User talk:hAl - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 216.149.199.8 (talk) at 19:32, 30 October 2009 (Undid revision 322974702 by DMacks (talk), you really don't understand, hAL is burning the truth. Can you block him?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:32, 30 October 2009 by 216.149.199.8 (talk) (Undid revision 322974702 by DMacks (talk), you really don't understand, hAL is burning the truth. Can you block him?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shane.Halloran (talk • contribs) 11:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Unsourced Microsoft talking points.

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

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

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

Fair use rationale for File:Nuna5 presskit photo.jpg

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any 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 criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Hubble solar cell tech?

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

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

Thanks!

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

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

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

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

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

Microsoft vs. i4i

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

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

Perhaps a better use of language would be:

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

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

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

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

Edit waring at Office Open XML article

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

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

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

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

Unsourced

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

Edit Warring

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

user:Scientus you have now approximatly made 50 removals of fully sourced information on Office Open XML agianst multiple editors and against consensus on the talk page where you yourself have avoided discusion. Talk:Office_Open_XML#.27Support.27_by_Microsoft-run_websites. I suggest you stop removing this information and stop your Misplaced Pages:Disruptive_editing on the Office open XML article. hAl (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Then if you say that, why do you keep adding unsourced stuff and saying that OOXML is "free" and "open"? Lets face it. ODF is free and open, not OOXML. 216.149.199.8 (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 10 days to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Template:Z9 Per this complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It tried getting consesus discussing the WP:Disruptive editing by user:Scientus on the talk page

For instance:

Here: Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 7#Stop vandalising the Office Open XML and Microsoft articles

Here: Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 7#Repeated disruptive editting by user:Scientus

Here: Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 7#Vandalism and edit warring by User:Scientus

Here: Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 7#Opening section mutilated

Here: Talk:Office Open XML#Continuous removal of support organization

Here: Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 7#http://openxmldeveloper.org/

Here: Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 7#"Open XML community" is really a reliable source ????

Here: Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 7#What is the standpoint of "Open XML Developer" as a "Microsoft-run" site ??

Here: Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 7#The lead of this article

Here: Talk:Office Open XML#'Support' by Microsoft-run websites

Here: Talk:Office Open XML#Suggested incompatiblity MS Office 2007and ISO/IEC 29500

Here: Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 8#Patent infringement issue

and by requesting for comments, Talk:Office_Open_XML/Archive_7#RFC:_Supporting_sites_and_overcitation

by asking for mediation User_talk:CBM/Archive_12#Offer_to_mediate_in_the_Office_Open_XML_article

and by asking the wikiproject computing. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing/Archive_8#Need_some_neutral_view.2Fintervention_on_Office_Open_XML_article

In addition to that the page has geen protected for a week last time around.

None of this has made a difference. The user user:Scientus keeps up with his WP:Disruptive editing removing fully sourced and relavant information for the article. A minor slection of this disruptive behaviour can be seen here: Talk:Office_Open_XML#Edit_warring_of_User:Scientus

What exactly do you expect me to seek now ?

I object to your 10 day block. user:Scientus is just campaining to drive away other editers which is the logical another step in WP:Disruptive editing#Signs_of_disruptive_editing. 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. hAl (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

HAl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

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 Talk:Office_Open_XML#Edit_warring_of_User:Scientus this extreme behaviour is allowed and I get a block for trying to solve this with the correct route of dispute resolution

Decline reason:

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 request for comment 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 Talk:Office Open XML#Vandalism of the page as evidence). MuZemike 22:47, 3 October 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.

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 Office Open XML 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. EdJohnston (talk) 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 Office Open XML article now. It is hijacked by a user (user:Scientus) 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. hAl (talk) 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 bludgeon multiple editors who disagree with you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 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 Office Open XML article. hAl (talk) 07:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There were enough inconsistencies in the standardization process that the European regulators are investigating the possibility of illegal anti-competitive actions by Microsoft. Also, user:HAl has repeatedly to completely remove the published opinions of Sun and Google, among others, from the article. Scientus (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting EdJohnston ...

