User talk:hAl

Welcome!

Hello, HAl, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --soum^সৌমোyasch 08:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Re: the "rushing" comment ODF:

Personally I think the entire discussion of formulas is out of place in the Standardization section. See the entry on Microsoft Office Open XML for an example of what is a better writeup, IMHO. Keep the Standardization section to the basics of what, when and where, the type of summary info that should be upfront and easily found in an encylopedia entry. Put the debates or other side issues in their own section.

Also, a comment by a member of OASIS does not necessarily reflect OASIS policy or even the majority view of the ODF TC. It is just one person's opinions at one point in time. The use of the word "rushed" needs to be subtantiated, otherwise it is merely opinion. Since I can also point to opinions on the web that say that ODF was not rushed, I think we'll both need to acknowledge that this is a debatable point, and either both sides of the argument should be presented, or an unadorned statement of the facts presented.

If we want to state the facts, we could mentioned when the ODF specification started standardization (December 2002), when comments on the lack of spreadsheet formulas were brought up (February 2005) and when the OASIS standard was issued (May 2005). Was this a sign of rushing? Or was it merely the case that it was too late in the ODF 1.0 process to take on this additional work? It is certainly possible for the later to be true without the former. 2+ years for a standard is not typically evidence of rushing.

In any case, my vote would be to move this item to its own section, or perhaps to Standard office document formats debate.

Regards,

Melomel 17:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

See Also

"See also

Put here, in a bulleted list, other articles in the Wikipedia that are related to this one. ..."

OpenDocument comparison Rev.

Sorry for misspelling your name, should have spelled Hal (Hitchhikers guide I believe?). I indeed came from tweakers.net. I saw Minion O' Bill reverted your changes some time ago, and he asked you to keep it that way. Therefore I reverted again. You re-reverted it bringing back in your contributions. That's okay with me, though I will ask someone else to look at it, since I don't have that neutral POV anyway. Nonetheless, I believe Minion 'O Bill warned you, again referencing to the MS page will be considered as spam.

84.25.82.152 12:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Minion O bill removed licensing info on MS because according to him it was only about the current Office 2003 and not about the OOXML format allthough the cited text clearly states that the covenant is for future formats as well. This is also evident in the cited texts from other sources. They are MS sources but that is logical as they are the format creators.

Minion is just a serious anti MS writer. He even bothered to edit the Vista disambuiguity page to move the reference to Windows Vista lower on the page for some obscure other application. I can't really take anyone who does that seriously on MS related topics. hAl 13:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems strange being objective by quoting MS sources to me, and then calling someone else an anti-MS writer. I believe Wikipedia asks not to attack someone personally, and calling someone anti-MS looks personally to me. Anyway, since I can't really tell what should happen, I suggest we find some third objective person to look at this.

(Same user as IP 84.25.82.152)

193.173.25.210 17:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

it will be fine if someone adds valid up to date licensing info about OOXML instead of just removing what is there at the moment which is the most recent I could find.

HAL

I have to ask, is it Hardware Abstraction Layer as per windows NT...XP, or HAL ( the IBM computer ) in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Regards Charles Esson 10:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A bit of 2001. I used to have a nick Al on some game sites but that was later extended to hAl when I played in planetarion with a planet called 'Space Odyssey' but wikipedia anoyingly alters the first character into a capital. I sometimes now use the red-eye from 2001: A Space Oddessey as a avatar. hAl 10:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It was a great film.Charles Esson 11:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

working on "Conflict of Interest" guidelines

Dear WLD, Doc0tis, hAl, Gazpacho and BCube --

I've been following (and partially contributing) to the discussion of the whole "Microsoft edits" issue on Talk:OpenDocument. My own experience with editors who have "conflicts of interest" (on very different topics: FIRE and John Templeton Foundation) is that while such folks can be tedious at times and definitely need to be "educated" on things like WP:NPOV and WP:CITE, that they are capable of valid, good faith edits and that it would be a net detriment to wikipedia if such editors were banned from editing and forced to simply post suggestions on a talk page.

(In the case of Microsoft vs. Open Source pages I think the problem is particularly acute because by definition "one side" of the story is unpaid and thus does not fall under the COI guidelines -- if we were to ban employees, say, from editing pages, we would end up with a net POV slanted towards open source.)

I went to the WP:COI page (a guideline I'd never noticed before in years of editing) and tried to make some edits to make this clear. These were quickly reverted, but there is now at least a discussion of sorts on the talk page. The basic problem is that the editors on that page believe pretty much that such editors should be banned, should be forced to seek permission from other editors, or something of the sort.

My sense from your contributions to the Open Documents discussion is that you have similar feelings to mine. I think it would be a good idea for you to contribute your views at the WP:COI page if you have the time. I don't usually like to "recruit" people, but the essential problem is that the editors currently feel that "consensus" is on their side.

Yours, Sdedeo (tips) 00:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Open Office XML

The fast track procedure can be found in this document , please review section 13.3 and revert my deletion or let me know why you consider the ballot period a review period.

Been reading some more; what Microsoft is doing is very risky, at the end of the 30days they get a list of difficulties (thank to grokdoc that will be more complete), Microsoft can delay the process to fix them, it then goes to ballot, yes they get 5 months review but there is no changes the result is either a yes or no vote. Charles Esson 09:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you undid warrens edits to your edits re whats in the first paragraph. Did you read his comments in the discussion page.

Regards Charles Esson 09:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I did not read them no. However that specific critisism part I would rether remove alltogether as it is added by the same person that wrote the referenced blog on the blo0g page of his company. The referenced blog does not mention the controversy in the industry and it seems more a way to add the Opendocument link and his company blog in the lead section of the article. Also I try to keep a balance between the articles and the OpenDocument article also puts all critisism in 1 section. It seems a good chooice to keep that on the same footing hAl 09:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see both points of view. The problem will be how to resolve it.Charles Esson 10:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop it

Your continued removal of the note of criticism from the lead section of Office Open XML has to stop. Now. You need to go read the related content guidelines: WP:LEAD, WP:SUMMARY, and the WP:NPOV policy, in their entirety, in order to have an understanding of why it is important to keep this information in the lead section. I'm telling you this as someone who has written a number of lead sections on a variety of articles. Don't make an issue out of this... leave it alone and find other things to work on. -/- Warren 23:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly I don't agree. You are adding NPOV in the lead of an article. That violates NPOV policy. Also you seem to differentiate between what should bein the lead for the ODF aritcle and the OOXML article. That is not neutral behavior either. And also you did not read the refenrence that you move I think as it was from a small software company that of which the link was put in the article by the company's owner hAl

FYI (For Your Information): NPOV means Neutral Point of View. Warren's "adding NPOV in the lead of an article" is a correct action and conforms with WP:NPOV. -Mardus 00:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

twip

I picked that one because I like it as a unit; shows someone has a sense of humor. I think the point is it is not in a ISO standard but I am really not fussed. Charles Esson 23:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

deletions

bad selection of tag names Note that in the heading I wrote "voiced" doesn't have to be valid; as I am now reading the standard I think it is important but that is irrelevant. By the way it really is a shit of a standard, and I have sat on a standard committee and use the dam things so I know one when I see one. It really is the documentation of a very poorly thought out file format. God I hope we don't have to suffer this.Charles Esson 23:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not deleted that critisim. I am not sure what you are referring to but it wasn't me. I have not looked at that particular critique yet. hAl 00:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The technical committee was specifically limited to producing a format that was a subset of a single vendor's own proprietary format.[4][7]

Its a valid crit, and definitly one that has been voiced.

