User talk:Hipal

Welcome to the Wikipedia user discussion page for Ronz.
To leave a message on this page, click here.

*Do not make personal attacks or use the page for harassment.
*Sign your post using four tildes ( -- ~~~~ )
Comments which fail to follow the rules above may be immediately deleted.

Archives

---

1. - November 2006
2. December 2006
3. January 2007
4. February-

Re:Talk:Stephen_Barrett

Your point is well-taken and I tried to clarify my point on that talk page. Regards.RalphLender^talk 17:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

List of portable software

Hi!

A quick note to say thanks for the changes to List of portable software - it certainly needs some attention!

Two thoughts though; wouldn't it have been better to leave the external links in for those systems which don't have a Wikipedia entry? I would have said it would reduce value to readers if they just have the name of the application, with no other information to go on (i.e. some means of finding out more; typing the name of the software into something like Google would produce a lot of irrelevant hits due to the use of pretty generic names for some of the packages)

I think the main problem with this page is that there's a lot of software listed on it which isn't actually portable - many of the applications have to be installed on a PC and then copied over to a USB drive - at which point it's claimed that they're "portable" (e.g. not that long ago, someone added "World of Warcraft", on the basis that if you installed it, copied all the files from the installation directory onto a removable drive and applied a software crack to it, it would work "portably"!) Nuwewsco 23:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective, the links don't belong per WP:NOT#LINK. This is an encyclopedia, not a reference as to where to get portable software.

I agree that the list shouldn't include non-portable software, but that's only going to be possible if the definition of portable is agreed upon and isn't changed. --Ronz 23:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; though it may be worth removing the popups as well for those ones which don't have a wikipedia article (some have them, some don't - which seems a bit inconsistent!) Nuwewsco 00:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It needs a lot of cleanup. I'm working on the links first. --Ronz 00:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Barrett - "zealous advocate" again

Actually I (slightly) prefer the current version as edited by I'clast, since this is supposed to say something about Barrett. The rest can be found in the linked King Bio article. I suppose the current version could be called worse from Barrett's POV but I believe it is much closer to the sources. (FWIW, I also believe the entire para needs to go since it's WP:SYN and arguably OR. But I'm not about to delete it...) AvB ÷ talk 17:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Other than not making explicit that Barrett's on the board, I like it also. I'll give it a try then. --Ronz 17:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like an improvement to me :-) AvB ÷ talk 17:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that eventually the section should at least be considered for removal because of SYN and NOR, but given how long it's taking just to discuss the certification povpush, I'm not holding my breath. --Ronz 17:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly... AvB ÷ talk 17:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a quick thanks for your assistance. Nposs 03:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

As we are new to Wikipedia, we violated fundamental rules and are now digging our way out of the hole we created for ourselves. Your posting of pertinent links to Wikipedia policy will help us recover. Thanks for your help. --Save OU Sports 15:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Save OU Sports

Glad I could help. --Ronz 15:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Link controversy

I restored relevant links that you had removed from the Health freedom movement article. I did not spam and the links were well integrated in the article text. The article is far from a “mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files”. I get the impression (from reading on this Talk Page) that you are interpreting the EL policy in an unnecessary strict way that makes the articles less useful for the readers. MaxPont 16:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this problem is minor and easily settled, but I think it would be easiest with some outside help. --Ronz 02:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring (2)

Please avoid making this kind of edit. It makes for big trouble, much worse than leaving it in. These are not personal attacks of the sort you are encouraged to remove. They do not rise to that level. Fred Bauder 20:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Give me some alternatives, some better guidelines, or examples of how to handle this type of harrassment. Reports to WQA, AN/I, etc go without response. Perhaps it's time for me to leave Wikipedia altogether if WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:HAR, etc. are just words. --Ronz 00:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional examples: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]I agree with Fred Bauder on this. You went far beyond what is acceptable for removing personal attacks. If the personal attacks are so severe that you need to make that many edits then you should be seeking other redress. Editing the comments of others is not appropriate. Making a reasonable complaint about your editing behavior does not constitute a personal attack. -Will Beback · † · 04:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, no alternatives offered. How about rubbing it in another time? Or maybe you too can move on to being uncivil, since those policies are just words to be ignored? You're wasting my time here if you can't give me any options, discuss what's going on, or respond to any of my concerns.--Ronz 15:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I hadn't seen where you said you had changed approach. I'm glad to hear it. There are a number of alternatives. The simplest one is to ignore the phrases you don't like. The language you deleted was not personal attacks, and it was hardly uncivil. The next option is to request the editor to stop using the uncivil language. Finally, you can request comments in an RfC or seek sanctions in a community ban or ArbCom action. Keeping a civil and even collegial atmostsphere is necessary for a project like Wikipedia: editing other people's comments tends to antagonize rather than calm them. -Will Beback · † · 17:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I certainly disagree about what constitutes personal attacks and incivility, but I guess we're not going to get anywhere on that issue. I'll keep trying other approaches, being at a complete loss for examples of how to properly handle them. --Ronz 17:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, as a member of Arbcom Fred Bauder is in a position to know what WP:CIVIL entails. I'm hoping for your continued help with some anti-spam issues that we both work on, and so please hang loose a bit on these issues of policy interpretation. If you want to see examples where people have tried to use the 'RPA' template, open up Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:RPA and search each listed page for 'Personal attack removed.' Of course these uses of the template could still get the respective editors in hot water. EdJohnston 19:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I know who Fred is, and respect his opinions. I considered the issue settled after telling him thanks, other that I'd like some useful alternatives besides just saying goodbye to Wikipedia in disgust.

