User talk:HAl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

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

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

Re: the "rushing" comment ODF:

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Melomel 17:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

1 See Also
2 OpenDocument comparison Rev.
3 HAL
4 working on "Conflict of Interest" guidelines
5 Open Office XML
6 Stop it
7 twip
8 deletions
9 Reverts on OOXML

[edit] See Also

"See also

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

[edit] OpenDocument comparison Rev.

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

84.25.82.152 12:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

(Same user as IP 84.25.82.152)

193.173.25.210 17:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] HAL

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

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

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

[edit] working on "Conflict of Interest" guidelines

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Open Office XML

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Stop it

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

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

[edit] twip

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

[edit] deletions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Microsoft specific

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

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

[edit] Reverts on OOXML

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

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

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

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/l/User_talk%7EHAl_a3cd.html"