| Revision as of 10:52, 1 October 2009 view sourceScientus (talk | contribs)5,503 edits →Edit Warring: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:04, 18 October 2023 view source WOSlinker (talk | contribs)Administrators857,218 editsm fix lint issues | ||
| (127 intermediate revisions by 33 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{lowercase-user}} | {{lowercase-user}} | ||
| == |
== Blocked indefinitely == | ||
| I've taken a look at your edits since your last block expired, and your conduct has not improved in the least. As seen in the article for ], you are continually removing information against consensus, despite ongoing discussions regarding your actions at ]. There is a very clear consensus here that your actions are not appropriate, and yet you persist in making them. Since you have been blocked seven times already for edit warring on this and related articles, it is clear to me that the point is not getting through. As a result, '''you are blocked indefinitely''' until you agree to stop editing any articles related to ] from this point forward. Your conduct is not constructive to that article, as demonstrated by comments on the talk page and your own block log. Additionally, I would recommend that you agree to a "1RR" restriction, where you would be limited to one revert per article per day as opposed to the usual 3RR rule. You may, as always, appeal this block by use of the {{tl|unblock}} template. '''Reviewing administrators,''' please note that this block is under discussion at ]. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 17:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Your edit about Microsoft's Bing seems to read like it came from Microsoft promotional material in my opinion. Other email providers allow searching of the internet from your mailbox. What's more, only a Microsoft-owned source has been quoted and no other third-party news-outlet or blog has been quoted to backup the supposed significance or usefulness of this new feature. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ⚫ | :I note that the discussion on this incident has now been archived, in ] at ANi.--''']''' 03:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| : The info I added was very clearly from the the included source material that I added as a citation. I hope you have read that. If you have different or more extensive information on the integration of Bing in Hotmail than please feel free to add. ] (]) 17:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=I object to this full block as the reason seems repeated previous blocks on only a single article topic (]) which has been heavily editted by edittors with severe conflict of interest. Also I had put a message on the talk page of that topic that I would take a break from editting the specific topic before that the latest complaint seems to have been filed. Now that I return after a break from wikipedia I notice that my user has been entirely blocked. I request that the indefinite block is altered into a temporary block and only on the specific article subject|decline=The question below was deliberately vague to see if there was any chance you might see any self accountability for the actions which led to your block and community ban. I'm afraid all I can see the same intractable positioning that will lead to further disruptive editing across other articles. Perhaps another admin might see differently, but I don't feel comfortable unblocking. Thanks. ] ] 01:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| : I know this, but was not from a completely neutral . Also, when I then added relevant information with two ''appropriately'' sourced and relevant sources, you reverted it as it fails to meet your viewpoint as clearly expressed in your fanatic editing of Microsoft-related articles to promote the interests of that particular company. If you do have any stake-holding in that company, e.g. you are a shareholder, employee, provider, commercial partner, promoter, or invest in short or long term derivatives based on the performance of Microsoft, you should say so ''clearly'', on your Userpage, for example. However, the last time I checked there all I saw was that you like ]. Beer paid for by ], perhaps? ] (]) 18:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::It seems to supporting discussion at ANI left off with an agreement to unblock if you agree to a topic ban from not only Office Open XML, but from all Microsoft related topics as well. Looking at your block log, Hersfold's suggestion of a temporary 1RR restriction seems sensible as well. To be clear, are you agreeing to these conditions? ] ] 16:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Unsourced Microsoft talking points. == | |||
| :::: Why would there be a need for a more restrictive block than on the Office Open XML topic. I work in ICT and MS products are a major part of my knowledgebase. There is not been a single admin issue on my actions on any other topic then Office Open XML. There is no valid reason for me to get blocked on topics other than Office Open XML. It seems a lot of the current editors on ICT topics are more focussed on FOSS and object to any other angles to the topics being put forward but that is not a reason for me not to write on those. ] (]) 18:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without ] a ]{{#if:|, as you did to ],}} is not consistent with our policy of ]. Take a look at the ] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with ], please take this opportunity to add references to the article. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-unsourced1 --> | |||