And immediatly I will need admin help for user:Scientus has again reverted against he consensus on the talk page in his war against the Office Open XML 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 user:Scientus 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 Talk:Office Open XML) of recent edits by User:Scientus where he tries to get any mention of support for Office Open XML removed from this article:

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 WP:APPEAL. –Juliancolton | 13:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Unbelievable.

I made those edits reverting user:Scientus that were discussed on the talk pages and for which there was consensus on on the talk page.

Long time vandaliser on the article user:Scientus reverts them and I get blocked. This is sick !!! Really really sick !!!!hAl (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You are allowing removal by user:Scientus of information because user:Scientus 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 user:Scientus:

The standard is long, with the version submitted to ISO comprising 6,546 pages. The need and appropriateness of such length has been questioned.

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 user:Scientus a few days later !!)

You are allowing incorrect information put in thearticle lead by user:Scientus on so called incompatibilities in Office 2007 which were discussed on the talk page Talk:Office_Open_XML#Suggested_incompatiblity_MS_Office_2007and_ISO.2FIEC_29500 and in agreement with user:Alvestrand were moved from the lead to another place in the article and made more accurate. hAl (talk) 14:22, 14 October 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 made ony one recent revert on user:Scientus who reported me. user:Scientus 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 user:Scientus edits were not. Why should an editor be punished for editting back to the consensus of the talk page.

Decline reason:

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. Hersfold 22:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I support the admin User:Juliancolton'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.--Lester 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: removal edit of free and open claim by myself. hAl (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

“Actually there was consensus on the described edits.”Scientus (talk) 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. hAl (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

For example user:Alvestrand 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. hAl (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I support the admin User:Juliancolton's decision to block User hAl. User hAl 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: Setting block options It would be handy for wikipedia to be able to ban users from specific articles and subjects, instead of banning them for everything.

Thelennonorth (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Thelennorth]. hAl 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.) Willimmen (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Strange account you have Thelennonorth. 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. hAl (talk) 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. hAl (talk) 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 user:hAl 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. --Alvestrand (talk) 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 user:Scientus 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 user:Scientus 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 Willimmen and Thelennonorth ) 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. hAl (talk) 07:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. You just attacked me, hAl. 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 Personal attacks and/or harassment. If you don't belive me, read hAl's post about me above!!!!!!. BTW, OOXML sucks, ODF rocks.) Willimmen (talk) 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. --Alvestrand (talk) 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: Talk:Office_Open_XML#Suggested_incompatiblity_MS_Office_2007and_ISO.2FIEC_29500. 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 user:Scientus 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 user:Arebenti 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 user:Scientus 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 user:Scientus 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. hAl (talk) 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.) --Alvestrand (talk) 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 user:Scientus 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. hAl (talk) 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. --Alvestrand (talk) 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. hAl (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Burning the truth

hAl keeps blanking out his talk page, thrus burning the truth. If he does that again, please block him from editing. 216.149.199.8 (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"I have seen the second complete copy of OOXML specification proposal".
"Google's Position on OOXML as a Proposed ISO Standard" (PDF). Google. 2008-02. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
"OOXML: What's the big deal?". IBM. 2008-02-19.
bnitz (2007-01-23). "Whoah! Microsoft's 6000 page OOXML standard ECMA fast-tracked by Feb 5?". Sun Microsystems.
"The Contradictory Nature of OOXML". ConsortiumInfo.org. 2007-01-17.
"Microsoft accused of rigging OOXML votes". zdnet. 2007-08-30.
"Developers warned over OOXML patent risk". zdnet. 2008-02-15.
Bob Sutor (IBM) (2007-05-24). "In case you were wondering how big 6000 pages is: OpenXML/OOXML/whatever".
"FFII opposes Fasttrack adoption of Microsoft OOXML format as ISO standard". Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure. 2007-01-29.
Rob Weir (2009-01-29). "The Formula for Failure".
"Microsoft's Office Open XML now an official ISO standard". arstechnica. 2008-04-01.
"OOXML Will Pass Amid Massive Irregularities". slashdot. 2008-03-31.
"Stop the broken Microsoft proprietary OOXML format from becoming an ISO standard". Opera Software. 2007-09-15.