User talk:Ghettoblaster: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:06, 3 June 2010

Welcome!

Hello, Ghettoblaster, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Spebi 05:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reflection (computer programming)

Thanks for pointing out this page in Comparison of Programming Languages, it's being very useful to me. 62.101.126.214 (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Comparison of programming languages (basic instructions)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Comparison of programming languages (basic instructions), is considered as a bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you have any information on Windows PowerShell's object oriented programming features, please contribute - I have never used PowerShell before. --Btx40 (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your improvements to the Binary prefix and Binary prefix - Timeline articles; they look better now! Please feel free to make further improvements to Binary prefix; the article isn't well-written at all and could greatly benefit from a fresh look. Thanks, shreevatsa (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual

Wikipedia policy is very clear about this -- this is not a place for instruction manuals. WP:NOTMANUAL covers this. Please don't fight or argue the point... if you're interested in writing manual pages, do so at Wikibooks or wikiHow. Your recent edit history shows that you are either completely unaware of this, for which you now have no excuse not to, or have chosen to contravene Wikipedia policy. In either case, please respect the goals of the project and immediately stop adding information that is out of scope. Thanks. -/- Warren 16:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Go ahead and delete every article that is linked in the Template:Unix_commands and come back. All I try to do is get Unix/DOS/Windows coverage balanced. Thanks. Ghettoblaster (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of real-time operating systems

Wow! Thanks for filling out list of real-time operating systems. I thought about going back through the history and digging up some more. It didn't occur to me there would be any in list of operating systems. What do you think about the extra columns I suggested on the talk page? —EncMstr (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See: Talk:List of real-time operating systems Ghettoblaster (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put the latest version of deleted article Fusion RTOS (as of 2008-05-22T06:27:16 by Ghettoblaster) in User:Ghettoblaster/Fusion. Actually, it's not quite the same: there was a blacklisted external link which prevent the save, so I changed the website to pure text. It seems an okay article: not great, but not awful. It would be helpful it it asserted greater notability. Maybe you—and other RTOS fans—can expand it and make it more compelling. When it gets to that state, the article might be successfully recreated. However, the blacklisting of the URL is an interesting problem, perhaps caused by repeated anti spam efforts against promoters of the site. WP:WikiProject Spam might have details how to fix that. —EncMstr (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tcl

I undid your removal of a number of links from the Tcl page. While in general I agree that there's no need to put masses of links to a site, you removed important links that were definitive and useful for students either of programming languages in general or of Tcl in particular. No particular criticism intended; I just happen to think that there are good reasons for retaining those particular links. (Good taste in all things, including the application of ones principles...) Donal Fellows (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that I still disagree and that I hope someone else will fix the external links section then, because I'm not going to go through all of them and decide what is relvant and what not. Please mind: WP:NOTLINK. Ghettoblaster (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Office 2007

Hey, I saw you removed my info about a portable version. I was just planning to do so, because it was fake information where I was not knowing about. Was illegally packed as portable, Microsoft never launched such a version. So, thanks! Dr. F.C. Turner - [USERPAGE|USERTALK] - 11:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison_of_office_suites

U undid removal of Novel OpenOffice.org. I removed it because most distributions slightly change the vanilla openoffice.org in accordance to their philosophy including Ubuntu and Redhat. Do we want to present all of these in the article ? Further, I believe Novel derive their version of openoffice from go-oo. (Bulletgani (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

See: Talk:Comparison of office suites. Ghettoblaster (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for this correction and several other typos of mine in general. :-) - xpclient ^Talk 19:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spinning Wait Cursor

Why did you edit it out? You do know it ISN'T serious.

Damonkeyman889944 (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did not provide any reliable source for this statement. Therefore it is original research or original thought, which does not belong into an encyclopedia. This article might be useful to you as well: Wikipedia:Writing better articles. Maybe you can find a quote or at least better wording for this statement. Ghettoblaster (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double standards

First, sorry for editing your user page and not your discussion, I must have missed the correct link. Now to the point.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war

and so do you

Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period

could you please point me to the three of my edits that break that rule?

