User talk:HAl

Bias in Bing edit

Your edit about Microsoft's Bing seems to read like it came from Microsoft promotional material in my opinion. [1] Other email providers allow searching of the internet from your mailbox. What's more, only a Microsoft-owned source has been quoted and no other third-party news-outlet or blog has been quoted to backup the supposed significance or usefulness of this new feature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shane.Halloran (talk • contribs) 11:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The info I added was very clearly from the the included source material that I added as a citation. I hope you have read that. If you have different or more extensive information on the integration of Bing in Hotmail than please feel free to add. hAl (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I know this, but was not from a completely neutral . Also, when I then added relevant information with two appropriately sourced and relevant sources, you reverted it as it fails to meet your viewpoint as clearly expressed in your fanatic editing of Microsoft-related articles to promote the interests of that particular company. If you do have any stake-holding in that company, e.g. you are a shareholder, employee, provider, commercial partner, promoter, or invest in short or long term derivatives based on the performance of Microsoft, you should say so clearly, on your Userpage, for example. However, the last time I checked there all I saw was that you like Beer. Beer paid for by Microsoft, perhaps? Shane (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced Microsoft talking points.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=306795182&oldid=306645711 Scientus (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You should try and read the information you remove next time as I had added at least two sources that fully supported the information in the parts you removed. Also you indiscriminatly removed subsequent edits by standards expertuser:Alexbrn. If you think the information is not properly sourced you should ask for citations and not blunty remove valid information as you repeatedly seem to do. I suggest you stop wth your disruptive editing on MS releated articles. hAl (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Nuna5 presskit photo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Nuna5 presskit photo.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Nunas Hubble solar cells.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Nunas Hubble solar cells.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hubble solar cell tech?

What sort of cells are used on the Hubble panel from the Nuna 1? They look like conventional mSi ones, but looks can be deceiving.

Do you happen to know if the cells on the Hubble today are the ones that replaced these? Or have they been replaced more than once?

Thanks!

Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The Hubble telescope at least originally had silicon cells. The solar array was created by ESA.

See: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel2%2F129%2F3355%2F00111824.pdf&authDecision=-203 . Feel free to ad the information in the related articles.

However they were replaced twice. The first time by a similar size array but the second time by a much smaller array. (which might have been GaAs cells ?). Cell from the replaced array where used on Nuna 1 solar car. hAl (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks! Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft vs. i4i

It's not a conditional rejection, it's stated clearly and more accurately as a provisional rejection. The referenced article is biased in favor of Microsoft, for a lot of reasons also. Furthermore, I would consider these weasel words..

"In addition to that argument the patent at the heart of this issue has already been"

Perhaps a better use of language would be:

In addition, since the injuction was ordered i4i's patent has been provisionally rejected by the US Patent Office following re-examination.

I feel that's more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.153.155 (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

For now, I'm going to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.153.155 (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that provisionally is more accurate. I wish you yourself would have replaced "contionally" with "provisionally" in stead of deleting the comment alltogether. I restored it now with "provisonally in the text hAl (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit waring at Office Open XML article

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.-Lester 14:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Your reverting of the article continues, so I have reported you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring-Lester 16:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Have you reported user:Scientus who has A LOT more reverts on the article then me. Or are you reporting me because I object against your removal of the free and open claim on the article (which you refused to givew a valid argument on). hAl (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Office Open XML. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.174.21.198.176 (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC) this

Edit Warring

Your recent editing history at OOXML shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Scientus (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)