Template:Archive box collapsible

Please avoid this sort of thing again. I don't have an opinion on whether it deserves meritous inclusion or not (so please don't try and justify it to me). You were recently blocked for the same sort of behaviour. Please try and give the article a rest. Thanks. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 19:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only saw you revert (Which you were blocked for before). I've already warned User:Oub too. I removed the blogs because they cannot be considered WP:RS. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 20:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mess around. I checked, You warned user:Oub a while ago who (and that only after I told you about his gazilion of reverts on the Office Open XML article in the last month or so) and then after your warning he has promptly made several reverts like [1] and [2]. He however is not warned again but as soon as I make an edit you warn me and NOT Oub. And make note that the removal edit I made was also done in the mean time by other wikipedia editors and also was discussed on the talk page and had more support on the talk page whilst user:Oub reasons for constantly readding the info were questioned to DEATH there but not answered). There is only so much talk page to spoil over the issue. As for your suggestion I am not giving the article a rest and let people turn in in their own anti ooxml page like happend before. Also I was blocked for edits on another article(which actually only contained three revert by me in the entire history of that article). Don't suggest otherwise here because your own comment above still has the article name clearly in it! And as for the blogs you removed it is strange that most blogpost removed were supportive of OOXML standardization and that ALL blogpost remaining that you did not remove were negative on the standardization proces. Such one sided edits should not be not behaviour fitting for an admin. You seem to use a biased approach in your acts regarding these articles. And now you are also not warning people who make repeated negative revert edits about Office Open XML support but are immediatly warning me when I make 1 such edit in like a week which is also in line with tal page discussion. How can you explain your onesided behaviour. hAl (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am seriously too exhausted to keep up. You've been warned and blocked for edit warring before. That's all I can say. If you have a problem with my actions please take it to WP:ANI. I'm sure they'll deal with it in a more neutral way than I ever could. But for now I have to worry about my health. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 22:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that even though I notified you of the multiple revert edits made by user:Oub after your warning you have not taken up that matter with him but when I made a single revert edit in Office Open XML you swarmed all over me agian. And I still have serious issues with you previous block for edit warring on Standardization of Office Open XML after having made only 3 revert edits on the entire article since it was created. So after looking a bit further I even notice that user:Oub himself has even been writing on your talk page about his reverts against for instance user:Warren. And that shortly after you warned him not to do so. And even then you did nothing but when I revert only one of his edits you strike immediatly... Unbelievable. hAl (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you still have a serious problem with my block then you must not have heeded what I and another admin have said. 3RR does not entitle you to three reverts. That is the last I'll ever talk that about block because I am honestly sick to death of trying to explain it to you :-) - As for User:Oub, I'll take a look at his contributions and see if he requires a warning. Sure, pushing myself to do something tiring when I'm already exhausted won't kill me I'm sure. Take care and have a great day! :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat} 10:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly asked you what the then was about if not for the three revert but you have not answered that. An admin should be clear why a block is given. You could have beeen a lot more accurate on describing why you do certain actions. The only thing in that Standardization of Office Open XML article for which you stated made the block were those three reverts. All other contributions were fully in line with wikipedia policies. And not surpisingly in that same article now user:WalterGR is reverting on user:Kilz who still seems desperate to add negative info on the standardisation process (even if his citations have not relation to the info in the article) and has not contributed any other neutral info. Your admin interference is leading to more heated discussions and strange actions in the articles rather than it solved anything. hAl (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've showed you your block log (Feel free to go there again) which explains everything. I've explained myself. Please stop clutching at straws. I will no longer check this page :-) Thanks and bye! Scarian^{Call me Pat} 13:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have engaged in edit warring and have reverted the ooxml page 3 times already. I have filed a report on the WP:AN3RR page for this. Kilz (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually anybody can should notice that i made the original edit to add infomation on the positive notes (citations by Updegrove and Webbink) on OSP licensing in the Office Open XML article . That is an original cited edit and not a revert. You have been the one removing those edits several times. If anything you are the one editwarring. I hope you reported yourself! Anybvody can easily spot that in what yuo can 1st revert and 2nd revert i actually have made original edits wadded cited information on OSP licensing. However you have been removing that information several times. I did remove some dates but those dates were redundant as the citations themselves contain the relevant dates. Removal of those redundant dates hardly constitutes an edit war however you repeated removals of original edits adding positive citations on OSP licensing by OSS experts are! hAl (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edits added things and changed things. You have repeatedly replaced that original version from before I started 3 times. It is exactly how you left it even though I have attempted to change things 3 different times , with 3 different edits. Kilz (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have been adding independant cited information from three experts on OSS and standards licensing and their view on the OSP license used for Office open XML in relation to OSS licenses. This info by Larry rosen, Mark Webbink and Andy UpdeGrove has been undermined or removed by you several times. Repeated edits by you try to remove positive information on OSP licensing in relation to Office open XML. This seems your only goal on wikipedia to add negative info on Office Open XML. You are also contesting user:WalterGR on [[Standardization of Office Open XML] as can be seen here: Talk:Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML#Edit_Warring_by_WalterGR and you have also have been adding not a single edit that was positive or even remotly neutral on Office Open XML as is evident of Special:Contributions&limit=250&target=Kilz. hAl (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the judge of if a editors edits stay Hal. If someone makes a good faith edit, either adding or removing something, you dont have the right to undo them. You might want to reread the entire conversation you had with Scarian. Your edits are all Pro Microsoft, shall we stop your edits?