I'm not sure Will is, am quite unimpressed with his interpretation of WP:CIVIL, and don't think he's done much here but made the situation worse. Seems to be someone just chiming in without the time to actually figure out how to be relavant. Not that he's doing anything wrong, just that he's not helpful.

Thanks for pointing me to the RPA template. Interesting, but I'm going to take my own approach on this. As I've said, I've yet to see any good examples on how to deal with these issues. --Ronz 19:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm wasting my time

But I'm really tired of the harassment and editwarring that certain editors feel that they can get away with. I've said it before, and I'll say it again now, I don't know how to deal with them and I find it very troubling that few appear to be dealing with it at all.

There was discussion of article probation in the Ilena/Fyslee Arbitration. Has such a thing been done before? I'd like to learn what it means, and what's happened when it's been tried.

Also, if you didnt already notice, I disagree with your observations, but that's really only a trivial part of my reply [8]. --Ronz 01:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I was, and remain, very frustrated when I attempt to edit disputed articles. We did not use article probation in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. It was used in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education but had to be re-opened and editing restricted. Essentially it is a warning that continued editwarring will result in editing restrictions. Fred Bauder 02:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz 02:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read before contributing to this refactoring discussion

I'm trying to find better ways of dealing with Tendentious editing, Disruptive editing, and the all-to-common bullying within Wikipedia. I'm doing this in response to my own involvement into the events surrounding the Ilena and Fyslee arbitration. I feel the arbitration should have never have taken place, and that it did only because numerous editors let the problems get so very out of hand for such a very long that there was no other choice. I'm looking for some preventative measures. First and foremost in my mind is getting editors to be more respectful of each other by being more respectful of the numerous policies and guidelines related to civility. Refactoring is a tool I learned after the ArbCom had already started. It's a very useful tool, but not widely enough accepted to be the solution I had hoped for. I'm still trying, though I'm getting quite disgusted at the situation. --Ronz 21:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk Stephen Barrett

Hi Ronz, being a new editor I hope it's ok to ask you about your comment on Stephen Barrett talk page about talking in circles still. I suggested adding the little bit saying "and he was not board certified" to the end of the sentence. Do you think that just this little bit is still breaking with policy of Wikipedia and the discussions that have been on going on the talk page? I am still learning the rules here and some of them are at times very confusing to me so I am hoping to understand your thoughts on this so I can learn and if I am in error, make the correction appropriate. I thought this was a way to stop the feuding and compromise without any negatives falling into the article like the wanting of some to add that Dr. Barrett didn't pass his test and so forth. Would you please be kind enough to try to explain why you still think my suggestion is talking is circles? I would really appreciate hearing your input on this and I could learn some more hopefully. My learning curve is real slow so I stick pretty much to talk pages with ideas and wait for what the group on the page has to say. I have only edited something into an article two or three times so bold I am not! :) Again, I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on this. Happy Holidays! --Crohnie 21:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've mentioned to you before, these aren't the types of articles that I recommend anyone use to learn about editing in wikipedia. You're in the middle of a point of view push that has been going on for years.

That said, I don't think you're talking in circles, only that you're compromising on policy. I'd have to go in circles to respond to what's been said, because most of what has been said is just repetition, and none of it is actually addressing the concerns that I feel are most important.

My solution to these problems, one that's usually ignored, is to look at what's been done in other articles. Try to find articles that are similar and see what other editors have done to address the situation. --Ronz 00:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I do really understand what you are saying now. I have kept up with the whole talk page so I do know what you mean about talking in circles, which is what I thought my sentence would at least stop and get better focus going on. Thank you very much for taking the time to explain it to me, it is really appreciated. I have seen your writings on a few different article talk pages and I really like the way you know the different rules for editing here. This has been most helpful to me. Thanks again very much, have a good day.--Crohnie 11:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Crohnie, something to consider is the weight of criticism that is in the SB article versus say other notable critics (such as James Randi). What you will find is that there is an overwhelming push to have the vast majority of the article detailing criticism of the subject of a BLP which is in complete contrast to what the policy states while proponents all argue using the guise of "facts". The fact is, most "facts" are not worthy of a encyclopaedia, hence why we have the Notable policy. But as Ronz points out, we are going around and around in circles because certain editors just don't read certain policies. Shot info 22:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

We have shown over and over again that Barrett's lack of board certification is notable (being a featured subject in several lawsuits and widely-read publications). I can't speak for the other, but I certainly have read the policies in question and addressed each one to the point of ad nauseum. If there is still a specific policy which you would like to discuss (as it pertains to the article and material in question), feel free to bring it up at Talk:Stephen Barrett and I will be more than happy to discuss. Thus far, I haven't seen a convincing argument to leave this material out any longer. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please keep your round-in-circles arguments off my talk page. They're insulting enough on the article talk page. Please learn to respect other editors and Wikipedia. --Ronz 23:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, I feel that your comment above is disrespectful in nature and hostile. Calling my arguments "insulting" is uncivil. Please refactor.