The same applies for OpenDocument. It is a critique you can voice on 99% of all standards as standards generally comprise of existing propriety stuff. Also OOXML is a superset of the original MS formats allthough not by a whole lot. Actually OpenDocument is a subset as they did not implement the formula's from the originating format. hAl 00:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A new and separate ISO standard may not be necessary since ODF 1.0 (ISO 26300) and ODF 1.2 already fully support legacy binary formats. [24]

OK, if your aim is to document the Microsoft file format( which is really what this is about, not valid), but it has been voiced.

That is in referal to the da vinci plugin which is unproven and does not support spreadsheets(of course) which are part of OOXML so it cannot really supprt that at all. Also ODF 1.2 is not an existing document version yet nor of course is it already iso. Also with propriety extensibility and use of embedding you can do whatever you like in odf. Simular the Opendocument standard should not be nescesary because document formats could be put in stand w3c XML documents already. And the w3c XML standard is not really nescesary because you can create any mark-up language in uni-code. Let's keep the list of critisim limited to the actual standards and reasonably supported issues. hAl 00:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the important issue in the section is that it is valid representation of what is being said and not a jumbled up mess ( which is what I think we had). I have no issue with single items one way or the other. If I was doing the crit I would considered most of what is there nit picking. The big issue, it really is a mess. The big plus, the mess is documented. Personally I prefer LaTex, it is simple enough to create documents with.Charles Esson 00:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft specific

Not sure what you were getting at, could you check my edit of your edit.Charles Esson 11:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Use of a two-byte language code instead of the ISO 639 two-letter and three-letter language codes I think we should just get rid of it, to complicated; you did the work working out what is going on, what do you think?Charles Esson 11:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverts on OOXML

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Office Open XML. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Karnesky 13:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussing about referenced formats has already been done before. Adding the same material that was refused earlier is already a reversion. People adding this info wil therefore be breaking the rule first. hAl 13:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read the policy. The 3RR refers to a single editor making reverts to a single page. You're the only single editor who has made more than three reverts to that page (as multiple people readded what you took out). --Karnesky 13:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I should also make it clear that seeing other people violate the 3RR (which did not happen in this case) does not give you the right to break the rule yourself. --Karnesky 13:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

HAl - This edit: 15:54, 24 August 2007 HAl (Talk | contribs) (58,413 bytes) (→Criticism by government bodies - The US depratment of defence dropped it's comments from the earlier INCITS vote and has voted for approval.) (undo) seems to be completely undocumented and unfounded? A search on google shows no news articles stating the DoD has changed position (I assume you mean the DoD when you state 'the US depratment of defense') In any case, removing chunks of information wholesale is not constructive, it would be better to update rather than remove. 198.50.4.4 18:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you haven't looked very well. The whole section was based on a comment accompanying the NO vote in the firstballot round of the executive board on an "approval with comments" of OOXML. However in the second round of the ballot vote the DoD votes for the approval and without adding their own comment which show that they changed their position. I also added the info on that second ballot vote showing the approval vote of the Dod in the article around the same time. hAl 10:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Mention of valid date range in OOXML spreadsheets

The valid date range in spreadsheets is part of the standard, not a critcism. I thought saying it supports various calendars was misleading, since support for, say, Gregorian would presumably include dates before 1900 in spreadsheets. The standard explicitly says that these dates are invalid in spreadsheets. This isn't a critcism, although you apparently do think it's undesirable.

The text you keep reverting it to is: "In WordprocessingML (Book 4 §2.18.7) and SpreadsheetML (Book 4 §3.18.5), calendar dates can be written using Gregorian [etc]..."

This isn't true. "1850-01-28" is a perfectly fine Gregorian date, but cannot be written in SpreadsheetML. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cibumamo (talk • contribs) 20:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are you undoing this change? Can you please respond to what I said above? The text you keep reverting to seems to be taken directly from the ECMA summary, but my source is the actual spec. Why does this section have to be a copy of the EMCA summary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cibumamo (talk • contribs) 03:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Answered in relvant talk page. Next time add new info below and not above earlier comments. hAl (talk) 07:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverts on OOXML

HAl - This edit: 15:54, 24 August 2007 HAl (Talk | contribs) (58,413 bytes) (→Criticism by government bodies - The US depratment of defence dropped it's comments from the earlier INCITS vote and has voted for approval.) (undo) seems to be completely undocumented and unfounded? A search on google shows no news articles stating the DoD has changed position (I assume you mean the DoD when you state 'the US depratment of defense') In any case, removing chunks of information wholesale is not constructive, it would be better to update rather than remove. 198.50.4.4 18:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you haven't looked very well. The whole section was based on a comment accompanying the NO vote in the firstballot round of the executive board on an "approval with comments" of OOXML. However in the second round of the ballot vote the DoD votes for the approval and without adding their own comment which show that they changed their position. I also added the info on that second ballot vote showing the approval vote of the Dod in the article around the same time. hAl 10:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I should answer this. :) You are correct, you were going directly to source for your info and I was reading news articles at the time. I couldn't come up with a news article or blog on the 24th Aug that said what you said about DoD. It was available readily a few days after that.Jonathan888 (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

