that's "in parallel" to the LibO
docs effort, insofar as you don't contribute work via LibreOffice
resources, and yet you produce derived content in respect of what's
offered by the LibO project, then you might at least want to bear in
mind the question of LibO's copyright and logo usage rules.

But I don't yet have a very clear idea about what your plans are, so
these are just thoughts that come to mind.

You need to get serious about copyright... LO merely mostly duplicated, for the most part, and rebranded source material from Oracle's (now Apache's) OOoAuthors documentation project (much of which I have already contributed to myself since 2006, BTW). And you talk about copyright--when LO docs is not doing really that much on its own at present? My current editing of the Chapter 10 source document--and making it available for anybody over at LO to use--is, at a minimum, a contribution to LO docs in itself.

Gary