If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. 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.

does that non-rule aply to you and others on your side of the dispute or is it reserved for people that contradict you? I can see that you technically avoid three-revert rule by edit warring in a tandem

Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors.

Oh, please, there would not be a need for my reverts if not for yours repeated reverts. The wording you try to enforce is offensive. OOXML is as much 'free and open' as was my country under Soviet Union occupation. Any consensus I could accept requires removing the 'free and open' from the first, defining paragraph, to some place it can be discussed more thoroughly. Besides, in the end you ignore my arguments and even resort to calling names. While I won't apply your low standard of personal attacks, I don't see why I should refrain from using your methods of editing the article, as long as I don't break any real rules, and not some you made up on the fly.

83.5.175.6 (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this was not meant to be an offence. I did not say that you already broke the three-revert rule. I'm aware of the rule and did not break it either. I added this warning template to your talk page because you're obviously new to editing on Wikipedia and I thought that you're probably not aware of the policies here. Wikipedia guidelines require that everyone knows about these rules before any further actions take place. Please use the 'discussion' page of the article to present your point of view, provide verifiable/reliable sources and try to gain consensus among other editors. These are the real rules here on Wikipedia. I did not make them up by myself on the fly. I had to learn them and so does everybody else who wants to be taken seriously here. Thanks. Ghettoblaster (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outing the identity of another editor

You outed another editor at Talk:Office_Open_XML#Conflict_of_interest. I ask you to immediately delete those external links (above) that you use by linkage to "out" the identity of a fellow Wikipedia editor, who is probably unaware that you have done this. It is a serious violation of Wikipedia rules to out another editor. Take it down immediately. --Lester 12:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was not aware of any such Wikipedia policy, but I'm pretty sure that the edits of User:Arnieswap qualifiy as Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. For now, I removed the real name and the deep links from above. However, one can still verify my findings using a search engine. Thanks. Ghettoblaster (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with WP:COI, WP:COI/N is the place to notify people of it, not the talk page of article space. You can be blocked for "outing" people - however if you have genuine information (rather than guesswork) then COI/N is the place. Shot info (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you suggested, I added my findings to the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (see: Wikipedia:COI/N#Swapnil_Bhartiya). Thanks. Ghettoblaster (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:98.207.48.163

Sorry for what happened at User talk:98.207.48.163. It was an accident. In fact, I really do not remember seeing those other comments when I made my edit. Maybe it was a software bug. I have undone my edit. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. Ghettoblaster (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multipe reverts at Office Open XML

I ask you to stop reverting content on the Office Open XML article. Reverting an article is an extreme measure that should only be used in cases of vandalism or libel. The article reverts you have made don't come into either or those categories. You have reverted the article to remove referenced information which was added by other editors. You have reverted the article to add your own contentious material with references that multiple other editors have disputed, such as the words "free and open" which you keep inserting. The endless multiple fast reverts at the Office Open XML article cannot be permitted to continue. I ask that you refrain from reverting, otherwise I will ask for administrator/community assistance to force the reverting to stop. --Lester 23:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, this is ridiculous! My last revert was made more than a week ago. You can't run wild and forbid other editors who don't share your POV to revert or edit articles that are being vandalized. Stop giving a false color. The diff of my edit clearly shows that it was me who reverted this article because referenced information was removed by an anonymous IP. Also, I ask YOU to refrain from threatening other editors like me. Thanks. Ghettoblaster (talk) 11:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the outing of Arnieswap (talk · contribs), I still believe it was not the right thing for him to be outed. I sent you a message about 5 days before taking up the issue on the ANi board, in the hope that the outed editor's real name would be taken down voluntarily. Today, I notice you deleted the 'Credibility tag' minutes after I added it to the Open Office XML article. I ask again for you to stop reverting other people's content contributions. I see very little vandalism at that article, so I don't think vandalism can be used as a reason to revert content there. Consensus must be reached via discussion, and reverting makes it harder for a consensus to be found. Regards, --Lester 03:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'd like to remind you that I removed the real name and the external references as soon as I found out that this was the wrong place to post the conflict of interest warning of Arnieswap (talk · contribs). It's not my fault that Warren (talk · contribs) has a different point of view and chose not to remove the user's real name from his comment. I'm certainly not going to edit his comment. Note that the other editors at the ANi board think that this was just minor issue and is not really "outing other editors" because Arnieswap (talk · contribs) effectively did this on his own all over the internet.