| :::::Do you feel that you've had success in forming consensus here within your knowledgebase? What do you feel are the underlying reasons behind your current ban from Misplaced Pages? ] ] 18:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=306795182&oldid=306645711 ] (]) 01:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I think an underlying reason is that the Office Open XML article is seen by a a group of people as a battleground for continuing a lost battle around the standardization proces of Office Open XML. They associate the objective information about format with the standardization proces (which already has a seperate article) which has left a lot of dissatisfactions with the (often foss or ms competitor related) parties. I tried to keep the article clean from the controversies surrounding that proces by focussing on the format. Apperantly that was not well recieved. Many of the current editors of the current Office Open XML article (which is a main format for MS OFfice) are now edited by foss supporters and editors working for companies like Sun and Google who have competing products using OpenDocument. I tried to keep the articles on both formats in similar objectivity. Misplaced Pages has always had a large support for OSS topics and a much much negative writings on Microsoft. This shows in the articles objectivity. The Office Open XML article was just an extreme example. I have seen that some improvements have been made by splitting up the article since but I can no longer be bothered so much as the reality is that the format is there to stay and even a bunch of people who want to write their frustrations on losing the standardization battleground can not write that away by manipulating wikipedia. The issues surrounding the standardization will lose importance by the day while the information about the use and features of the format will become more relevant as more people use the format. That is the natural way that things go. Even though some do not like that reality so much the article will move to more objective information on the format even without me trying to guard for that. ] (]) 20:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I don't think this is really the place to restate what you tried to do; your block record appears to indicate that the community does not think your editing in these areas is objective. The block was supported by everyone who had input on it, and the conditions of an unblock appear to be a topic ban from all articles related to Office Open XML and Microsoft products to avoid what might be construed as further disruption. Thus, the question becomes whether you are interested in being unblocked if you are not allowed to edit those articles. I don't really see much room for further negotiation outside of those boundaries. ]<small>]</small> 00:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : You should try and read the information you remove next time as I had added at least two sources that fully supported the information in the parts you removed. Also you indiscriminatly removed subsequent edits by standards expert]. If you think the information is not properly sourced you should ask for citations and not blunty remove valid information as you repeatedly seem to do. I suggest you stop wth your ] on MS releated articles. ] (]) 06:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::(Yes, I realize the question above can be read as asking you to make such a statement. However, I think you are mistaken in that interpretation. It's very unlikely that Kuru was asking you to comment on the actions of other editors. ]<small>]</small> 00:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)) | |||
| :::::::: Actually I read the block archive just now and the only two people asking for the block on MS topics are not independant users but are actually both been active editers in the disputed ] article (] and ]) themselves editing the Office Open MXL article themselves and their edits are vitually always only ment to put the format and/or it's relation to Micrsoft in a negative way (a lot of the problematic reverts I made surround those edits). Unlike me however they have both '''never''' contributed any objective facts on the format (like factual info on features of format itself) but add only opinionated critisism on the format features or opinionated events in ways negative to MS or they remove item that might be seen as positive. In fact ] himself who states that I should be banned from all MS topics himself has stated numerous times his dislike for Microsoft and and how he thinks that the article on Office Open XML format should be more about the controversy surrounding Microsoft in the the standardization proces (which as I stated before has a seperate article anyways). I do not think that the opinions of two editers involved directly in disputed edits who both dislike MS should constitute a condition for unblocking of sorts. They may find I was difficult on their edits on MS related topics but that is logical as their edits are rarely neutral. Their negative POV interest in MS topics is clear to see in history and content of their related edits and the Office Open XML talk page history. I have a more positive attitude towards the MS related articles. Is it the intention of Misplaced Pages admins to only allow users who write negatively on Microsoft like the two users asking this then I should be banned as those two users asked but I do not think that should be the case. ] (]) 13:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Reviewing administrators, please note that this user was evading their block while logged out on January 17th, 2010. Thank you. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 20:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == |
||
| ::(See ]. ] (]) 02:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)) | |||
| Thanks for uploading or contributing to ''']'''. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under ] but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to ] and edit it to include a ]. | |||
| ==File source problem with File:Nuna 5 in convoy during tests in australia.jpg== | |||
| If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-no fair use rationale-notice --> –] (] • ] • ]) 23:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| Thanks for uploading ''']'''. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the ] status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged. | |||
| If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following . '''Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged''', as described on ]. If the image is copyrighted under a ] (per ]) then '''the image will be deleted ] after 16:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)'''. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-no source-notice --> • ] <sup>]</sup> 16:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Fair use rationale for File:Nunas Hubble solar cells.jpg== | |||
| Thanks for uploading or contributing to ''']'''. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under ] but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to ] and edit it to include a ]. | |||
| ⚫ | == File:Nuna5 presskit photo.jpg listed for deletion == | ||
