| Revision as of 19:32, 30 October 2009 view source216.149.199.8 (talk) Undid revision 322974702 by DMacks (talk), you really don't understand, hAL is burning the truth. Can you block him?← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:34, 30 October 2009 view source DMacks (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators186,821 edits noNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{lowercase-user}} | {{lowercase-user}} | ||
| == Bias in Bing edit == | |||
| 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--> | |||
| : 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) | |||
| : 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) | |||
| == Unsourced Microsoft talking points. == | |||
| ] 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 --> | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=306795182&oldid=306645711 ] (]) 01:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : You should try and read the information you remove next time as I had added at least two sources that fully supported the information in the parts you removed. Also you indiscriminatly removed subsequent edits by standards 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) | |||
| ==Fair use rationale for File:Nuna5 presskit photo.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 ]. | |||
| 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) | |||
| ==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 ]. | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Hubble solar cell tech? == | |||
| What sort of cells are used on the Hubble panel from the Nuna 1? They look like conventional mSi ones, but looks can be deceiving. | |||
| Do you happen to know if the cells on the Hubble today are the ones that replaced these? Or have they been replaced more than once? | |||
| Thanks! | |||
| ] (]) 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) | |||
| :Your reverting of the article continues, so I have reported you to ]-''']''' 16:51, 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) | |||
| : ] you have now approximatly made 50 removals of fully sourced information on ] agianst multiple editors and against consensus on the talk page where you yourself have avoided discusion. ]. I suggest you stop removing this information and stop your ] on the ] article. ] (]) 14:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Then if you say that, why do you keep adding unsourced stuff and saying that ] is "free" and "open"? Lets face it. ] is free and open, not OOXML. ] (]) 13:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for {{#if:10 days|a period of '''10 days'''|a short time}} to prevent further ] caused by your engagement in an ]{{#if:| at ]}}. During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{#if:|] (]) 21:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)}}</div>{{z9}}<!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> Per ]. ] (]) 21:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : It tried getting consesus discussing the ] by ] on the talk page | |||
| : For instance: | |||
| : Here: ] | |||
| : Here: ] | |||
| : Here: ] | |||
| : Here: ] | |||
| : Here: ] | |||
| : Here: ] | |||
| : Here: ] | |||
| : Here: ] | |||
| : Here: ] | |||
| : Here: ] | |||
| : Here: ] | |||
| : Here: ] | |||
| : and by requesting for comments, ] | |||
| : by asking for mediation ] | |||
| : and by asking the wikiproject computing. ] | |||
| : In addition to that the page has geen protected for a week last time around. | |||
| : None of this has made a difference. The user ] keeps up with his ] removing fully sourced and relavant information for the article. A minor slection of this disruptive behaviour can be seen here: ] | |||
| : What exactly do you expect me to seek now ? | |||
| : I object to your 10 day block. ] is just campaining to drive away other editers which is the logical another step in ]. I have tried every avenue open to dispute resolution. I think it is not fair to give someone that tries to resolve disputes a ban after when the dispute resolution proces fails due to lack of independent review from outside helping out. You are assisting a long time disruptive editor to reign free over the article. I request you to unblock me as I followed the correct paths in dispute resolution that you are now suggesting already. ] (]) 22:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1= I already tried the suggested dispute resolution (request for comments, mediation and asking the wikiproject for help) and it has failed. 10 day block is unjustified after such effort trying dispute resolution. I do not understand why ] is allowed and I get a block for trying to solve this with the correct route of dispute resolution|decline=The failure of the community to help you out via dispute resolution channels still does not give you an excuse to continue to engage in an edit war, especially with a ] currently underway. In addition, everyone in the community, not just administrators, has the prerogative to help resolve disputes. In addition, if I unblocked you right now, I do not think you would be able to be constructive in the RFC or in your ability (with the below comments you made and your comments made at ] as evidence). ] 22:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| ===Comment by blocking admin=== | |||