OOXML Edit RV

Hi Ha1, you just reverted an edit that I reverted of yours - rather than have an edit war over what should be on the OOXML page, how about we come to a consensus here? The ballot results are currently hot news, and if you will kindly review the comments on the RFD you will see there is a movement to split the OOXML into a page about format itself and a page about the standardization process that OOXML is going through and merge the ballot result onto the new OOXML standardization page, which I am in favor of. In fact, I was on my way to do that very thing. However, since it's now turned into a tit for tat reversion, I have to follow wiki guidelines and go through a cooling off period. It's not going to be constructive to try to out edit each other, there is no need. Please be aware that adding language such as 'opponents of OOXML' can be polarizing. It would be helpful if we could consider the pros and the cons, on their merits and include them in the article rather than polishing it for one side or the other.198.50.4.4 22:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Jonathan888 (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC) logged in to sign my comment. :)

anonymous proxies

Hi hAL. I noticed that you have been editing through anonymous proxies. I just wanted to remind you that abusing open proxies voor such frivilous purposes threatens Wikipedia's accessibility to those of us who need to use the proxies because of repressive government policies (see Wikipedia:No open proxies). Regards, 小龍. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.84.53 (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean ?! hAl 08:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

OOXML Ballot Results edit

Please do not make unconstructive edit to Wikipedia as you did to OOXML Ballot Results. The reference section of the article clearly provide a link to the ballots results from the website of the official home for the Secretariat for ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC34. This clearly constitute reliable source for the information provided in the article. KTC 09:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any individual results on that reference. So why is that releiable ? How can I distinguish between approvals with comments or disapproval with comment ? How can I distinguish betwee approval without comments and abstaining members ? The total ballot result is well referenced from the ISO site but the individual votes are not hAl 10:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Have you actually checked out the reference? The zip files contain one .pdf file, and 48 .doc files. The pdf file list in alphabetic order by country name the information listed in the table in the article, namely the country, its standard body, its participation level and its vote. The doc files contains the comments submitted by the standard body. What more are you looking for in terms of source??? KTC 10:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. I was under the impression the zip file contained ony the comments and have not seen that PDF file containing the full list. Not sure though what the ballot article has to offer then as that zip file already contains the same nescesary information but in an original source. hAl 11:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the ballot article as I'm editing it is an attempt to briefly summarize the comments of the votes by the national member bodies.Jonathan888 (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

3 revert rule warning

The 3 revert rule WP:3RR states that "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." if you undo my edits or anyone elses on the Office_Open_XML article one more time you will break this rule. This is a warning Your first revert was this your second revert was this Kilz 17:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually you are the one starting with edit reverts. So if anybody requires a three revert warning you are !!! hAl 19:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Filing of 3 revert rule violation

I have filed a 3 revert rule violation against Hal for a partial revert below section line 494. In that he reverted in part the section below line 494 3 times within 24 hours , even after being warned. Kilz 20:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)~

I only reverted two of your reverts of my edits. So you have a counting problem. hAl 23:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet case

I have filed a suspected sockpuppet case against you.Kilz 23:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You are a sad little man. You make unfounded edits to an article and severly overreact when someone confronts you with the truth. I am not sure what a sock puppet is but I think a puppet is a good description for you. You are probably some FFII fanboy. I see you have been making nearly only anti OOXML edits. Not once have you contibuted to the article in a constructive way. Only edits to make the format look bad or to make Micrsoft look bad. People like you are a menace to a encyclopedia. Your only goal in life seems to trash on Microsoft. Get a life. I actually work on developing office type document related applications every day and have better thing to do than get anoyyed by another MS hater like you. hAl 23:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning for edits on OOXML page

This is a warning according to the Wikipedia guidelines regarding edit warring. For more, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simosx (talk • contribs) 17:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with your revert on OOXML, please advise

Dear HAl, your revert removed important information. Your comment No need for campaign site in here is mistaken. The large number of signatures on a petition that directly attempts to intervene in the upcoming ballot initiative is an important fact, regardless of whether one disagrees with the campaign or not. I would claim that this information should stay. Please reconsider. --Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 22:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a linkspamm0ring campaign site regurgitation second hand comments mostly from IBM and or groklaw sources on OOXML. Nice for blogsites and or opinion site to link but not for wikipedia. This have been discussed many times. hAl 09:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear HA1, I am concerned that the revert is POV-motivated, and I don't know how to help explain the note-worthiness without simply reproducing my earlier statement. An event of a particular magnitude can and should be reported as fact. Removing reporting of items of fact because you don't like them, or disagree with them, is not appropriate for Wikipedia, and violates NPOV. If this has been discussed many times, please point them out to me, I am willing to listen. Reference to Wikipedia policy is what I am looking for the most. --Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 19:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Nuna4 op Stuart Highway.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Nuna4 op Stuart Highway.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 15:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverting your edit of my explanation in OOXML criticism

Hi HAl,

your editing of 10:15, 27 October 2007 HAl, Sources of criticism - Removed part of Ale2006 contributions as it is just some personal redefinition of what constitutes an open standard actually removed the whole paragraph I wrote. I apologize if that paragraph gave the unintended impression of redefining the concept of open standard. I did write "in that sense" as a shortcut to convey the meaning I wanted. I think you know what I mean, but you have possibly been afraid that someone else could misinterpret that point. Thus, after reverting your blanking I reworded that sentence so that it cannot be misinterpreted.

I understand you are worried that open source fanatics may express their biased point of view against OOXML, because so many of your recent edits are directed at upholding OOXML. However, please try and make an effort to avoid acting as a fanatic yourself. Please, be patient if I mis worded anything.

I did my best in order to convey an unbiased criticism against the standardization of OOXML. That point, IMHO, is the base from which most of the criticism stems. That's why I deem very important that it is expressed clearly and thoroughly. In facts, it is the very concept of open standard that is under discussion. Since many times in the history of computing it has happened that a private software producer has published white papers about the format of their files, one may ask why Microsoft didn't for OOXML before attempting standardization. What is the point of having a standard is a good question, and many international organizations are currently addressing it. ECMA clearly states its goal at the beginning of its a response to an international audience, so that is a relevant statement. Understanding that point is crucial to pros and cons alike. ale 12:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

when starting with edits about noooxml you are already making your intentions clear. It then you edit the article to state OOXML is not open using qualifications that are not very relavant to an open standard. You can read the open standard article to see what open standards are. I will remove your new edit as well. Your edit starts with: "Closeness stems from OOXML's goal" which I qualify as pure nonsense and clearly your personal point of view. Your whole edit smells exactly like the noooxml site full of opinionated articles but without much real substance. Sadly you are even thinking your post is reasonably unbiased whilst I think it is at the very edge of anti OOXMLialism. As for stating the goal of OOXML, it is already worded in the user base argument section of the article. The whole rest of your edit is trying to interprete that goal. That however is not encyclopic but just (your) opinion and not substantiated by any notable sourcing. hAl 14:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

HAl, yes, I think I am reasonably unbiased and I'm seriously trying to remain so. I have read several pages of the noooxml site and I think it does quite a good job in its effort of collecting relevant arguments against ooxml. Yes, that site is biased. That does not imply that the arguments provided therein are not valid or substantiated, though. I started my edits mentioning noooxml both because it is easier, and as an attempt to balance pros and cons criticisms. IMHO, the noooxml site is relevant enough to deserve being mentioned in the relevant encyclopedic page, but that's a different subject. Anyway, it is not a good reason to apply prejudice.

