User talk:WalterGR/Archive 1

Movieeye
Movieye's (talk • contribs) comments moved to Talk:Gloria_Steinem.

3 revert rule warning
You have reverted the ooxml page 3 times in the last 24 hours further reverts will find you in violation of the WP:3RR rule. 1st revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=196200842&oldid=196199623 2nd revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=196380114&oldid=196376871 3rd revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=next&oldid=196380114 Kilz (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Kilz, you obviously added this because I warned you about your 3RR violation 16 minutes before you warned me. See this section of your talk page.
 * I don't want to get into petty battles with you. However, I am certainly happy to follow Wikipedia policy.  Regarding the 3 edits you point out above:
 * You are correct, #1 is a revert.
 * The edit description for #2 should be clear: "User:Kilz is in violation of the Three-Revert Rule 3RR. Restoring material he reverted in violation."
 * Edit #3 was simply removing duplicate references. http://www.itwire.com/content/view/8988/53/ and http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/19 were both listed twice.
 * WalterGR (talk | contribs) 22:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless of my instance, yours is a warning not to break the rule. The rule requires warning. The rule is also covers reverting in part. Since mine changes was 2 separate edits, and you reverted 2 edits with 2 and 3 . I also did not break the WP:3rr rule as 2 so called reverts were edits. Kilz (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. edits on Mozilla Firefox
Edits like [this] are why Wikipedia has a policy against original research. Mozilla bundles most bug fixes into minor version releases, with public release of every individual bug fixed and the fix applied. Studies tend to count by the publically released bug tracking data. Microsoft releases bug fixes which may fix multiple security flaws, which are often not publically disclosed, and studies tend to count by the number of these fixes released. For this reason alone, a comparison is not legitimate. John Nevard (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

About that last edit on the standardization talk page
I was replying to it when you removed it. I dont use sockpuppets. But doing a whois of the ip's used on the 8th, finds a lot them on the west coast, in (PST), I wonder who is in (PST), I'm not. I have not disrupted this article. I have only made good faith edits, applying the policies. I will admit, that I got into an edit war with you and hal on the 8th. But I have tried to work and edit with everyone since. I even replaced your version of that criticism, and have left it off, for now. That other editors place blogs and original research is not my fault, I have documented all the edits I have made since the 8th. Since we seem to be two of the most active editors on the page lets not fight, ok? It takes people of all points of view to make a great article. Kilz (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Kilz, I'm pretty sure we both know what TOR is.
 * Regarding your good faith edits, let me give you a single example of what I'm talking about.
 * Fanatic Attack, which you claim isn't a self-published source, is used as a reference about Malaysia's vote.
 * In that reference, it says that the content is "From Openmalaysiablog.com"
 * I added "According to the Open Malaysia Blog, which is dedicated to promoting the competing OpenDocument Format..."
 * You reverted this saying, "remove orignal research not listed in reference."
 * I then added a reference, which was the Open Malaysia Blog itself. The exact same source that Fanatic Attack was quoting.
 * You then reverted this, saying "remove blog reference, blogs are not sutable as references."
 * Do you not see why I would consider this disruptive? I can explain.
 * You say blogs aren't acceptable.
 * A random website contains an exact quote from a blog, and that website is used as a reference. Even though it's an exact quote from an unacceptable source, you're fine with it.
 * I point out that the reference is actually quoting the blog, and what the blog's biases are.
 * You remove it.
 * I give a reference for the biases, by linking to the blog itself.
 * You remove it.
 * You are fine with self-published sources and primary sources that back up your point of view, and you fight against similar sources that are against your point of view.
 * So what would you like to do? WalterGR (talk | contributions) 01:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have an idea what tor is, no the ip's on the west cost out of the BAYAREA-CPE were not positive as tor proxies.
 * No, I didnt remove the fact that it came from Openmalaysiablog, that was left. That was in the article. I removed the part that wasnt. When someone adds information or opinions not in the reference, that is original research. WP:NOR says we cant do that.
 * Any use of a blog as reference is what I am against, even linking to its front page. Because someone will see that and use it for some other claim.
 * You may see it as disruptive, but if you want the edit, feel free to find a neutral news site that says Open Malaysia Blog is dedicated to promoting the competing OpenDocument Format and reference it.
 * It isnt that the quote isnt there, its a blog. We cant make exceptions, especially on a contested article. Because as said above, someone will want to use that site for more than a url.
 * If a neutral news site uses a quote from a blog, it isnt a blog used as a reference on the wikipedia article, but a news site.
 * If the news site doesnt give the descriptions of the references. That is original research, it isnt in the reference.
 * No I am against self published sources for any reason, and suggested you ask if fanaticattack.com was usable on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If they say it isn't, Ill personally remove it.
 * What do I want to do? move forward using WP:VER and WP:NOR. I have been doing my best to replace all the references that were removed while following them. I don't want to fight, its painful. As I sit here three fingers on my right hand are numb, and my wrist hurts, carpal tunnel sucks. I would rather not spend half the time I have to have fun arguing and fighting. Kilz (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I originally wrote a longer response, but...
 * Not positive for TOR proxies?! You know as well as I do that TOR proxy exit nodes come and go.
 * All of the anonymous IPs were removing the same information that you were removing: Microsoft's statements about IBM. They were TOR exit nodes at the time of the edit.  I know this because I checked them. HAl even pointed it out.  This one is still an exit node.
 * Now, you say that you want to move forward with WP:VER and WP:NOR. How am I to believe that?  WalterGR (talk | contributions) 03:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There were others that day removing that material, I wasnt the only one. That someone used a tor node to remove it is sad, but it wasn't me. I went to bed about 11:30, the history lists the ip edit war starting at 3am. I have always wanted to follow WP:VER and WP:NOR, even during the war, the reasons I removed that section was because it didnt pass WP:VER, that was later confirmed on the rilable sources notice board. I also edited that section to make it not use the Microsoft reference, imho it should have not been used. Kilz (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, wow. I just figured something out.  I think someone tried to frame you for a removal you didn't make!  This edit.  I don't think you made that one.  I say this because the other two times you used TOR to make edits - this time and this time - you changed the heading from "Microsoft complaints about IBM's opposition" to "Microsoft complaints about competitors behavior".  The edit someone tried to frame you for didn't change the heading.
 * And, that works out with you going to bed at 11:30, because the last TOR edit removing the material and changing the heading was at 9:17 PST, which is 11:17 Central - just a little bit before you went to bed.
 * What really cracks me up is that you must think I'm a "fool."
 * You said that there were "others" removing the material. There were 3 "people" removing that content: you (aka Kilz,) you (the 2 IP addresses belonging to the TOR exit nodes,) and you (your Idbyou sock-puppet.)
 * Get it? "Idbyou"?
 * You know, "Idbyou" as in "IDontBelieveYou"?
 * So let me ask again, where would you like to go from here? WalterGR (talk | contributions) 03:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Now you think I have other accounts? I dont, only this one. I have no idea who idbyou is.
 * Also I dont use tor. Im a security nut, I would never hook my machine to a system that could use me as a proxy. I was wrong about the time of the war edits, I looked at the edit history and forgot they were in UTC.
 * But shockingly, all the ip's replacing the material were in California, you know in an area that uses PST. Your in PST, right? Do you think I did those edits to?
 * It seems you want to accuse, fight, and argue. This gets us no place fast. I tried to end this problem, sadly it looks like its hitting a brick wall. Im going to bed in a little bit. Have a good night. Kilz (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup, I am in California.
 * Given that you know what TOR is, I'm pretty sure you know that the locations of the exit nodes have nothing to do with the location of the user.
 * However, I am happy to hear that you are trying to end the problem. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 17:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