Secondly, I did not revert your recent edit. I just added another credible source to support the intro. Since there are now 7 (Seven) independent and reliable sources that support the intro, I figured that there are currently more than enough references to allow removing the tag. Also, I don't agree that there is little vandalism in this article. Referenced information is constantly removed by anonymous IPs without stating a reason in the edit summary or prior discussion. I think this might be considered a form of vandalism. Ghettoblaster (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANi board

Message to notify you that you have been named on the ANi board --Lester 10:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this on a few other discussion threads about this, but I also wanted to place a note on your talk page. I think this is a minor situation that really isn't dealing with outing other editors, or revealing private information. The logic being that his username is also his internet handle for his e-mail address, and probably other websites, and that he mentions his Wikipedia account on other websites (as you pointed out). -- Ned Scott 06:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-platform

Referring to this - I read the category description, and noted that (aside from some debris that's in it here/there), the apparent intent of the category was as noted, for applications that run on multiple platforms - not quite the same as portable. (I did also look for the "Windows" version of MC, but only found Cygwin, which isn't really the same thing). Tedickey (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already added a link to a native Win32 distribution of Midnight Commander to the article ([1]). This does not require cygwin or any kind of emulation. To quote the cross-platform article: "Cross-platform (also known as multi-platform) is a term used in computing to refer to [...] computer software and their implementations which can be made to work on multiple computer platforms." So I still think that mc is cross-platform. If you say that only unmodified apps that run on multiple platforms are true cross-platform, then this term would actually only apply to apps written as scripts and bytecode etc. I see no difference between mc and other software that is commonly considered to be cross-platform such as Firefox, VLC media player, AbiWord, Lazarus (software), Blender (software), MySQL etc. Ghettoblaster (talk) 10:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then as soon as you have a program that ports to "any version of Linux", it's "cross-platform". May as well delete the category (my recommendation for most of the comparison-of topics) if it's meaningless by inclusion of me-toos. Tedickey (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(your link is for a Mingw port - better than Cygwin, admittedly ;-) Tedickey (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean with "ports to "any version of Linux"". I wouldn't call software that only runs on different versions of Linux/Unix "cross-platform" because it's all just one platform (the POSIX platform). I'd consider software like this to be cross-platform when it also runs natively on other platforms like Win32, OS/2, DOS, Mac OS, ... you name it. But I don't want to go into a lengthy discussion here. Maybe we should take this to the talk page of the article cross-platform. Obviously the (completely unsourced) definition there needs to be improved. Also, if we don't consider mc to be cross-platform, we need to make sure that this term is also removed from each and every article about software that runs on multiple platforms via the same technique as mc. Ghettoblaster (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that I agree that quite a lot of (mostly open source) apps qualify as "cross-platform" under this definition, but this does not make this category useless. There are also a lot of apps that are far away from being cross-platform like for instance: iChat, Microsoft Visio, Front Row (software), Command & Conquer: Generals, K3b, etc. Compare these to for instance the Opera (web browser). Ghettoblaster (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Minor Barnstar

		The Minor Barnstar
		For catching many tiny and unnoticed errors! rCX (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like... [2] [3]. rCX (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SpartaDOS X

You have put an "unreferenced" tag into the SpartaDOS X. Could you please explain, what "reliable sources" do you expect to be cited? Mamurra (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, compared to many other operating system articles, this one seems to be already quite good, but I noticed a lack of (inline) references. In case you know more about the subject than I do, please add references/sources to the article to improve it. See these Wikipedia guidelines for more information on this topic:

Thank you for your contributions. Ghettoblaster (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Could you please add the "citation needed" tags to the places, where the source references are necessary in your opinion? Then I will see what I can do fixing them. Mamurra (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OOXML Leading office suite