I did read definitions in Open Standard and pointed to them. Is there something I missed?

OOXML's goal is not my personal opinion, it is stated in Ecma responses page 6, lines 24-27. That goal definition does not appear in the article, even if that source is referenced by a previous section. Perhaps ECMA didn't have just one goal. I start with "Closeness stems from [...]" following the preceding sentence. What's wrong with that?

My interpretation of that goal is just logic: given that the standard aims at representing existing documents, it is difficult to predict how it will change. It can either follow the evolution of MS office or diverge from it. It is not an opinion. Both alternatives imply serious questions about the future of the OOXML standard. Why do you think that consideration smells?

Since you write on Wikipedia, I assume you give some credit to the open source movement as a whole. May I ask you why do you think most of them act against OOXML? The only point that I may take from your response is that you say it is my personal point of view that most aversion originates from that point. But then you don't explain why. I think it is the most concise summary of the contents of reported by noooxml.

Please, be patient. I have to insert that paragraph again.

You think your interpretation is just logic. However it is still your opinion. Go back you your noooxml home please. There is really not a shred of unbiased in your edits. If you cannot see that then you are really far of target in edittting an encyclopedia. You makeup your own conclusions. That is as obvious. Also what you won't read on the noooxml site is that the OpenDocument foundation who actually activly helped to develop the ODF standard are actually claiming that ODF is to much focussed on being a format for OpenOffice and that Sun refuses all changes that would lead to better compatibility with existing documents which they actually consider to be important for any new format to gain a foothole in the world of Office documents. So what you call closeness is actually what a part of the ODF developers think is lacking in the OpenDocument format. Exactly showing why what you are saying on the goals of Office Open XML is not closeness but something wanted by the organisation that are going to use a standard and even a point of dispute in the further developemnt of opendocument that has led to a split in the ODF supporters. hAl 22:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The assertion about closeness, i.e. "...that its format is inherently closed..." was there before I added my contribution. Since you didn't remove it, I assume you consider it unbiased enough. However, its meaning may be unclear to an occasional reader. My purpose is to explain under what respect one might consider OOXML close. I've reworded the paragraph to reflect that. Any better? ale 23:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course my opinion is my opinion. But then your one is yours. May I ask why you consider yourself more entitled than me in writing encyclopedic text? Is that because of your ability in understanding other people's points of view? ale 23:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If I were to add in my opinion than most of the article would be removed and changed. The article does not even closely resemble anything what I would call my opinion. The difference between you and me is that I use sourced materials to reference the stuf I add. So I am adding information provided by outside sources like a recent adition that referenced the ISO Jct1SC34 webisite. And even with proper referencing a lot of it is either removed or changed. You however put in fully unsourced materials. Not strange because you are making them up. It is your conclusions on OOXML which you try to add to the article.

For instance: If ECMA goal is accomplished and the standard will forever stick to that proprietary software, then only Microsoft's decisions will determine the substance of OOXML. That is purely your conclusion. You are trying to make a prediction on the future not based on any concrete evidence. I could also put in the article that by allowing easy conversions to an open XML based format it will be come more an more easy to interoperate between other formats and that it is likely that the different formats will embrace certain aspect of each other an resemble each other more. However that is also conjecture on the future just like your additions are. hAl 23:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There is one difference: allowing easy conversions is a fuzzy statement, whilst conformance to a standard shall be a yes-or-no claim. The prediction I make is that MS-office will always conform to OOXML or that at some point in time that conformance will cease. MS has been unclear on that point, so it makes sense to consider what relevance will OOXML have in case MS will not support it. In the other case, that MS Office sticks to OOXML, it is rather obvious that any additional feature introduced into that file format will have to be reflected by updating the standard. ale 09:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The new Hiser's blog entry you cite is misplaced, IMHO. I would suggest to start a new (sub)section "reactions to OOXML incipience" or something like that. The CDE initiative deserves being mentioned as well. And we should expect more surprising moving of opinions before February, so a place to put them will be handy. I'd place the new (sub)section either somewhere within the standardization process or in a new section before the adoptions list. (I'm in a hurry now, maybe I'll do that later) ale 09:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This shows the big difference in our contribitutions. You edit in your personal explanation of closeness after an article comparing openness of OXXM vs ODF by de Opendocuments foundations Sam Hiser. I however show a referenced piece of information that the original source of that article has now changed its mind and now also considers the ODF development not open but controlled by mainly Sun. So your personal closeness argument containing a unfavorable comparison of ooxml to odf is actually in contrast to even current views of the opendocument foundation which is a notbel ooxml opponent. hAl 12:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. Besides that I haven't found some spare time to do the edit I proposed, my explanation of closeness originated from the difference in goals that ECMA mentioned. That is, OOXML's standardization is closed w.r.t. research whilst ODF wasn't. That said, ODF may also be considered closed in different respects. I'm quite disappointed by how Hise changed his mind. (On an unrelated standardization process, it reminds me how Meng Wong changed his mind during the MARID process...) ale 19:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, the standard is under control of Ecma International which has an open descision making proces that is also very easy. Each standard requires two third yes vote of its ordinary members on one of the two general assemblies each year. It does not get much simpler than that and many of Ecma's standards, most of which are based on formats supplied by its industrial membership, have made it into ISO standards. hAl 22:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Granted. I never said that process is formally ill. I've read the opinion of Leonardo Chiariglione about the subject. At the ballot he abstained and commented that a reference implementation is needed, AFAICS. (However, I couldn't find a citation in English.) He is interested in the standardization process and I took a number of his points. The most relevant, IMHO, is the importance of the corresponding users base. I use MS Office myself quite often. Please, don't think that you know my thoughts better than I. I even write that the standardization of OOXML is good news... what else? ale 23:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverts of Catskul's changes to OOXML

Hello, I made the changes to OOXML regarding Microsoft bullet points from: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/ha102058151033.aspx , which you reverted twice.

I made the change after having read the reference in its entirety. The points make claims about being "smaller", "safer" and "easier" but the only hint as to what it is smaller, safer and easier than, in the first paragraph. It seems the comparisons is against MS Word's own current binary format: "...Distinct from the binary-based file format that has been a mainstay of past Microsoft Office releases..."

Clearly a comparison between OOXML and the current Office binary format is irrelevant in the discussion about whether OOXML should be accepted as a ISO standard. Therefore, I think it stands that the subsection should be removed completely.