| I issued the above block for a 3RR violation on 30 September. I see a long-running dispute, and I'm not sure how many participants are behaving well, but someone who breaks 3RR clearly is not. This block could be lifted if you will agree to a voluntary 1RR restriction on ] and any closely related articles. That means one revert per article per week. If it turns out that others continue to edit war during your restriction, that could draw unfavorable admin attention to them and they could eventually face blocks or restrictions themselves. ] (]) 22:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Sure, but I suggest you call in the admins now then. I repeatedly asked admins to interfere both here and on IRC. I am totally fed up with admins not doing anything but looking for two seconds and then suggesting dispute resolution and then removing themselves. I tried dispute resolution and nobody from the outside really assists. I want that admin assistance on the ] article now. It is hijacked by a user (]) that removed fully sourced information like 50 times and we have employees of Google with big conflicts of interest there starting polls on what should be in the article. It is plain ridiculous. I asked for help a lot and what you give is more of the same, as in "no help agian". It is really disappointing. ] (]) 23:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: This scapegoating of one particular editor is unproductive, and heading towards disingenuous. I too have admonished (and indeed reverted) Scientus for his behaviour on multiple occasions, but it does not excuse yours. Your edit warring has most certainly not been confined to reverting Scientus; rather, you have used your attention to the article to ] multiple editors who disagree with you. ] - ] 23:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Having a difference of opinion is common. Having people from Google and Sun (like you) which were opposing the Office Open XML standardization fiercly trying to control the content of the article I find very disturbing. Why are Google and Sun employees desperate not to let the Office open XML article state that it a free and open standard like is stated on the format they are promoting and which the related wikipedia articles are already stating as well ? Why is content already supported in several current wikipedia articles itself being removed in the ] article. ] (]) 07:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There were enough inconsistencies in the standardization process that . Also, ] has repeatedly to completely remove the published opinions of Sun and Google, among others, from the article. ] (]) 01:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Still waiting ] ... | |||
| : And immediatly I will need admin help for ] has again reverted against he consensus on the talk page in his war against the ] article. | |||
| : http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=317562743&oldid=317346640 | |||
| : Removing fully sourced information on support for the standard, addind ridiculous amounst of citations to and and incorrect information on the compatbitlity of Office 2007 with these standard (that is in fact correctly dcescribeb elsewqhere in the article). All these things are discussed but ] ignores this and keeps vandalising the article. You are made aware of this and would I expect admins to interfere. | |||
| : Here is a small selection (gathered by another editor on ]) of recent edits by ] where he tries to get any mention of support for Office Open XML removed from this article: | |||
| #http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=317256317&oldid=317115910 | |||
| #http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=317053543&oldid=317048760 | |||
| #http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=315549143&oldid=315542955 | |||
| #http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=314349579&oldid=314334726 | |||
| #http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=314293873&oldid=314163854 | |||
| #http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=314061479&oldid=314048363 | |||
| #http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=308366639&oldid=308291451 | |||
| #http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=308253924&oldid=307884538 | |||
| #http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=307846982&oldid=307705059 | |||
| #http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=302554313&oldid=302174952 | |||
| #http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=301668306&oldid=301660355 | |||
| #http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=301458053&oldid=301457153 | |||
| #http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=301326144&oldid=301164333 | |||
| #http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=299976600&oldid=299703971 | |||
| #http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=299047868&oldid=298950006 | |||
| #http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=298336626&oldid=298312310 | |||
| #http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=297353032&oldid=297341219 | |||
| #http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=297032269&oldid=296723747 | |||
| #http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=295436493&oldid=295430817 | |||
| #http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=317562743&oldid=317346640 | |||