Hello, Well I know that MS Office IS the leading Office suite, but I still don't know what it has to do in the header. What would really be relevant for OOXML would be to know the market share of deployed Office suites using OOXML (ECMA version), because only the last Office version use it as default. Still it would be much more relevant in a "Adoption" chapter - which oddly does not exist, that in the header, IMHO. Just for information, my company is really Microsoft-products-centric, but still use the previous version of Office, and will stick with it for a long time. I think that reason is simply to have an homogeneous Office version with the majority of its partners. So even if OOXML has become the default for Office, it will still need some time to be as ubiquitous as Office itself, which bring us back to my remark about the "leading office suite" sentence. Hervegirod (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point here is that OOXML is currently the default file format of the leading office suite out there. I think this is worth mentioning in the lead section whether there is a separate "Adoption" chapter or not. Ghettoblaster (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, here are some interesting statistics on OOXML adoption: [4] [5] Ghettoblaster (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its the default for Office 2007 only. Your interesting link shows that OOXML has passed ODF in terms of adoption, but that compared to the previous versions of Office, the old formats are still much more used (94,000 results for DOCX versus 44,600,000 for DOC, for example). This is the reason why I (still) don't like the idea of having this in the header. It is not, as you write, the default file format of the leading office suite, but the default file format for the last version of the leading office suite, and (even subtle) this makes a lot of difference. Please note that I'm sure that DOCX adoption will continue to increase over time, as people will switch to the new version of Office. But for the moment the sentence is misleading, because it implies that it is used by the Office suite that has the biggest market share. it is used by a minor portion of the deployed versions of the leading Office suite. Hervegirod (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point now and I agree that the current wording might be somewhat misleading (this is not my native language). However, I do believe that even if OOXML is only the default file format for the last version of the leading office suite, this is still very important for the adoption of OOXML. Microsoft already confirmed that the next version of MS Office will continue to support OOXML. Based on the Microsoft Office market share and the current file format adoption rate, it seems that "ODF has clearly won" (which has been stated earlier) is not quite true. Also, don't forget that there are addons for older versions of MS Office that add OOXML support. Ghettoblaster (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, OOXML market share will only increase over time because of the fact it is used by Office 2007 (the "ODF has clearly won" sentence was obviously POV). Hervegirod (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't agree that this is the only reason. It is just one important factor. Good compatibility with the existing billions of documents in the older binary formats is another one. Even if ODF has some advantages from a technical standpoint, it is just not as compatible with existing documents. Ghettoblaster (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to OpenDocument. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this really funny. Seems like you're the guy hiding behind an anonymous IP that is vandalizing the OpenDocument article for some time now. Fortunately, I'm not the only one there restoring the completely valid, verifiable and referenced content that you're repeatedly trying to remove from this article. Ghettoblaster (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you better admit your wrong-doings instead of blaming others. Otherwise one can get little bit suspicious that you are one of those guys Microsoft is paying for editing Wikipedia articles. -- Thomas van der Holt

Hi, Thomas van der Holt (aka anonymous vandal IP)! I'm curious about it. Would you mind explaining what kind of "wrong-doings" you convicted me of doing? Ghettoblaster (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting money for M$ and being their lobbyist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.204.36 (talk) 18:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, sadly not. However, Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman don't pay me either. I've got a real job in real life in the real world. Do you? Ghettoblaster (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image categories

Why are you changing the category of Microsoft Windows images to "Screenshots of Windows software"? This makes no sense at all. One of us is going to have to go back and fix this mess, and I'd rather it be you. Warren -talk- 19:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, everyone makes mistakes. This was a copy+paste mistake. Should be fixed now. Any other images where you noticed problem? Ghettoblaster (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of OpenDocument Format software