Just to prove you wrong, I almost completely rewrote this section on the 10th. It is almost exactly how I left it. It is not anti Microsoft or ooxml. Kilz (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it is actually me that was making the good faith edits. You were removing cited quotes from OSS licensing experts that I had added. Repeatedly. I have only removed some duplicated date information where you started repeating dates already in the citations in the article itself. And actually not all my edits are pro-micrsoft. I have actually contributed neutral technical information to this article. Like the sections on OMML and DrawingML. Have you contributed any neutral information to this article? I think not. You are also in conflict with user:WalterGR over your biased anti-ooxml edits which is basically all you do on wikipedia. hAl (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are reverting , you make the page exactly how you left it on the 17th. I removed things that

1. I have a reference where Mark Webbink says his quote was taken out of context and it was never meant to apply to ooxml.
2. I removed a section that didnt mention licenses in any way from Andy Updegrove.

But at the same time I rewrote other areas, that had 0 to do with those edits, you reverted them. I added dates, referenced dates, you removed them. I added {{fact}} tags, you removed them. That wasn't just you replacing statements. You undid other areas that had nothing whatsoever with those quotes. I even rewrote my edits from the day before adding direct references. You removed it all. Get off your high horse saying you were just replacing things I took out. You removed much much more. Kilz (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Since then is has been proven that user:Kilz had been using sockpuppets to assist his edits Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Archive/April_2008#User:Kilz. hAl (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this section user:Kilz misbehaviour a public personal attack against me. I have filed a request on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts Personal attack by hAl, a early step toward mediation on this issue. This is a notification of that request as the page requires. Kilz (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Since then is has been proven that user:Kilz had been using sockpuppets to assist his edits Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Archive/April_2008#User:Kilz. hAl (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be warned that the WP:3RR has this in it:

The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule is an "electric fence".[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks.

You already have 1 report on you for edits to the same area, edit one more time to it and I will file a report quoting the above rule. Leave the {{fact}} tags in place ot place a reference that shows your use of them. Kilz (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are a sockpuppet user:Kilz. We can all see the blatant evidence Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kilz_(2nd). Go away from the Office Open XML and Standardization of Office Open XML article with your effort to force trough your personal opinion. hAl (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added to that it is just laughable that you are threathening with a report you filed yourself and which was rejected. hAl (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update': Since then is has been proven that user:Kilz had been using sockpuppets to assist his edits Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Archive/April_2008#User:Kilz. hAl (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I truly appreciate your trying to help me with Kilz, I'm afraid that there are already too many people involved. Could you leave it to me, and I'll let you know if the admins request a 3rd party opinion?

Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 13:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I am glad you did the research on this. hAl (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a warning that you have reverted the open specification page 3 times in the last 24 hours. Kilz (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting observation as I have made only two edits to the article in the last 24 hours. You are a total joke mister sockpuppeteer. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kilz (2nd) hAl (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Since then is has been proven that user:Kilz had been using sockpuppets to assist his edits Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Archive/April_2008#User:Kilz. hAl (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can Microsoft Office Open XML be a standard (for which Ecma International is responsible for) until its approved? --Adam1213 Talk 10:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The format was approved by Ecma International standards organization as an Ecma standard at the Ecma general assembly in december 2006. See: http://www.ecma-international.org/news/PressReleases/PR_TC45_Dec2006.htm. I hope this answers your question. hAl (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.--Kozuch (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to act WP:NPOV like you apparently do for some time now, and not only with my edits as it seems. You are obviously biased. But what I don't like is not merely the result, who could (maybe) have been reached out of consensus and discussion, but the method you used. You seem to be used to delete parts without any warning and do as you please here. If you continue to act like you do, I will report you to an administrator and ask your account to be deleted. consider this as a warning. Hervegirod (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed on the talk page. It also showed ypou made false claims about OOXML "The fact remains that Office 2007 is not still conformant to the standard." Based on the info you editted in the article. Office Open XML does conform to the current version of the format. As it is obvious that it takes time to implement a new version of a standard your edit to suggest it that it is not conformant are just about trolling the article. Also reflected in this edit being removed by someone else hAl (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First I really don't like your tone: when you write about false claim and trolling, you are obviously breaking the WP:FAITH rule. There are other people here, who may not have exactly the same point of view as yours. More importantly, I have no problem with you deleting my edting; it is not the first time, and it will not be the last one. But I have a problem about you deleting comments on an open-source authority like Tim Bray. He exactly said here: The coverage suggests that future enhancements to 29500, as worked through by a subcommittee of a subcommittee of a standards committee, are actually going to have some influence on Microsoft. Um, maybe there’s an alternate universe in which Redmond-based program managers and developers are interested in the opinions of a subgroup of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34, but this isn’t it. I suppose they’ll probably show up to the meetings and try to act interested, but it’s going to be a sideline and nobody important will be there. What Microsoft really wanted was that ISO stamp of approval to use as a marketing tool. And just like your mother told you, when they get what they want and have their way with you, they’re probably not gonna call you in the morning. It was sourced in the add. This time, don't say that his comments are not relevant, because you will be breaking the 5 Pillars Rules: Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". One last think if you consider Bray's comment as irrelevant: Tim Bray is a software developer, writer, major contributor to the XML and Atom web standards, and an entrepreneur (he co-founded Open Text Corporation and Antarctica Systems) (from Wikipedia) Hervegirod (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hervegirod, I've watched User:HAl work on the OOXML articles for a long time, and seen him fight against a near-constant stream of anti-Microsoft advocates try to tilt the article away from a neutral presentation of the standard and the issues around it. The reality is that you stepped into the article and added information which was not only factually incorrect, but contained slanted language like "The fact remains". Editors who really value NPOV don't write like this, and you should expect that contributions containing such language will be removed. You seem to have a history of adding this sort of non-neutral language to Wikipedia articles, too. User:HAl's aggressiveness may be jarring, but before you rush to judge his actions as biased, don't forget that you too come to the table with biases, as expressed in your blog, and you're one of Wikipedia's leading contributors of criticism of all things Microsoft, so please, don't go lecturing others on their biases, okay?

As to the topic at hand, the quote from Tim Bray is interesting, but there is a separate article for discussing the OOXML standardization process and criticisms thereof. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs there, not in the main article. -/- Warren 02:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you name Tim Bray in this you should probably also see him as a technolgy specialist working for Sun which is one of the most active protagonist against Office Open XML and together with IBM the main force in developing the rival format ODF. Not even mentioning that fact show your POV. I find it hard to believe you could seriously forget tot mention the one relevant fact in his curriculum vitea which has a serieous relation to this article, his current employer. Tim Bray's comments might go in the Standardization of Office Open XML article but should be noted as comments representing Suns views. hAl (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm very happy that the conformance issue fact has now found some place in the article. It was all I asked in the first place, and what enraged me (just kidding) was seeing this fact deleted over and over, which was against wikipedia rules. I have now no problem on the new formulation; I always replied to hAl that my problem was that he mercilessly deleted it several times, and with no good reason. I had no problem about rewrites, moves, etc... However, about Tim Bray, one of the rules is that we as wikipedians must not delete valid sources just because we think they are inflammatory (see above my quote of one of the 5 pillars). Just the fact that Tim Bray is now employed by Sun should not make us delete his comment, only we could maybe mention his employer now. His point of view is worth quoting because is one of the major contributors to the XML formats, so some authority on the XML standards subject. But taking his comment with a grain of salt by mentioning his employer would have been OK for me. However, and regardless of what I think about the Tim Bray quote, I'm reasonably happy with the issue, and I won't argue anymore to add this quote. And as for me criticizing Microsoft, I won't say that I'm a Microsoft zealot, but I always try to inform and give facts, but facts that give all the points of views, not only one. And if I'm biased, I never delete other adds without warnings just because.... And I'm also the one who created the Criticism of Java article in the first place (which did not prevent the main Java article to have its share of criticisms too). So... Hervegirod (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not want to push the comments too far when I made the first add to the article, but look here (numerous other links everywhere pointing to the same blog): Alex Brown, who heads up the group responsible for maintaining the OOXML standard at the International Standardisation Organisation (ISO), checked Office 2007 against OOXML and found a lot of errors for the strict schema (not many for transitional). There is an answer from Microsoft's Office interoperability senior product manager who said that this was normal to try to achieve interoperability. So even Microsoft Officials think that this fact has some importance. So I'm biased when I mention this fact ? I'm back to what I was saying at the beginning. The spirit of this site is to cite ALL the valid views. I completely agree that Microsoft Officials view is ALSO valid. Hervegirod (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a report on your 3 revert rule violation [3] of the OOXML page. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2008 ~ (UTC)

Interesting as you 4 revert to the article to readd that information "[4][5][6]. Also you repeatedly ingnored clearly reference evidence that the information you added was old and incorrect because it was superceded by clear Microsoft public statements. hAl (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Learn to count, that is 3. Your clearly referenced evidence is about Office 14, not OOXML. Your own quote in your last edit proves there is no commitment. Do not confuse, or try to confuse Office 14 with OOXML. What is stated about one is not necessarily true about the other. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Edit warring on Open Office XML, per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]