| == Blocked == | |||
| I've blocked your account for two weeks in response to persistent disruptive editing (including edit warring and failure to assume good faith). You may contest this block by following the instructions at ]. –''']''' | ] 13:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Unbelievable. | |||
| : I made those edits reverting ] that were discussed on the talk pages and for which there was consensus on on the talk page. | |||
| : Long time vandaliser on the article ] reverts them and I get blocked. This is sick !!! Really really sick !!!!] (]) 14:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :* You are allowing removal by ] of information because ] thinks that sites hosting by Microsoft are not allowed to be mentioned in an article and subsequently removes them. | |||
| : Example removal edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Office_Open_XML&action=historysubmit&diff=319787719&oldid=319763009 | |||
| :* You are allowing this kind of edits made by ]: | |||
| : ''The standard is long,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.janik.cz/archives/2007/07/18/T18_02_54/|title= I have seen the second complete copy of OOXML specification proposal}}</ref> with the version submitted to ISO comprising 6,546 pages. The need and appropriateness of such length has been questioned.<ref name="GooglesPositiononOOXML">{{cite web|url=http://www.odfalliance.org/resources/Google%20OOXML%20Q%20%20A.pdf|title=Google's Position on OOXML as a Proposed ISO Standard|date=2008-02|publisher=]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/x-ooxmlstandard.html|title=OOXML: What's the big deal?|date=2008-02-19|publisher=]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blogs.sun.com/bnitz/entry/whoah_microsoft_s_6000_page|title=Whoah! Microsoft's 6000 page OOXML standard ECMA fast-tracked by Feb 5?|date=2007-01-23|author=bnitz|publisher=]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20070117145745854|title=The Contradictory Nature of OOXML|date=2007-01-17|publisher=ConsortiumInfo.org}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39288959,00.htm|title=Microsoft accused of rigging OOXML votes|date=2007-08-30|publisher=]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/printfriendly.htm?AT=62037862-39000001c|title=Developers warned over OOXML patent risk|date=2008-02-15|publisher=]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=1634|title=In case you were wondering how big 6000 pages is: OpenXML/OOXML/whatever|date=2007-05-24|author=] (IBM)}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://press.ffii.org/Press_releases/FFII_opposes_Fasttrack_adoption_of_Microsoft_OOXML_format_as_ISO_standard|title=FFII opposes Fasttrack adoption of Microsoft OOXML format as ISO standard|date=2007-01-29|publisher=]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/07/formula-for-failure.html|title=The Formula for Failure|date=2009-01-29|author=]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2008/04/microsofts-office-open-xml-now-an-official-iso-standard.ars|title=Microsoft's Office Open XML now an official ISO standard|date=2008-04-01|publisher=]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/31/0039238|title=OOXML Will Pass Amid Massive Irregularities|date=2008-03-31|publisher=]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://my.opera.com/ThePast/blog/2007/09/15/fight-the-broken-microsoft-proprietary-ooxml-format-from-becoming-an-iso-standar|title=Stop the broken Microsoft proprietary OOXML format from becoming an ISO standard.|publisher=]|date=2007-09-15}}</ref> | |||
| : Twelve consecutive useless citation links editted on an uncontested critisism that the specifcation is long. (which I tried many times to change to just one citation only to be reverted by ] a few days later !!) | |||
| :* You are allowing incorrect information put in thearticle lead by ] on so called incompatibilities in Office 2007 which were discussed on the talk page ] and in agreement with ] were moved from the lead to another place in the article and made more accurate. ] (]) 14:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1= I made ony one recent revert on ] who reported me. ] himself has reverted twice in the last few days. Also the edits I made were largely in agreement with discusion on the talk page ] / ] and ] edits were not. Why should an editor be punished for editting back to the consensus of the talk page.|decline=I'm having an extremely hard time finding consensus for your edits on the talk page, and your conversation below does not convince me that, if unblocked, you would stop edit warring and wait for a more solid consensus to form. Take a step back from things and let the dust settle; once you've calmed down and can look at things objectively, we can reconsider this. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 22:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| :I support the admin ]'s decision to block User:HAl. Despite the above claims, there was no consensus for User:HAl's edits. The 14 day cooling off period imposed on User:HAl will allow him to rethink his behavior, and then return to Misplaced Pages with a different approach.