| If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-no fair use rationale-notice --> –] (] • ] • ]) 20:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Idw --> ] ] 15:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == File:DrawingML text effect.png listed for deletion == | |||
| == Hubble solar cell tech? == | |||
| A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 15:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| What sort of cells are used on the Hubble panel from the Nuna 1? They look like conventional mSi ones, but looks can be deceiving. | |||
| Do you happen to know if the cells on the Hubble today are the ones that replaced these? Or have they been replaced more than once? | |||
| Thanks! | |||
| ] (]) 17:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : The Hubble telescope at least originally had silicon cells. The solar array was created by ESA. | |||
| : See: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel2%2F129%2F3355%2F00111824.pdf&authDecision=-203 . Feel free to ad the information in the related articles. | |||
| : However they were replaced twice. The first time by a similar size array but the second time by a much smaller array. (which might have been GaAs cells ?). Cell from the replaced array where used on ] solar car. ] (]) 17:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fantastic, thanks! ] (]) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Microsoft vs. i4i == | |||
| It's not a conditional rejection, it's stated clearly and more accurately as a provisional rejection. The referenced article is biased in favor of Microsoft, for a lot of reasons also. Furthermore, I would consider these weasel words.. | |||
| "'''In addition to that argument''' the patent at the heart of this issue has '''already''' been" | |||
| Perhaps a better use of language would be: | |||
| In addition, since the injuction was ordered i4i's patent has been provisionally rejected by the US Patent Office following re-examination. | |||
| I feel that's more neutral. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| For now, I'm going to delete it. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| : I agree that provisionally is more accurate. I wish you yourself would have replaced "contionally" with "provisionally" in stead of deleting the comment alltogether. I restored it now with "provisonally in the text ] (]) 14:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit waring at ] article == | |||
| {{uw-3RR}}-''']''' 14:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| :: Interesting. Have you reported ] who has A LOT more reverts on the article then me. Or are you reporting me because I object against your removal of the free and open claim on the article (which you refused to givew a valid argument on). ] (]) 17:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Unsourced == | |||
| ] Please do not add content without citing ] and ]{{#if:Office Open XML|, as you did to ]}}. Before making any potentially controversial ], it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at ] and take this opportunity to add references to the article. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-unsourced2 -->] (]) 18:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit Warring == | |||
| {{uw-3rr|OOXML}} ] (]) 10:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:04, 18 October 2023
Blocked indefinitely
I've taken a look at your edits since your last block expired, and your conduct has not improved in the least. As seen in the article history for Office Open XML, you are continually removing information against consensus, despite ongoing discussions regarding your actions at Talk:Office Open XML#User hAl reverting valid material again. There is a very clear consensus here that your actions are not appropriate, and yet you persist in making them. Since you have been blocked seven times already for edit warring on this and related articles, it is clear to me that the point is not getting through. As a result, you are blocked indefinitely until you agree to stop editing any articles related to Office Open XML from this point forward. Your conduct is not constructive to that article, as demonstrated by comments on the talk page and your own block log. Additionally, I would recommend that you agree to a "1RR" restriction, where you would be limited to one revert per article per day as opposed to the usual 3RR rule. You may, as always, appeal this block by use of the {{unblock}} template. Reviewing administrators, please note that this block is under discussion at WP:ANI#Block review for User:hAl. Hersfold 17:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- I note that the discussion on this incident has now been archived, in Archive 574 at ANi.--Lester 03:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
HAl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I object to this full block as the reason seems repeated previous blocks on only a single article topic (Office Open XML) which has been heavily editted by edittors with severe conflict of interest. Also I had put a message on the talk page of that topic that I would take a break from editting the specific topic before that the latest complaint seems to have been filed. Now that I return after a break from wikipedia I notice that my user has been entirely blocked. I request that the indefinite block is altered into a temporary block and only on the specific article subject
Decline reason:
The question below was deliberately vague to see if there was any chance you might see any self accountability for the actions which led to your block and community ban. I'm afraid all I can see the same intractable positioning that will lead to further disruptive editing across other articles. Perhaps another admin might see differently, but I don't feel comfortable unblocking. Thanks. Kuru 01:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- It seems to supporting discussion at ANI left off with an agreement to unblock if you agree to a topic ban from not only Office Open XML, but from all Microsoft related topics as well. Looking at your block log, Hersfold's suggestion of a temporary 1RR restriction seems sensible as well. To be clear, are you agreeing to these conditions? Kuru 16:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Why would there be a need for a more restrictive block than on the Office Open XML topic. I work in ICT and MS products are a major part of my knowledgebase. There is not been