As you will note in my comment to this discussion (which you seemed to have no problem withbeing here until I contributed), I am suggesting that we move this back to Talk:Stephen Barrett and off your talk page. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please learn to respect other editors and Wikipedia. --Ronz 00:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Ronz. Now please do likewise and remove your hostile comments about me here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess it'll have to wait til we get some mediation. You have no respect for the round-in-circles warning and don't like that I call you on it. Reminds me of how Ilena would attack anyone who pointed out when she did something wrong. --Ronz 00:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel you are being purposefully hostile and disrespectful toward me right now. I am going to disengage from you in hopes that it will give you time to cool off. In my absense, please consider refactoring your uncivil comments about me here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I'm still waiting on mediation for your repeated attacks on me, which you back with assumptions of bad faith on my part. My attempts at clarification and resolution have been met with only further attacks on your part. Again, it reminds me of how Ilena complained about others' behavior that was completely fine but she just didnt' like, all in an attempt to divert attention away from her own blatant misbehavior. --Ronz 01:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to clutter up your talk page Ronz, but Levine is labouring under the miscomprehension that the current non notable fact = criticism from my perspective. I have been discussing the overall content of the article in question with Crohnie with reference to the current "fact"'s notability. Then I point out other BLPs (following on from Ronz's lead) to Crohnie to guide him to how other ... better written ... BLPs exist in WP. I am using the current "fact" in the context of notability, not the context of the overall article suffering undue weight. Please stop making this assertion. Shot info 00:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Shot info, I am lost by what you mean by this. Please explain explicitly. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop assuming things here and on my talk page ie/ that I regard the "fact" as criticism. Shot info 01:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for that. Your writing to Crohnie indicates that you feel that the "push" to have the fact (that Barrett isn't board certified) is fueled by editors wanting more criticism in the article. I think you can see how I was tripped up. Again, I apologize. So, for the record then, you don't consider the insertion of the fact (Barrett not being board certified) to be a criticism? Right? BTW, let's move this back to Talk:Stephen Barrett. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Apology noted, you didn't have to apologise, you just need to reconsider butting in. My points on the fact's non-notability are already on the Barrett talk page...round and around we go...again... 01:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Not round-and-round. This is actually a new question. Do you consider it to be a criticism if we were to mention that Barrett is not board certified? I request that you answer this question on Talk:Stephen Barrett instead of here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Next you will be asking me if I am a blood relative of Ronz :-) Shot info 01:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, heh. No. I can assume by your response to me above that you don't consider it a criticism of Barrett. That's why you came down on me... for assuming that you did. But I don't want to assume anything. I just want to know how you feel about this. Yes you do think it is criticism or no you do not. Personally, I don't think it is criticism. Onward to Talk:Stephen Barrett. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Seriously though, I thought we had taken this back to the article talk page.

Back to the much-needed humor. What about, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States?"--Ronz 01:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Levine you will have to sometime just be satisfied with people not answering your question(s). I "came down hard on you" (your words, not mine) to ask you to stop assuming stuff...which you still continue to do even as you point it out above (you now think that I don't think it's criticism...for your info, I haven't even entertained either notion and I don't see the value in regarding it as one or the other). State your points and leave others to make their own without you trying to second (third, fourth...) guess them. And to answer Ronz' question, no, but the Illuminati...shhhhhhh :-) Shot info 01:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am only wishing to get a better understanding of your position here. Why you are reluctant to state it, I don't know. Well, I don't want to badger you about it, so I guess it will remain unanswered. Seems pretty innocuous though. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be something else entirely [9]. --Ronz 17:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

FFS this is turning out to be a repeat of "Are you Barrett's son". Get a clue, people don't have to answer your endless badgering. I have answered your question, but like normal, the answer isn't what you want to see, round and around we go, where will we stop... Shot info 02:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, thanks for explaining on my talk page. I responded back to you on my talk page. --Crohnie 20:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Player Project

(Refactor: Copy of prod notice removed - no need for it here - personal attack removed) So, include delete in Player/Stage_Project, delete now from the page or include a merge. And delete also Microsoft Robotics Studioor merge them in a common article. If you want I can merge Microsoft Robotics Studio and Player Project. --Altermike 06:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't make sense of that. --Ronz 15:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)