--''']''' 14:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Actually there was consensus on the described edits. The part that there was no consensus on (with an RfC running on the talk page) is the "free and open claim" and that I actually removed from the article myself after restoring the content that was decribed above: . ] (]) 15:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::“Actually there was consensus on the described edits.”{{fact}}] (]) 00:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Actually I there are least two links to the talk page consensus above. Of course again you ignored them. ] (]) 13:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: For example ] said about the links on MS office incompatibility (that you have been reverting back in the article lead section): '''I added a completely new formulation of the section. Let's see if that passes muster. I agree that this does not belong in the lede'''. It is too bad that he does not act on this and removes your edits from the lead section again. Problaby because of your ] that you try and get people blocked if they do not agree with your edits. ] (]) 14:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I support the admin ]'s decision to block User ]. User ] should have a permanent article/subject-specific block for odf and ooxml related articles since he's being very disruptive and doesn't seem to stop. He's ignoring other editor's opinions and doesn't seem to mind being banned. Is it possible to do an article-specific block on a user? Found answer, unfortunately it's not possible: It would be handy for wikipedia to be able to ban users from specific articles and subjects, instead of banning them for everything. | |||
| :::::] (]) 15:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Agree with ]]. ] should be banned from the ODF/OOXML pages, and any page that's M$ releated. (if anyone wants to dispute this, this is not a personal attack, but a report to him to be blocked/banned. Also, if he keeps doing that after the two-week block period, keep him from editing his talk page. Just a sugestion, don't report me over it.) ] (]) 23:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Strange account you have ]. A few irrelevant edits on a non subjects and then almost exclusivly very biased and very POV edits on Office Open XML and OpenDocument. You first edit on open document show pure bias. You are a fundamentalist opponent of Office Open XML in favor of Opendocument in your fist document edit citing the Rob weir article which at that time was featured on Groklaw (a real anti-OOXML blog). http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:OpenDocument&diff=prev&oldid=318042721 . Incredible how the Office Open XML is now regularly editted by opponents of Office Open XML. Looking at it I now see people from Sun, Google , NOOXML and now you as a Groklaw community representative. That makes the edits on wikipedia for document formats a giant farce. Two companies using Opendocument and people from groups strongly opposing Office Open XML are now editing the article on Office Open XML that is just laughable. ] (]) 16:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I find it amazing that you with an Misplaced Pages account that seems to be created only to do biased edits on Opendocument and Office Open XML think you should have an other editor blocked from editing an article. ] (]) 16:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The fact that I sometimes disagree with the same people that hAl disagrees with should not be taken as supporting the pattern of behaviour by ] that he was banned for. I think we've made the article much better when he was not participating than we were able to do when he was. --] (]) 00:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I find it amazing that you on the article talk page stated that you agreed the incompatiblity with MS Office was incorrectly reperesented and did not belong in the article lead an subsequently placed it reworded in another part of the article but then also led ] re-add that misrepresentation so it is in the article twice now. Also I find it amazing that the Office Open XML supporting organizations are removed from the article. There was no controversy that those organizations are supporting Office Open XML and Office open XML development. It is just that ] has a high aversion to Microsoft and keeps removing that info because of that. You think it is better to suppres information then ? I just noticed on the talk page that someone from NOOXML suggested that the fully cited recommendation from the EU to Micrsoft should be removed and it subsequntly was. That is just laughable. Now the consensus apparantly revolves about the opinions of NOOXML supporters and people like you who have been strongly opposing Office Open XML standardization in the past. Also I find several brandnew Misplaced Pages users (like ] and ] ) with obvious bias against Office Open XML harrassing my talk page influencing admins to block me further. This is more than a little suspiscious to me. It is evident there is made a big effort by someone (or more than one) person to discredit my edits. ] (]) 07:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Wow, just wow. You just attacked me, ]. Now I'll report you to the Misplaced Pages staff, to keep you from editing your talk page. Take that for attacking me, hAl!!!!! (Hal should not do ] and/or ]. If you don't belive me, read hAl's post about me above!!!!!!. BTW, OOXML sucks, ODF rocks.) ] (]) 12:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I find your capability for amazement interesting, but not informative. After Alexbrn's refactoring, which did not spark an edit war, instead causing a talk page discussion, the compatibility info seems to have been stated once, and correctly. Trying to brand Alexbrn a NOOXML supporter is ..... interesting, but not informative. --] (]) 10:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Are you for real ? I find it amazing that you seem to overlook this text in the article lead: ''However, due to the changes introduced in a later version, Office 2007 is not entirely in compliance with ISO/IEC 29500:2008.''