Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:28, 8 June 2009

BadVista

I opposed the PROD, but you can bring it under soapboxing to AFD. Cheers. Mion (talk) 09:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What have I got myself entangled in? (Office Open XML)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me like I may have inadvertantly stumbled into the middle of an ongoing "conflict of opinions". (i.e. The edit war you have when you are not actually having an edit war ... )

Somebody was having problems trying to add "English Metric Unit" to EMU (disambiguation), so I gave them a hand, which brought me to Office Open XML and its edit history. I saw the comment by Ghettoblaster that "underscores are evil", (which made me smile). Then, the following day, the comment (revert - not relevant how often an article has been edited; also no article on Misplaced Pages can ever contain all factual and necessary information) sounded interesting, so I looked at the edit it was reverting. At the time I thought that although I agreed with the words Ghettoblaster used in the edit comment, complete reversion seemed overkill - i.e. "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". Subsequently noticing a reversion of the reversion, I could see an edit war looming, so I decided that I would throw out the bathwater and leave the baby behind.

Subsequently, you came along and reverted back to throwing out both the baby and the bathwater saying: "This is an article about a document format." Hence, I have a number of questions:

• What does the fact that "This is an article about a document format." have to do with the opinion that "This article could be providing unbalanced coverage"?
• What is it about the statement "This article could be providing unbalanced coverage" that you dislike enough to revert?
• There's a lot of "stuff" on Talk:Office Open XML; a quick scan of it didn't provide me with a summary of the issues (except that various people have different incompatible opinions!) Could you do me a favour and provide me with a brief summary of the issues so that, when I do actually read the talk page, I know what to look out for? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  

(P.S. Reply here if you prefer - I would prefer it; I like to see both sides of a discussion next to each other.)

The reason for removing the info was the line Please be aware that there is a lot of discord surrounding allegations that Microsoft hijacked or rigged the voting process in ECMA. That is not just factually incorrect but also not about the format but something about the standardization proces (which has a separate article in itself). hAl (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. I think I'm starting to get the picture. I think I'll just stumble back out and leave you all to yourselves. Good luck! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Several hongkong residential articles

Why are those not deleted. It seems you removed the speedy deletion tag and replaced it with a normal deletion tag and then the creator of the article even removed those tag.

This seems less than proper wikipedia procedure. Residential buildings without any notable characteristic should not be present on wikipedia. This is not a house selling site. hAl (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is only reserved for the most unambiguous cases. If you think these articles should be deleted, you are welcome to nominate them to WP:AFD. --Ryan Delaney 17:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There was nothing unambigous about those. The article had nothing to do with an encyclopia but more with a real estate folder hAl (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, feel free to take your case to AFD. --Ryan Delaney 18:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Lake Silver

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Lake Silver, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

204.191.185.249 (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oscar by the Sea

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Oscar by the Sea, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. Thanks! 204.191.185.249 (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Palazzo (Hong Kong)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from The Palazzo (Hong Kong), which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. Thanks! 204.191.185.249 (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ocean Shores (Hong Kong)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Ocean Shores (Hong Kong), which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. Thanks! 204.191.185.249 (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD of Lake Silver, Oscar by the Sea, The Palazzo (Hong Kong), and Ocean Shores (Hong Kong)

It appears you attempted to list these four articles at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion; however, listing articles at AfD is a 3-step process, and you only completed step 3. If you truly wish to nominate these articles for deletion, please follow all three steps. KuyaBriBri 14:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You've become my fan

You watched on my user page, replied for what I concern about on the help desk. Basically, you was following me wherever I go. Thank you for your attention. Unfortunately, Chzz adn TNXMan seemed not to support your Microsoft Point Of View:

Actually you should read again. A blog can be a source for factual information. Google supporting OOXML in their Google docs is actual fact and the Google blog is finew for that kind of info. A company blog would be a bad source for subjective informative. Like a Google blog stating thast their search engine is better than Yahoo searhc engine. And I actually watch your contribution page to see what kind of edits you make as you seem to be trolling all over the Office Open XML article. I find your behaviour is ridiculous and childish. hAl (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"I find your behaviour is ridiculous and childish."

Good point, that explains how you like to attack people by your bad words. I was feeling this kind of attitude from the first day I knew you. You like to attack people whose opinion is different from you as I can see from all the talk pages you have been :-) - Justin545 (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Can a blog be a reliable source?

Verifiability is one of the nutshells of Misplaced Pages. Each article should be sourced by several reliable sources for verification purpose. According to Misplaced Pages:SPS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable."

Therefore, I have some question regarding to the above:

1. Can an official blog of a company be a reliable source?
2. How to identify whether a given website is a reliable source or not?

Thanks. - Justin545 (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not have firm rules; policies and guidelines can and do change. There is little point in looking at the exact policy wording, as a degree of common sense is required - and that's where consensus comes in.

My own common sense tells me that it is very unlikely that a company blog would constitute a reliable source. Opinions, however, may vary. If you are ever in doubt, then ask on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard.  Chzz  ►  10:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

So if a teamblog of a company described a featured on the product that you would consider unreliable ? For instance Micrsoft IE team explaining what in IE8 webslices and/or acceleraters are or how InPrivate browsing in IE8 is implemented ? Is that unreliable information because it is provided trough a comnpany blog ??hAl (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I would use a company blog only to support facts (IE8 dispenses skittles or IE8 surfs the web at 10 terabits a second, etc.). I would not use it for any sort of review of the company's products. Those sort of statements need to be sourced to independent authors. TNXMan 14:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

So... may I say the Google citation was not reliable? - Justin545 (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It supports facts. So read above again. hAl (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on OOMXL

Your recent editing history at Office Open XML 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.