a single admin issue on my actions on any other topic then Office Open XML. There is no valid reason for me to get blocked on topics other than Office Open XML. It seems a lot of the current editors on ICT topics are more focussed on FOSS and object to any other angles to the topics being put forward but that is not a reason for me not to write on those. hAl (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Do you feel that you've had success in forming consensus here within your knowledgebase? What do you feel are the underlying reasons behind your current ban from Misplaced Pages? Kuru 18:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think an underlying reason is that the Office Open XML article is seen by a a group of people as a battleground for continuing a lost battle around the standardization proces of Office Open XML. They associate the objective information about format with the standardization proces (which already has a seperate article) which has left a lot of dissatisfactions with the (often foss or ms competitor related) parties. I tried to keep the article clean from the controversies surrounding that proces by focussing on the format. Apperantly that was not well recieved. Many of the current editors of the current Office Open XML article (which is a main format for MS OFfice) are now edited by foss supporters and editors working for companies like Sun and Google who have competing products using OpenDocument. I tried to keep the articles on both formats in similar objectivity. Misplaced Pages has always had a large support for OSS topics and a much much negative writings on Microsoft. This shows in the articles objectivity. The Office Open XML article was just an extreme example. I have seen that some improvements have been made by splitting up the article since but I can no longer be bothered so much as the reality is that the format is there to stay and even a bunch of people who want to write their frustrations on losing the standardization battleground can not write that away by manipulating wikipedia. The issues surrounding the standardization will lose importance by the day while the information about the use and features of the format will become more relevant as more people use the format. That is the natural way that things go. Even though some do not like that reality so much the article will move to more objective information on the format even without me trying to guard for that. hAl (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Do you feel that you've had success in forming consensus here within your knowledgebase? What do you feel are the underlying reasons behind your current ban from Misplaced Pages? Kuru 18:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think this is really the place to restate what you tried to do; your block record appears to indicate that the community does not think your editing in these areas is objective. The block was supported by everyone who had input on it, and the conditions of an unblock appear to be a topic ban from all articles related to Office Open XML and Microsoft products to avoid what might be construed as further disruption. Thus, the question becomes whether you are interested in being unblocked if you are not allowed to edit those articles. I don't really see much room for further negotiation outside of those boundaries. Dekimasuよ! 00:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- (Yes, I realize the question above can be read as asking you to make such a statement. However, I think you are mistaken in that interpretation. It's very unlikely that Kuru was asking you to comment on the actions of other editors. Dekimasuよ! 00:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC))
- Actually I read the block archive just now and the only two people asking for the block on MS topics are not independant users but are actually both been active editers in the disputed Office open XML article (user:Lester and user:Nigelj) themselves editing the Office Open MXL article themselves and their edits are vitually always only ment to put the format and/or it's relation to Micrsoft in a negative way (a lot of the problematic reverts I made surround those edits). Unlike me however they have both never contributed any objective facts on the format (like factual info on features of format itself) but add only opinionated critisism on the format features or opinionated events in ways negative to MS or they remove item that might be seen as positive. In fact user:Lester himself who states that I should be banned from all MS topics himself has stated numerous times his dislike for Microsoft and and how he thinks that the article on Office Open XML format should be more about the controversy surrounding Microsoft in the the standardization proces (which as I stated before has a seperate article anyways). I do not think that the opinions of two editers involved directly in disputed edits who both dislike MS should constitute a condition for unblocking of sorts. They may find I was difficult on their edits on MS related topics but that is logical as their edits are rarely neutral. Their negative POV interest in MS topics is clear to see in history and content of their related edits and the Office Open XML talk page history. I have a more positive attitude towards the MS related articles. Is it the intention of Misplaced Pages admins to only allow users who write negatively on Microsoft like the two users asking this then I should be banned as those two users asked but I do not think that should be the case. hAl (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Reviewing administrators, please note that this user was evading their block while logged out on January 17th, 2010. Thank you. Hersfold 20:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
File source problem with File:Nuna 5 in convoy during tests in australia.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Nuna 5 in convoy during tests in australia.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Misplaced Pages:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. • Anakin 16:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
File:Nuna5 presskit photo.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nuna5 presskit photo.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
File:DrawingML text effect.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:DrawingML text effect.png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