Hi, I dont created the column ISO/IEC 26300:2006 in comparison of ODF software. Some other user from Germany (85.179.106.8) created it - I think as a "answer" for my editation of OOXML software comparison, whre I put column ISO/IEC 29500:2008. We must make clear, what is this column ISO/IEC. I created it in OOXML software comparison, because there was no warning, that most of listed software has not ISO/IEC implemented (not for reading, not for writing). I think, that every software should have according information, if ISO/IEC is implemented (for reading and writing). As far as I know, in OOXML software most software dont have ISO/IEC implemented, I think because it was created before ISO 29500:2008 was standardized. In ODF software most software have ISO/IEC implemented, because it was created after ISO 26300:2006 was standardized. Information about ISO/IEC implemented is very important for public authorities, that must use only some official (ISO) standards stated in their "local law". But there is difference between "read" ISO/IEC files and "create/write/save" ISO/IEC files. I tried to create separate validation table in ODF comparison software, where I validate very simple files created in every listed software. I think, this is objective step - because everyone can try to validate simple created file. I write there "valid" or "not valid" - but this is only for "write/save" capabilities of the software. I dont precise tested read capabilities.

I write text "not valid" to column "ISO/IEC" in tables, where is comparison of "text" "spreadsheet" and "presentations" software, because I want to be correct - and inform, that saved files are not valid. When anonymous user (85.179.106.8) want to show, if listed software work with ISO/IEC, I only try to answer and put correct information on Wikipedia.

I think, it is unfair to mix reading and writing capabilities. I also think, that it is unfair write "no, ISO/IEC is not implemented" because one of three created files is not valid and 2 created files are valid. Writing capabilities are ISO/IEC compliant, but there is some "imperfection" in write capabilities - so this software has no ISO/IEC implemented ? What version of ODF it has than implemented ? Therefore I write "yes - ISO/IEC is implemented" but (some) created/saved files are "not valid".

I think, that useful could be give software some number of "stars" from 1 to 5 - as did ODF Fellowship - http://opendocumentfellowship.com/applications

So my answer to your comment "the column is utterly useless if we count non-valid documents as 'yes'" is : I think, there should be two columns - read capabilities and write capabilities, or maybe three columns - declared implementation, read capabilities, write capabilities. Another solution is write to one column, if sotware has ISO/IEC read capabilities and after comma write possible problems with ISO/IEC compliancy in saved documents.

What you think ?

2008-11-30 IP 213.151.217.130

Office software that creates non-valid (thus non-standard) ISO/IEC 26300:2006 documents does in fact not support the ISO/IEC 26300:2006 standard. You just confirmed that standards are very important for public authorities. I think it is "unfair" and misleading to say that office suites with non-valid output ("imperfections") support ISO/IEC 26300:2006. These files are useless to public authorities if they are not valid. Think about what everyone is going to say about Microsoft Office 14 if it does not write valid ISO/IEC 29500:2008 files. As you might or might not know, ECMA-376 and ISO/IEC 29500:2008 are (for the most part) almost identical. So from your standpoint, Microsoft Office 2007 does already support ISO/IEC 29500:2008 (not valid and with some "imperfections", but who cares?). I think we have to be very careful here. In fact, we should move away from these validations of "simple documents". Most documents from public authorities are probably much more complex. Sweeping this under the rug is again very misleading. Why not try to open and save the standard specification itself in the application? This will be much more useful. Ghettoblaster (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see now, that I make a mistake in my text - I wrote "Writing" instead of "Reading": "Reading capabilities are ISO/IEC compliant, but there is some "imperfection" in write capabilities - so this software has no ISO/IEC implemented ?" I think, that informations about read, write and declared capabilities (compliancy with ISO) should be in separated columns, but it will be useful, if "cumulative" column exists. If a software can very good read all ISO documents, but cannot write valid ISO documents, then both these informations should be listed IMO. I agree with you, that we have to be very careful with writing statements. I could try to make validation of specification document itself. But there are three problems: I dont know quality of validators. With some documents the validators give different results. (So which validator has right?) Second: some text editors (like Abiword) dont support all advanced editing that is used in much complex documents. Third problem is IMO more important - why to expose ODF software to critical fire, if OOXML software dont have any validation on OOXML article ? I think OOXML and ODF must have the same base criteria for comparison. Otherwise it will be unfair to ODF. OOXML has today more support than ODF and "thanks" to MS Office default format it will be much more used than ODF. My validation tests work with simple documents, because I work for public authority and I see that most of documents are very simple (no tables, specific formatting, pictures, etc). But I know that there are some public authorities, that publish sometimes very complex documents.--213.151.217.130 (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trabant - Thanks