I dont currently understand why you reverted. I would appreciate if you would comment on that, and my current proposal that the subsection should be removed. I will wait to make the change until after you have responded.

Thanks, Andy 04:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly You changed argument to claim. That seems a common practise for only arguments when they come from Micrsoft ? Why are all arguments from MS claims and all arguments in the article from opponents list as absolute truths. Unless you alter every critisism in claims depending on their source. For instance "IBM claims that ..." then there is no need to change MS arguments to claims. Secondly you state that there is no listed comparison for the arguments. However there does not exist a format that is both open and supports compatibility with the current MS Office binarie files (to name two of those arguments). So the benefits are a unique combination that you can compare to any format. If I state that a restaurant produces star quality food then I do not compare each individual item but a total concept to all other similar concepts. hAl 07:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I changed argument to claim because there is no argument presented, no point or counterpoint, no premise. Instead it is simply a list of claims which in no way participate in the ISO argument. If IBM makes claims which do not refute criticisms or do not participate in a point-counterpoint exchange, then they too should be referred to as claims. Its probably true that people catch these errors from the MS "side" more often, but this is irrelevant; the problem should not be fixed by making both wrong, but by making both correct. Interestingly if you look at the subsection you will see that, outside of the title, it was already referred to as claims before I edited.

Furthermore, that there doesnt exist something appropriate to compare OOXML to, clearly, does not make comparing it to something IN-appropriate a valid thing to do. If there is nothing valid to compare to then the benefits need to be described directly. Instead of calling it "safer", the safety features should be described. Instead of being called "easier" the ease of use features should be described. et cetera. It is important to note that while a description of benefits would fit under support, it still would not be considered an argument.

Finally it seems to me after looking at some of the other comments on this page as well as your edits that you feel that people are being unfairly critical of Microsoft. This is probably true, and I think some of your reverts have been valid. However, blanket reverting of any edit that could be considered critical to Microsoft is not a good way to correct the inequality. Instead, it would be more constructive to work on improving the quality of the OOXML supporting claims and arguments, or even finding&adding technical refutations of any weak points or arguments on the "against OOXML" side.

I recognise that you are trying to protect and improve the quality of this article. I am too. Lets try to cooperate.

Andy 14:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Multipe reverts at Office Open XML

I ask you to stop reverting content on the Office Open XML article. Reverting an article is an extreme measure that should only be used in cases of vandalism or libel. The article reverts you have made don't come into either or those categories. You have reverted the article to remove referenced information which was added by other editors. You have reverted the article to add your own contentious material with references that multiple other editors have disputed. You have reverted the article to remove hatnote tags, such as the "peacock terms" tag that you reverted soon after it was added. The endless multiple fast reverts at the Office Open XML article cannot be permitted to continue. I ask that you refrain from reverting, otherwise I will ask for administrator/community assistance to force the reverting to stop. --Lester 23:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

someone describing wikified wording as peacock words stating the words are not defined is rightly removed as the wikilinks provide ample information about what the wordss in the context mean. hAl (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, user:HAl, I again ask you to stop reverting others' content on the Office Open XML article. You may not agree with others' content, but the aim should be to reach a consensus on the article talk page. Immediately reverting others' recently added content is not the way to solve a content dispute. Regards, --Lester 03:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually you should stop repeated reverts (or rather you and your anonymous supporters) on properly sourced information. hAl (talk) 09:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been reverting the edits of other editors for some time now. I agree with Lester that this has got to stop. You need to have guidelines to back up your actions and discuss problems before replacing or removing things you don't agree with. Looking at the history of this page, it looks like this has been brought to your attention a lot of times. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually you asked for citations to support the stated claims and when I added those supporting information you removed the entire claim. That is incorrect behaviour to say the least. hAl (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That is incorrect. You placed more original research, not references by 3rd parties that state the claim. The request was 2 months old when the section was removed. I have Wikipedia guidelines to back up my actions. In fact the guidelines suggest that it should have been removed sooner. I gave a lot of time for it to be fixed.

Never the less. You have a habit of undoing other editors work. When I removed the section, you replaced it, with no changes or guidelines to back up your actions. This is not an isolated incident, but is part of a provable pattern of behavior. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The proper venue for discussing suspected sockpuppets...

..is WP:Suspected sock puppets. Funny how that works. Please do not make implications/accusations about someone being a sock unless you are willing to take it to WP:SSP. Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not accusing anybody as such. I was reacting on the message that user:AlbinoFerret might be a reincarnation of Kilz. Something which is very relevant to me because this person was reponsible for me getting banned after to many edits against his sockpuppets. hAl (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)~

It seems an anonymous user has made the effort of proving that AlbinoFerret is indeed the same person as Kilz.

Copied from Wikiquette_alerts

Proven.

• In his user page, AlbinoFerret says, "I own 2 ferrets. One is an albino named JB." (Link.)
• A person who goes by the name SticKK / SticK is listed as the developer of the Swiftweasel project.
• Kilz created the Swiftweasel page and has edited it many times.
• Kilz mentions that he is active in the Ubuntu Forums.
• A search on the Ubuntu Forums brings up Kilz's user page.
• Kilz's user page indicates that tghc.org is his website.
• Via archive.org, we discover on tghc.org that StickK and Kilz are the same person. (It's at the bottom of the page.)
• In this Switfweasel Forum posting, SticKK says, "I have an albino ferret named JB."

So given that SticK and Kilz are the same person, that means Kilz and AlbinoFerret both own albino ferrets named JB and are both staunch critics of Office Open XML. It's unlikely that's just a lucky coincidence. 75.45.104.89 (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore is is evident that the particular user has almost no contributions to wikipedia except spelling corrections and edits on the deleted articles page. 90+% of AlbinoFerrets real edits were on Office Open XML related items which was one of the places user:Kilz and his sockpuppets were editting. There is no doubt these are the same person. Something that makes me doubt a lot of the anonymous edits made to the Office Open XML article lately as well... hAl (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

HAl, You have added this without checking it out. You are seeing only what you hope or want to see. I suggest you remove any discussion of me from your talk page unless you have some concrete proof. I am going to copy in my reply from the Wikiquette_alerts page so that your accusation does not go unchallenged and someone looking through the histories believes it to be the truth.

I had a feeling your proof was going to be a multiple step theory. But I found a few problems with this theory.

• It may prove that Kilz at one time on tghc.org used the name Stick. But the developer of Swiftweasel is SticKK and not Stick. There is no proof that they are the same person or even that the Stick on the one site, is the SticKK on the other
• After looking at the Swiftweasel site it appears that it is a browser created/packaged for Ubuntu. It should not be a surprise that Ubuntu users are active in its forums. Kilz is an active member of the Ubuntu forums by his post count, he is probably a Ubuntu user.
• In the Switfweasel Forum posting, SticKK says, "I have an albino ferret named JP." He said JP, not JB.
• I expect you will try to come up with some other coincidence filled theory in an attempt to prove something that isn't.

