Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Continuous removal of support organization

I disagree with the repeated removal of the fully sourced information on OOXML supporting organizations by user:Scientus. I have requested assistance on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on this issue. hAl (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Example of such a removal edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=prev&oldid=314061479

It would be nice if you wouldn't mix all the organizations that relate to OOXML in some way together in a messy section like this. For instance, many organizations who had people going to TC46 meetings at the time of OOXML standardization were against the adoption of OOXML, yet it is easy to read your text as saying that their presence in TC46 implied that they supported OOXML. That's a false inference. --Alvestrand (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I find you comment confusing refering to your own committee which is not in the article. The only standards committee mentioned in the support section of the article is the Ecma committe and of that committee ALL members still fully support the Office Open XML format. So I do not understand your point .hAl (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

HAl edits against consensus

HAl continues to make edits against the established consensus.Scientus (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No i do not. That section refers to a claim of free and open being removed on the Ecma standard. I have to disagree on that as the Ecma stand in itself alread is an open standard. However I altered the the lead to reflect OOXML being a free and open ISO standard. I have not heard arguments that contradict ISO/IEC 29500 is an open standard.

Btw, You also seem to be extremly confused in naming people

user:Scientus is obseesed by removing information related to support groups for the Office Open XML format even though those groups are very obvious in their support for this format. You show classic signs of Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Signs_of_disruptive_editing where you entered this article a few months ago by disruptive cite-tagging adding fact tag to just about every thing in what is already a densely referenced article. Also all you edits have been tendentious in nature only adding critisims or removing support claim for the file format and have not been about not contributing anything encyclopeic on the Office Open XML file format itself. You do not engage in consensus building by avoiding the substance in the issues talked about but instead going on a path of wikilaywering and attacking other editors on the talk page or on their personal talk pages. And after that you try to get rid of people who do not agree with your actions by acusing them on the administrator boards behind their back in a campaign to drive away productive contributors. hAl (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the lede to state what the reference actually supports. It does not support "free", but does support "freely available". --Alvestrand (talk) 08:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You state that it does not support free. I state it does. The cite supports the free availability as and the ISO/IEC standardization implies the rest. What part is not free or open about a freely available ISO/IEC standard. hAl (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

So you keep repeating. Until such point as you have convinced those disagreeing with you (who are in an evidently large majority right now) of this, there's no consensus that this should be how the article is worded. This repeated edit warring is not helping your case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If you are in a majority then why can't you find a single example referenced argument that support your viewpoint. An open standard is even according to the relevant wikipedia article a standard that is royalty free and that is standaridized by a standard committee. So unless you come up with an argument that show you are required to pay royalties or can serieusly deny that ISO/IEC JCT1/SC34 is committe of standard organizations ISO and IEC I find your statements inadequate. Why can't any of you address the content of the text. It is not so hard to discuss free and open ISO/IEC standard. Are you claiming that ISO/IEC is not a standard organization ? Are you claiming that the specification is not free or royalties are required for use of the standard ? Or are some wikipedia editors here deciding on themselves what constitutes a free an open standard. Having a seperate set of rules/guidelines/definitions just for OOXML ?

There is no requirement for my case to need help as you did not bring up any case against it at all. I submit that several people do WANT Office Open XML to be called free and open even if though they lack arguments on why this particular freely available ISO/IEC 29500 standard would not be free and open. hAl (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There are no separate standards. We're just applying the same rules regarding the use of secondary sources which all articles should follow. I'm not addressing the text because I know better than to edit articles based on my own reading of primary sources. The other editors who disagree with you have taken a similar standpoint. At this point there's little left to do except to advise you to re-read WP:SECONDARY, which specifically says "any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". We do not have a reliable secondary interpretation that MS's corrections in the second draft have resulted in the standard being unequivocally free and open, so we can't put that in the article. That is the entirety of the argument against your proposed text. You could spend even more time repeating yourself, or you could resolve this by finding a reliable secondary source which interprets the second draft in the way that you did. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You suggest the standardards are not different but you have no reliable info that the sourced information from before still applies to the current ISO/IEC standard. You also refuse to put any of those so called reliable sources/information before me so that we can together decide/discuss whether those sources actually claim that Office Open XML is not a free and open standard and whether or not the claims in it still apply to the current ISO/IEC standard. Claims in the past were well known to rely on statements that the format was only implemented by Microsoft (which is of course long in the past), that Microsoft controlled the format (currently both the ownership and maintenance of ISO/IEC 29500 Office open XML are fully within ISO/IEC JTC1) or that the standard referred some undefined items (for which information was added during the ISO standardization proces). So we can in fact easily see if any of those old claims still apply. The refusal to bring forth those arguments and see if they apply to the ISO/IEC standard is shocking. You claim consensus on a viewpoint that you then refuse to support with actual real claims/arguments. I claim that it is enough for an officielly approved ISO/IEC standard to be publicy available free or charge and royalties to be called a free and open standard. That information alone complies with the definitions given on the relevant wikipedia articles. Unless you put forward real arguments (and not some consensus on imaginary non-existing arguments) that these definitions are not met by the ISO/IEC 29500 standard I will re-add the claim to the article. hAl (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

At this point I think it's safe to say that this discussion is over. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I would you would have actually brought forward any argument to discuss the free and open claim. I have not heard a single argument from you why a free publicly available ISO/IEC standard would not be fre and open. Still you claim consensus on it. That is truly amazing. hAl (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

When reading WP:Consensus, you'd be suprised to learn that consensus does change. For instance, when reading in the discussion archive, you'll see that we already had established consensus for a quite a long time that Office Open XML is a free and open standard. Months ago, several independent and valid referenced had been added to support this. However, they have since been removed again but can of course still be found somewhere in the article history. Ghettoblaster (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)