Thank you (or should I say „Danke schön!“) for replacing the Trabant photo on the page East Germany. I agree with you - the "rotting decay" photo of a car that has obviously suffered from a lack of proper maintenance is not the best photo that can be used for visual identification. Your photo of a factory-fresh car is much better. It shows the ideal, before human malice has a chance to destroy its once-proud exterior! --Ericdn (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

underscores

Re: this edit, I never thought of an underscore as having enough personality to be evil ...
Never-the-less, I do NOT disagree with you. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In case it isn't obvious: The above is an attempt at humour.

March 2009

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to East Germany. Thank you. --Ericdn (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me. I tend to forget this when my edit (from my point of view) is beyond dispute. Ghettoblaster (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Office 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

in your own source: http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2009/05/09/1-2-1.aspx A microsoft spokesman conceeds that Office 2007 SP2 is incompatible with other, business standard, ODF implementations: "The exact same data, in the exact same spreadsheet, when operated on with the exact same formula, provides different results....This is the state of formula interoperability among ODF spreadsheets today." putting "alledged" is incompatible even with Microsoft's position. Scientus (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Microsoft spokesman conceeds that Office 2007 SP2 is incomaptible with other […] implementations. This does not mean that the Office 2007 ODF implementation is incompatible with the ODF standard. Don't mix up these things. The current wording of the section and its headline is misleading the reader. Ghettoblaster (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing compliance with a standard, and inter-operable with other programs. A standard is primarily a means of obtaining interoperability, something Microsoft and its employees deny when it suits their interests. Even if a product is compliant with a standard, of which evidence shows Office 2007 SP2 is not, if it cannot work with existing, open-source, programs it is not inter-operable.Scientus (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence which shows that Office 2007 SP2 is not complient with the ODF standdard. Rob Weir claimed this with reference to the spreadsheet formula format in one of his blog posts: [6]

However, in another of his blog posts he contradictorily states:

"[…] ODF 1.1 does not define spreadsheet formulas and therefore it is not necessary for one vendor to use the same formula language that other vendors use." [7]

Also note that Dennis Hamilton, ODF TC member and secretary of the ODF Interoperability and Conformance TC, confirmed this by commenting that ODF's description of formulas is governed by the word “Typically”, rendering it arguably just a guideline. [8]

As we see, Office 2007 SP2 is compliant with the ODF standard. If it is not inter-operable with other programs, it is because the current ODF spreadsheet standard is incompatible by design. Maybe I should add a section to the OpenOffice.org article, mentioning that its ODF implementation is incompatible with Microsoft Office 2007 SP2 because it uses a proprietary formula language that has never been any standard. The source code of OpenOffice.org is not a standard specification. Ghettoblaster (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8.3.1 Referencing Table Cells [9]

For example, in a table with the name SampleTable the cell in column 34 and row 16 is referenced by the cell address SampleTable.AH16. In some cases it is not necessary to provide the name of the table. However, the dot must be present. When the table name is not required, the address in the previous example is .AH16.

Office 2007 uses no such . as explicitly required by the standard. This is a requirement regardless of formula language.Scientus (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this blog post by Alex Brown.[10] Quote:

Curious readers might like to look for themselves at the (normative) schema for further guidance. Here, we find the formal schema definition for formulas, with a telling comment:

<define name="formula">
  <!-- A formula should start with a namespace prefix, -->
  <!-- but has no restrictions-->
  <data type="string"/>
</define>

Which is yet another confirmation that there are no certain rules about formulas in ODF.

Ghettoblaster (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you.

I'm sorry, this was my mistake. Thanks. Ghettoblaster (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

second warning

Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you.