We should all do our best to help Wikipedia. Those of us that try to help by correcting spelling, or discuss policy are not second class editors. But I have created and edited articles outside of that scope. Let me also remind you that there are consequences for some actions. You can't blame your actions on others. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The thread on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts has been closed, so allow me to copy here my closing remarks:

• "In the Switfweasel Forum posting, SticKK says, "I have an albino ferret named JP." He said JP, not JB."

Nice try. As of last night, when I made a local copy of that web page, it said JB. (In other words, my local copy still says JB, but you changed the online version to say JP.) And you can also check out the Google Cache of the page to see that you changed it. 75.45.104.89 (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, the google cache also complety shows how far you are taking this AlbinoFerret/Kilz changing your own forum posts to try and disprove this by alteringthe evidence. It is totally ridiculous behaviour. Never seen anyone so fanatic before. And that all to edit few articles on wikipedia. Shocking man, shocking. Before on editting the Swiftweasel article and now the Office Open XML article. hAl (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Shocking that an anonymous editor would go to all the trouble of stirring up problems by spreading lies. All someone has to do is look at your link to see that its not real. There is nothing stopping me from editing any article on Wikipedia. Your unprovable accusations the real problem. That post you pointed to on the Swiftweasel forum, the one you say has been changed, one problem that I see is it doesn't have a Last Edited by time stamp like in this post from the same forum. But in any event, I don't think you have proven anything. If you think there is something being done against Wikipedia policy, by all means file a report on the correct notice board. If not, drop this attack on me. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you now seriously suggesting that Google is altering their cached pages to accomodate you and fake your identity ? hAl (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What page on Google are you referring to? All I have ever seen is a dead link. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Amusing how much effort you are putting in this. However several people have seen it already and have a local copy. I have made a screen print as well to be sure and keep it. Your hasty effort of cleaning up behind you have little effect on reality. However it makes me wonder why you are doing this. You could just have admitted. That you are removing evidence is only confirming that it is you but also showing us bad faith in what you are doing with your new account. hAl (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

After reading through all this, I came to the personal conclusion that all this is both hilarious and very very sad at the same time. It seems to me that this guy suffers from severe schizophrenia. Anyhow, I had a ripping good time... Now, can someone please go ahead block this annoying sockpuppet? Ghettoblaster (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been warned already. User talk pages are not the place for Sockpuppet suspicions. Use WP:SSP. Further continuation may lead to escalation. --Saint-Louis (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I know where this is going... Try to be a little bit more creative. Ghettoblaster (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If you had read the info Saint-Louis you should have noticed that this is evidence that a former sockpuppeteer has harrassed me a lot on wikipedia has returned under a different name and is editting the same article that he was doing before with the help of sockpuppets. That alone is useless info to report on WP:SSP. It is not so much proof of sockpuppeteering (which is difficult to get and leads to little of no punishment anyways) but a way of preventing that this person repeats his malicious editing styles of the past. hAl (talk) 06:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of What exactly? All I see are unprovable theories and accusations that lead no place. What this is , is an attack on me. This isn't a discussion of a rule or guideline on Wikipedia being broken. Saint-Louis is warning you that continued discussion of other editors can have consequences. You need to be able to prove wrongdoing.

Malicious editing styles? I think you need to |take a look in the mirror HAl. This is a Ad_hominem attack to draw away attention from your provable pattern of behavior.AlbinoFerret (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I find the fact that a few month ago you used multiple wikipedia account to edit certain articles that I am interrested in a malicious editing style. That is not ad hominem but a charaterisation of a forbidden practice on wikipedia that was employed by you in the past. Looking at your new account most of the real article edits were done on the same article which your previous edits with multiple accounts were done on, and that scares me. You got me a ban on wikipedia for edittwarring against you and your other sockpuppet accounts. That is not forgotten lightly ! hAl (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a lie. Again, I suggest you remove this section because it is nothing more than a personal attack. I have never used multiple wikipedia accounts to edit any page. You criticism of my editing is unfounded. I think the last two lines of your statement speak for themselves as the reason for this whole section. You need to stop blaming others for your actions. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So if you're really not User:Kilz, how do you explain those implausible coincidences that User:HAl mentioned above? What about the mysterious change from JB to JP just after it was mentioned here? I've seen the evidence. Also, your site has surprisingly been removed from the archive.org mirror just around the same time... In my opinion, disposing the evidence and continuing to deny what User:HAl found out about you is just ludicrous. Ghettoblaster (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

We are not interested by your arguments here. This is not the proper place to do it. Use WP:SSP. Hervegirod (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

By all means, feel free to file a report on any noticeboard for a Wikipedia guideline. The fact that none has been filed speaks volumes about the reality of any accusations. I will say it again, file a report, or remove this section on me. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Point is there is nothing for us to file. You could have just owned up to the truth but now you haven't and are maniacally cleaning up behind you by getting your sites removed from archive.org and google cache your behaviour becomes more suspicious every second. I really wonder what drives you doing this.... hAl (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

hAl, if you don't want to put it on WP:SSP, stop accusing this user. This has gone way too far now. Wikipedia is not the place for that. Hervegirod (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The suspected sockpuppeting has been reported at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kilz (3rd). WalterGR (talk | contributions) 11:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

3 revert rule notice

You have reverted the Office Open XML page 3 times in 24 hours. Doing so again will break the 3 revert rule. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No I have not.

Actually I have made an original edit on 28/7 because Micrsoft has amended the Open Specifcation Licensing FAQ to clearly state that OSP licensing can be used in GPL licensing implementations. This protect any Office Open XML implementations which is relevant for the Office Open XML article. This edit removed the suggestions by the SFLC that OSP licensing would not be compatible with GPL and added a newer reference of the altered OSP FAQ.