. We discussed this here: ]. You agreed with me that it was not accurate and that should not be in the lead of the article. You placed in a separate text which was more accurate and which not in the lead of the articele. But after that ] reverted the removal of that inaccurate information in the lead of the article and placed it back in the article lead. You seem to hold very different views when it comes to edits by certain people. And of course I did not brand Alexbrn as a NOOXML supporter but user ] who is an well known activist for NOOXML and who wanted to remove that the EU recommended that Microsoft standardize their XML office formats. I find it ridiculous that on of the most relevant policical developments (pre-dating the format) that have led to the existance of Office Open XML (and ODF for that matter) as it is now, has now been removed because some anti-OOXML activist does not want that in the article. Same for the supporting organizations that support and promote the use and development of Office Open XML. Why is that information being suppressed by anti-ooxml editors. The article on OpenDocument does have similare info on supporting organization but I guess that is allowed because the people removing the similar info from the OOXML artticle are obvious Opendocument supporters. Also removed by ] from the article was this sentence: ''Microsoft originally developed the specification as a successor to its earlier binary and Office 2003 XML file formats. ''. This is an evident fact and was supported by a valid citation but I guess ] did not like that information which related somhow to Microsoft either. So information on the origin of OOXML and the reason of its existance is being removed. Information on support for use and development of OOXML is being removed and in stead inaccurate information on incompatiblity with MS Office creeps in the article lead. How can you seriously think that that makes the article better. Suppressing factual info by people with an anti-OOXML agenda is not better. And that is just 4 examples of the poor state of the article. ] (]) 11:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::You said "Now the consensus apparantly revolves about the opinions of NOOXML supporters and people like you who have been strongly opposing Office Open XML standardization in the past." - since Alexbrn has done major edits recently, the logical conclusion is that you think Alexbrn is in one of those two groups. I know that's ridiculous, and I know you know that's ridiculous, but it's an example of your using inaccurate hyperbole and person-directed commentary rather than discussing the issues. (In an example of us agreeing on something, I agree that it would be better if the obviously experienced editors who've recently created new accounts and written on this page would admit to their prior experience and link their accounts publicly to their previous edit history.) --] (]) 12:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: Allthough I respect AlexBrn expert opinions he, like you, also is a person directly involved with OOXML and his edits should also be looked at carefully. However with the nooxml comment I obviously ment the well know nooxml activist that showed up coincidentally as did some other unidentified users. This reminds me of previous encounters with anti-ooxml activist who got me blocked before using a series of sockpuppets to edit on the OOXML article. I also notice that you avoid the 4 examples I gave of recent edits mostly by ] who has been trying to remove information from the article relating to the origin and the support for use and development of the format and reintroduced what you agreed before was not accurate information. If you find the time and effort to discuss of just the use of just the terms free file format and open standard in the article so much then I find it very questionable you let another editor edit the article in such a way. ] (]) 13:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I don't talk about Scientus on your user page, and neither do I talk about your behaviour on his. Other people's behaviour is not an excuse for your own; the reason why I entered this thread was that you were using my name to defend your behaviour. --] (]) 13:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: I was actually discussing several edits that were a large part of getting me blocked. However that discussion will follow again for sure. ] (]) 14:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Burning the truth == | |||
| ] keeps blanking out his talk page, thrus burning the truth. If he does that again, please block him from editing. ] (]) 19:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC) | |||