This is your second warning. minor edits are not appropriate for Adding sections to an article, Removing sections from an article. It is not appropriate for controversial, or content changing edits, such as the fallowing you have recently made:

Scientus (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. My "minor edit" checkbox is checked by default, since most of my edits are really just minor formatting changes. Sometimes I forget to uncheck it when making other edits. Thanks for reminding me again. I'll try to be more careful in the future. Please also note that is also poor etiquette not to give an edit summary. Especially when removing content. I hope you don't mind if I avoid posting an official warning on your talk page, because unlike you, I'm not a big fan of Wikilawyering.

Ghettoblaster (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really think I need to disable my default settings. :) Ghettoblaster (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interop userification

Done. One two three... 15:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Comparison of OpenXPS and PDF

I have nominated Comparison of OpenXPS and PDF, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of OpenXPS and PDF. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding conflict of interest

I see you were brought up for this in June, so I'll make this brief.

I don't appreciate being scolded for failing to meet your standards of disclosure for conflict of interest, especially seeing as you have opted to disclose nothing of yourself. I have never hidden my employer from anyone who takes even a moment to check, and indeed I find it difficult to believe that you could have examined my user page in any detail (as you obviously did to get my employer in the first place) without noticing the large disclaimer (a template I cooked up myself and donated to the project for precisely this purpose). WP:COI makes it very clear that there is a fine line between making an allegation of COI and hounding someone; in this particular case, bringing the matter up as you did in the middle of a contentious debate (especially one involving a tendicious editor who has already implied ulterior motives on behalf of those who do not agree with his POV) was inappropriate.

I hope that in future you will consider whether or not such behaviour is conductive to a collegial editing environment or not prior to hitting the edit button. I've got email enabled if you want to take this off-wiki.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean with me being "brought up for this in June". Please explain.
I'm not trying to scold you, sorry if I did not make my worries clear enough and that I unmeaningly offened you. This was not my intention. As I mentioned on the article talk page, I just noticed that you and Mr. Alvestrand "might" have a COI working for these companies. I did and still do assume good faith and noble intentions from both of you. However, as you can read on my talk page, I have been scolded and have been wrongly insinuated to work for Microsoft before. Just because I'm not joining the zealots who try to turn this article into a vituperative attack on Microsoft. As I stated on the article talk page, all I'm interested in is contributing to this project and getting biased articles like this more neutral. I was offended when people wrongly insinuated me to work for Microsoft. For that reason I was disappointed when I noticed that not only one, but two people that are discussing an article that has just been blocked again because of edit warring are actually working for Google and Sun without making that clear from the start for everyone in the discussion to see. You know, it is kind of frustrating if you spend much of your spare time to discuss a certain subject with someone and then find out by accident, that the whole discussion might actually be pointless, because your dialog partners might never actually listen to your arguments and might never depart from their point of view just because of their employers.
I honestly really just read that infobox on the right of your userpage. I'm sorry that I overlooked that template at the top. People clutter their user pages with all kind of templates, so I tent to almost never read any of them.
I'm not making any allegation that there is COI on your side and I'm certainly not hounding anyone. I was just really disappointed because I did not know about this before. Please note that you actually need to stumble on Mr. Alvestrand's own Wikipedia entry to read that he is working for Google. I do appreciate that you are honest about your employer on your user page. However, I still think that this might not always be enough when editing controversial topics like this.
I hope you can accept that I opted not to disclose anything about myself on my user page. Let me assure you that I have nothing to hide and that I'm not even remotely working for any company involved in this format. I just really don't need that kind of self-portrayal. I'm interested in improving this encyclopedia. That is why I'm here. I don't care about user boxes and barn stars and all that crap.
I'm not interested in taking this off-wiki and I don't use email here.