You have removed my edit 3 times and I restored it twice yesterday. We all know you have made an account specifically for made an account for abusing the Office Open article [Kilz]/ AlbinoFerret and you are showing your reverting ways again by trying to editwar on my correctly sourced change the article content whis was originally put in the article by your alter ego [Kilz]. hAl (talk) 05:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a lie, I am not Kilz, no matter how many times you or your buddies say it , it does not make it the truth. Your use of this lie as an excuse also does not remove from you the responsibilities for following the rules. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

A wikpedia admin has already agreed that you are [1] and that the previous offensious offenses under that names have to betaken into account if you do it again. We all know you are and your futile efferts te deny it are just pathetic. hAl (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

A wikipedia admin has not said that I am Kilz. If they did, they were going against established practices for deciding these types of cases. The lies you and your buddies spread were pathetic. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

the exact wording was: The evidence presented here makes a compelling case that User:AlbinoFerret is a sockpuppet of User:Kilz. ... If AlbinoFerret is blocked in the future, previous blocks under the name of User:Kilz should be factored into the block length. I find that the conclusion was clealry reached. Also I have no interest in discussing this further with you. Go away sockpuppeteer. You effert to slander Office open XML are already anoying enough to deal with. hAl (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppeteer, but you are clearly a war editor, clearly found guilty on multiple dates. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The evidence has very clearly shown otherwise. hAl (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

BadVista

I opposed the PROD, but you can bring it under soapboxing to AFD. Cheers. Mion (talk) 09:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What have I got myself entangled in? (Office Open XML)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me like I may have inadvertantly stumbled into the middle of an ongoing "conflict of opinions". (i.e. The edit war you have when you are not actually having an edit war ... )

Somebody was having problems trying to add "English Metric Unit" to EMU (disambiguation), so I gave them a hand, which brought me to Office Open XML and its edit history. I saw the comment by Ghettoblaster that "underscores are evil", (which made me smile). Then, the following day, the comment (revert - not relevant how often an article has been edited; also no article on Wikipedia can ever contain all factual and necessary information) sounded interesting, so I looked at the edit it was reverting. At the time I thought that although I agreed with the words Ghettoblaster used in the edit comment, complete reversion seemed overkill - i.e. "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". Subsequently noticing a reversion of the reversion, I could see an edit war looming, so I decided that I would throw out the bathwater and leave the baby behind.

Subsequently, you came along and reverted back to throwing out both the baby and the bathwater saying: "This is an article about a document format." Hence, I have a number of questions:

• What does the fact that "This is an article about a document format." have to do with the opinion that "This article could be providing unbalanced coverage"?
• What is it about the statement "This article could be providing unbalanced coverage" that you dislike enough to revert?
• There's a lot of "stuff" on Talk:Office Open XML; a quick scan of it didn't provide me with a summary of the issues (except that various people have different incompatible opinions!) Could you do me a favour and provide me with a brief summary of the issues so that, when I do actually read the talk page, I know what to look out for? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  

(P.S. Reply here if you prefer - I would prefer it; I like to see both sides of a discussion next to each other.)

The reason for removing the info was the line Please be aware that there is a lot of discord surrounding allegations that Microsoft hijacked or rigged the voting process in ECMA. That is not just factually incorrect but also not about the format but something about the standardization proces (which has a separate article in itself). hAl (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. I think I'm starting to get the picture. I think I'll just stumble back out and leave you all to yourselves. Good luck! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Several hongkong residential articles

Why are those not deleted. It seems you removed the speedy deletion tag and replaced it with a normal deletion tag and then the creator of the article even removed those tag.

This seems less than proper wikipedia procedure. Residential buildings without any notable characteristic should not be present on wikipedia. This is not a house selling site. hAl (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is only reserved for the most unambiguous cases. If you think these articles should be deleted, you are welcome to nominate them to WP:AFD. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There was nothing unambigous about those. The article had nothing to do with an encyclopia but more with a real estate folder hAl (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, feel free to take your case to AFD. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Lake Silver

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Lake Silver, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

204.191.185.249 (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oscar by the Sea

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Oscar by the Sea, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! 204.191.185.249 (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Palazzo (Hong Kong)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from The Palazzo (Hong Kong), which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! 204.191.185.249 (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ocean Shores (Hong Kong)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Ocean Shores (Hong Kong), which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! 204.191.185.249 (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD of Lake Silver, Oscar by the Sea, The Palazzo (Hong Kong), and Ocean Shores (Hong Kong)

It appears you attempted to list these four articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion; however, listing articles at AfD is a 3-step process, and you only completed step 3. If you truly wish to nominate these articles for deletion, please follow all three steps. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You've become my fan

You watched on my user page[2], replied for what I concern about on the help desk[3]. Basically, you was following me wherever I go. Thank you for your attention. Unfortunately, Chzz adn TNXMan seemed not to support your Microsoft Point Of View:

Actually you should read again. A blog can be a source for factual information. Google supporting OOXML in their Google docs is actual fact and the Google blog is finew for that kind of info. A company blog would be a bad source for subjective informative. Like a Google blog stating thast their search engine is better than Yahoo searhc engine. And I actually watch your contribution page to see what kind of edits you make as you seem to be trolling all over the Office Open XML article. I find your behaviour is ridiculous and childish. hAl (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"I find your behaviour is ridiculous and childish."

Good point, that explains how you like to attack people by your bad words. I was feeling this kind of attitude from the first day I knew you. You like to attack people whose opinion is different from you as I can see from all the talk pages you have been :-) - Justin545 (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Can a blog be a reliable source?

Verifiability is one of the nutshells of Wikipedia. Each article should be sourced by several reliable sources for verification purpose. According to Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable."

Therefore, I have some question regarding to the above:

1. Can an official blog of a company be a reliable source?
2. How to identify whether a given website is a reliable source or not?

Thanks. - Justin545 (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have firm rules; policies and guidelines can and do change. There is little point in looking at the exact policy wording, as a degree of common sense is required - and that's where consensus comes in.

My own common sense tells me that it is very unlikely that a company blog would constitute a reliable source. Opinions, however, may vary. If you are ever in doubt, then ask on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard.  Chzz  ►  10:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

So if a teamblog of a company described a featured on the product that you would consider unreliable ? For instance Micrsoft IE team explaining what in IE8 webslices and/or acceleraters are or how InPrivate browsing in IE8 is implemented ? Is that unreliable information because it is provided trough a comnpany blog ??hAl (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I would use a company blog only to support facts (IE8 dispenses skittles or IE8 surfs the web at 10 terabits a second, etc.). I would not use it for any sort of review of the company's products. Those sort of statements need to be sourced to independent authors. TNXMan 14:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

So... may I say the Google citation[4] was not reliable? - Justin545 (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It supports facts. So read above again. hAl (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on OOMXL

Your recent editing history at Office Open XML 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.

Anonymous edit bla? hAl (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Scientus I presume ?