RefBot
User:RefBot is crippled due to a political kangaroo court. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the note Walter, in my short time editing I have been truly surprised at how quick admin's are to judge and the lack of critical thinking. Hopefully I have just been coming across the wrong ones. I would consider it integral to the success of Wikipedia to have solid sources for all facts. Besides, I generally only add the tag to phrases that are strange or seem to have a POV. Any advice would be appreciated, Thanks--UhOhFeeling (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of Windows and Linux
Another editor has added the  template to the article Comparison of Windows and Linux, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft Silverlight
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. --Kozuch (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My reason was described in the edit summary. Feel free to discuss content on the talk page for the appropriate article.  Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 13:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning
Using a self-published claims from a Microsoft affiliate to make demonstrably false claims in the OOXML article is a violation of our verifiability and attribution policies. If you do not stop, I will block you. Raul654 (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it your official statement as a Wikipedia admin that you are going to block me for using, as a reference, an official publication of ECMA International, Technical Committee 45, the standards organization (and committee) which standardized OOXML?
 * Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 22:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The document you cite is not the product of ECMA - it is a product of a person who happens to be one of its editors. Furthermore, that person happens to be Tom Ngo, an employee of NextPage (as it says so right at the top of the document). NextPage is a Microsoft affiliate that specializes in extensions and environment software built around MS Office Documents, and thus has a vested finical interest in claiming that OOXML is free. As I quoted before from Verifiability: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as... it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties;" Your use here fails all three of those criteria. Raul654 (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The whitepaper is published on ECMA International's website and bears ECMA International's logo. It's published under the auspices of ECMA International.  Your argument that it qualifies as a self-published source is tenuous at best.  However, feel free to I'd be happy to take this matter to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.
 * Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 23:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on Office Open XML
Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 3RR. Thank you. &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 20:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are appropriate ways to discuss opposing viewpoints within WP articles. Removing sourced material from the lead to push a point of view is not one of those appropriate ways.  Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 21:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Dr Nick. I added some content, which was removed as it was "inapproprioately cited". If one examines the diffs, one can see that the references were removed, then the content was later removed. Your editing seems very oriented to negate any criticism or negative connotations in the article.


 * It is difficult to dispute that the standard has been the subject of much controversy, both in process and technical merit, Groklaw and provide some indication of this, although one must be careful when using these as a reference as they operate with a POV. This does not negate the validity of the citations to material that I have made when performing my edits. here and  here


 * My motivation for the edits was at the surprise that the section on criticisms could be so small (its even tagged) when criticims of OOXML are so prolific and well documented, after even a basic internet search. Criticisms in the article are being regularly removed, even when appropriately cited. Lets work for a balanced article on a clearly contentious topic. 121.44.42.64 (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, I did miss that someone removed the citation before I removed "uncited" material, regarding the length of the spec. As you are aware, OOXML has a lot of critics.  One has to be diligent when guarding against unsourced material in controversial articles.  But in this case, it was a simple accident.
 * You are aware that I didn't revert the second edit you mention, right? So I'm confused how my behavior is some chain of policy-violating reverts of properly sourced material.  Maybe a simple "Hey dummy, be more careful with the diffs!" would have been more appropriate than accusing me of edit warring?  WalterGR (talk | contributions) 12:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)