User talk:Duffjohnson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

August 2011[edit]

Hello Duffjohnson. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

  1. Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
  2. Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
  3. Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
  4. Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. [1] MrOllie (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

MrOllie, I read the guidelines last about 2.5 years ago, and unless they've changed since, I don't believe there's a conflict, happy to discuss that point, because I've tried to be quite careful. My edits are purely factual, I don't discuss my organization in any linked content. I would make some of these little pages richer, but it's frankly discouraging to think of putting effort into a poor little stub-page (like PDF/UA) thinking that you'll take it down. Anyhow, I no longer work for Appligent. I am still US Committee Chair for ISO/DIS 14289 and ISO Project Co-Leader for ISO 32000, an elected position of an International Standards Committee. I was elected by my peers in the industry because I'm thought to be impartial. I sure hope you won't reverse the change when I'm finally able to update the page to show that ISO 14289 has (finally) been published!--Duff Johnson (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

PDF 2.0[edit]

Hi, I would like to ask you, why did you remove "reference to acceptance of Level 3 and 5 Extensions in PDF 2.0" in the PDF article. Adobe stated on website: "Adobe has submitted these extensions to ISO for inclusion into the next version of the ISO 32000 specification and they have all been accepted for part 2 of ISO 32000." Thank you for any answer. -- (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The answer, my anonymous friend, is quite simply that Adobe's statement on this point is out of date. While many of the proposed changes remain, Adobe's Extensions have not been accepted wholesale for Part 2 of ISO 32000. Substantial elements were rejected by the ISO Committee responsible. Duff Johnson (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answer. Please, is there any publicly available document about the rejection of the "substantial elements" that you mentioned? It would be useful adding this information to the article and a reference to this. Btw, there is still the following claim in the PDF article: ["Adobe has submitted the Adobe Extension Level 5 and Adobe Extension Level 3 specifications to ISO for inclusion into the next version of the ISO 32000 specification. Adobe declared they have all been accepted for part 2 of ISO 32000."] -- (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I will update the article, thanks for pointing that out. No, the ISO Committee process doesn't work that way. The Committee addressed each proposed edit to ISO 32000 individually, accepting some, rejecting others. The Committee never considered the Extensions documents or their content as a whole. The comments and their dispositions were distributed to Committee members. I have asked Adobe Systems to update the cited page on their site. Duff Johnson (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to ask you, what is the current state of the PDF 2.0 specification. According to ISO website, the ISO/DIS 32000-2 (PDF 2.0) standard was deleted. Are there any explanations to this deletion publicly available? I cannot find any recent "notes" or "minutes" from ISO TC 171 SC 2 WG 8. There are only few "minutes" publicly available. Thank you very much for any information.-- (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The project was "cancelled" simply as a bureaucratic device to add a little time to the clock. The Project Leaders are preparing a "NP" (new project) document for PDF 2.0 to be distributed to the ISO 32000 Committee for review prior to the TC 171 meeting this coming May in Vienna, Austria. As such, the cancellation is temporary and unremarkable. Duff Johnson (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Minor edits[edit]

Hi, thanks for your reference addition to Portable Document Format! However, references should never be marked as "minor edits", since they add significantly to an article's verifiability. Any questions about the minor edit box can be answered in WP:MINOR. Thanks, and I look forward to seeing your continued improvement of Wikipedia! Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 04:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks; I appreciate the information; will review the minor edit instructions. Duff Johnson (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem, and remember: When in doubt, leave it major. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 04:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to De facto standard may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Adobe's PDF 1.7 became [[International Organization for Standardization|ISO]] 32000-1:2008.<ref>[ ISO 32000 - Document management -
  • * [[OASIS (organization)|OASIS]]'s [[OpenDocument]] format (a ''de facto'' standard for [[UNIX]] users ([[Apache OpenOffice]], [[LibreOffice]], [[Calligra]], [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)