You should stop removing information from the article. The Open XML developer group is a 40 organizations that Support Office Open XML. Microsoft is only one of those 40 organizations and obvuiously a supporter of OOXML. You trying to remove that also 39 opther companies are members is pure vandalism. suggesting that it has something to do with point of view is nonsense as it is a section about support for OOXML and the support of Microsoft for this format is obvious anyways. What you are trying to do is remove (properly cited) information about other companies in the OpenXML developers group also supporting Office Open XML. Of course Micrsoft supports Office Open XML. But others companies do as well as is obvious from the support in hundreds of software prodcuts and thousands of applications created by such companies. hAl (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Notice that articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources. The source cited is ruln and reported directly from Microsoft, and there are no 3rd party sources, nor any statement from any of the companies supposedly in the group, wish you are surmising support the standard. In addit you have repeatedly removed the info that show that these groups have a conflict of interest, and are not groups, but wings of microsoft. You put these under the "Responses to OOXML" headline, as if Microsoft somehow responding to its own actions, playing sock puppeteers, is somehow a mandate for the standard. Cease putting content into Wikipedia with demonstrated, obvious, conflicts of interest, and stop removing contributions that challenge unsourced and controversial information without backing up those dubious claims.Scientus (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What dubieus claims. That Open XML developer group is a group that promotes Open XML ???

You call that dubieus ??? A member list that not surpisingly contians at least seven members of the Ecma committee for OOXML as well ???

It seems it is you that has the alterior motive. Trying to discredit well sourced information in what is problably the most oversourced article in Wikipedia anyways. You apperantly do not like that companies show actual support for OOXML and partner Microsoft in this Open XML developer support group. That the Open XML developer group is a group of companies that supports Open XML developement is as obvious as anything on wikipedia but it is not what you want to read apperantly. hAl (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for 12h for edit warring at Office Open XML and, my pet peeve, gratuitously labelling other peoples edits as vandalism William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have informed you to follow Wikipedia's policies while edit the article in question. It sounds like you did not follow them well.

BTW, suppressing the opposite opinions by edit warring is probably not a good practice especially on the talk page Talk:Office Open XML as well. (the suppressing behavior can be found in the history of OOXML talk page[5]) Please don't do it again after you recover from blocking. - Justin545 (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft Topic Ban Proposal

Following your unremorseful and combative response to being banned and subsequently warned about conflicts of interest I have proposed at WP:COIN that you be permanently banned from editing Microsoft-related articles following a pattern of disruptive and tendentious editing. -- samj _in^out 12:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Why a conflict of interest warning. I do not see any reason for it. Who are you and why have you placed a wanrign of this kind on my talk page. hAl (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The (ridiculous) claims seem to have been dismissed anyways. hAl (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

PR ethics

Have you reviewed the PRSA code of ethics for Public Relations professionals [6]? Is there anything you'd like to share with us? Hipocrite (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not see your point. Is there something you like to share ? hAl (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you being paid by anyone to edit wikipedia? Hipocrite (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No, of course not. What a ridiculous suggestion. Noone would pay someone with my poor writing skills and mediocre english to edit an english dictionary. Btw are you paid to edit wikipedia ? hAl (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not. But then, somehow, I seem to edit more than just one topic. Have you considered going back to editing articles about topics that have nothing to do with Microsoft? Hipocrite (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. You suggest I should edit arbitry things I do not know much about ? I rather stick with things I do know about. Mayby when the Nuon solar team starts racing in Australie later this year to become an unprecedented 5 times winner of the World Solar Challenge I take a peak at articles relating to that. hAl (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I'd just like to chime in here to add there is nothing wrong with editing articles on a single topic. And even if an editor does have a conflict of interest for a topic, there is nothing wrong with them editing content related to that topic. The concern is that the edits must be made with the intent of following policy (and I'm neither asserting nor denying that HAl's edits are done in such a manner). -Verdatum (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with it, but that the only thing Hal is interested in for three years are open document formats has odd implications. Hipocrite (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Tell that to the thousands of users who only edit articles on anime. Please discuss the edits, not inferences made about the editor. -Verdatum (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Verdatum, I'm afraid I can't do that. If you can show me some editors who only edit article on one specific anime producer and seem to be pushing one side of a dispute, I'd be happy to adress them also. Note that HAl doesn't edit article on tech, or document formats or anything, only articles on these two open document formats. It's highly suspect. Hipocrite (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem misinformed. I have edits on a least 100 or more different articles. hAl (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were a believer in assuming good faith, Hipocrite. Warren -talk- 21:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see evidence of me not assuming good faith. hAl said he's not being paid to edit wikipedia. I left it at that, until such time as I was being repeatedly challenged for daring to ask the question of an editor who has what, 10 edits to Solar Cell and hundreds of edits to Microsoft related software? How dare I have just an inkling of suspicion that something might not be right in Denmark. Hipocrite (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Starting off a topic on a user's web page with a thinly-veiled accusation that an editor is paid by a PR firm to do work on behalf of company is not an assumption of good faith. There are venues like WP:RFAR where you can voice concerns, present evidence, etc., and you have full encouragement from me to pursue those options if you think the problem is serious... but it is of no benefit to you to undermine one fundamental principle of Wikipedia in an effort to discourage another editor from breaking another fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Warren -talk- 18:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

So you believe the appropriate first step in dispute resolution is to request arbitration? I think you have it backwards. Hipocrite (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Report of Racula

Hi, I have removed your report of Racula (talk · contribs) at WP:AIV - please make sure you read the instructions at the top of the page, in particular "The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop". Thanks/wangi (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That user has only been created in feb, made relativly few edits and has been given warnings already on his talk page 5 times in that short period. Vandalism on nearly every third article he had ever editted. hAl (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft

Do you solely edit Microsoft product articles? Seems suspicious. 207.6.241.10 (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

making single ip comnment on talk pages makes you look very reliable. hAl (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Do not blank your talk page

Unlike your user page (User:HAl), where you can do anything you want, your Talk page is like any other Talk page on Wikipedia and it is not appropriate to blank it. This is especially true for blanking history of revert notices and edit-war notices.

If you want to shorten the page when it gets too long, the appropriate thing is to archive the Talk page as described in the Wikipedia help.

—Steven G. Johnson (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It might nog be preffered but it is a lot easier and quicker. hAl (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

you have been blocked for edit-warring

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:HAl (Result: blocked 1 week).

The immediate cause of the block is your violation of the three-revert rule. This normally leads to a 24-hour block. However, it seems that you have received repeated 3-revert warnings over multiple years, always on the same pages, and have been blocked at least once before. This is exacerbated by the fact that you repeatedly blank your Talk page to remove past notices and complaints. The second offense normally gives you a block of 48 hours, but this seems to be your 3rd or 4th offense at least. Due to the repeated, ongoing, and long-term nature of the offense, I'm blocking for 1 week.

Please do not edit-war when you return to Wikipedia.

See Help:Archiving a talk page on archiving your Talk page without blanking.

—Steven G. Johnson (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)