Ghettoblaster (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the contents of #Outing the identity of another editor above, you've already been talked to about your attitude towards COI on this article.
I've lost count of the number of times I've been accused of shilling for various factions now; I've been harassed through my employers, harassed on the phone, and I imagine it's only a matter of time before I'm harassed in person. My employer is tangentially related to almost anything computing-related on Wikipedia, so it seems impractical for me to go posting disclaimers every time I make a comment on something. Taking umbrage at my not having done so when I've gone out of my way to be transparent on my user page (which is exactly one click away, on my signature) gives the false impression that I have been improper in my conduct.
Understood. I may need to re-think the layout, if it's possible to overlook it like that.
As I've said previously, it is not my understanding that users are obliged to repeat any data readily available on their user pages when participating in a conversation. This would be impractical and seemingly redundant. I would advise you to reconsider your standards here. Furthermore, I do not regard this as a "controversial" topic; my arguments have been based entirely on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and I've tried hard to be neutral (to the point of ignoring rhetorical arguments entirely) when discussing the changes in question. Compared to some arguments on Wikipedia, this one has been positively collegial.
That's your prerogative. Frankly, if I could start again I'd consider doing the same, as being honest has gotten me nothing but grief.
Understood.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I remember that COI that you are refering to. This was a totally different situation. The editor in question supported his claims with references to an online article that he had written himself. He also was the major contributor to his own Wikipedia entry (which has since been deleted because he was not notable to have an article in the first place). In my opinion this was a clear case of COI, but back then I did not know all the guidelines related to outing an editor. Note that in the following dicsussion most people agreed, that he had in fact already outed his identity himself (otherwise I could not have noticed that easily that he himself wrote the article he was using as a source). As mentioned before, your case is different. You did not make any COI violation like this. However, if other editors are aware of the situation, they can make sure that no biased edits sneak in. User:Alvestrand is a different situation again. He even seems to have been involved in the standardization process, so there is obviously a much bigger COI potential.
I agree that it can be impractical to mention your employer in every discussion, but I think it isn't necessary on all computing related articles since most of them don't have such lengthy and heated debates. Changing the layout of your template/user page might help a bit.
Judging from the set of articles that I've been working on so far, this is a very controversial topic. There is even a template box saying so at the top of the talk page. There have been quite a lot of edit wars between zealots from both camps and this is the second article protection recently.

Ghettoblaster (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Computer Storage Volumes

Template:Computer Storage Volumes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed talk page comments

I warned HAl about this the other day, but as I assume that you are watching the talk page in question I am assuming that you are aware that the principle holds for other users as well. I have removed the long list of diffs added to that talk page insinuating wrongdoing on behalf of another editor; regardless of said editor's actions, article talk pages are not forums for the discussion of the conduct of other users. If you wish for this laundry list of bad behaviour to be acted on in some way, take it to a more appropriate venue please. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Office Open XML

One of the participants in the edit war on this article is currently blocked, but this draws more attention to the behavior of the other parties. I see that an RfC is running on this articled, which is good, but it does not seem wise for you to keep on reverting the article before editors on the talk page have arrived at a consensus. User:Scientus has apparently been reverting as well. If people aren't willing to wait for a consensus, admins might step in with full protection for the article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An updated version of File:Windows PowerShell 1.0.png is uploaded

Hi, Ghettoblaster

I'd like to let you know that File:Windows PowerShell 1.0.png, the file which you have uploaded, is replaced by File:Windows PowerShell 1.0 PD.png. The new file does not have the copyright restriction that your version had. Please review the replacement.

As you know, since your file was uploaded under a fair-use rationale but is no longer used, it will be deleted within the next 7 days.

Fleet Command (talk) 06:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 325: / Line 325: @@
 One of the participants in the edit war on this article is currently blocked, but this draws more attention to the behavior of the other parties. I see that an RfC is running on this articled, which is good, but it does not seem wise for you to keep on reverting the article before editors on the talk page have arrived at a consensus. [[User:Scientus]] has apparently been reverting as well. If people aren't willing to wait for a consensus, admins might step in with full protection for the article. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 03:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
-== An updated version of [[File:Windows PowerShell 1.0.png]] is uploaded ==
+== An updated version of [[:File:Windows PowerShell 1.0.png]]<!--Non free file removed by DASHBot--> is uploaded ==
 Hi, Ghettoblaster