User talk:Hipal: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:17, 13 July 2009

This user is not an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

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

*In order to make conversations go smoothly, please follow WP:TALK and WP:AGF when contributing to my talk page. Comments that don't may be immediately deleted.
*Sign your post using four tildes ( -- ~~~~ )
Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Smile

PSWG1920 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for removing the tags Seeyou placed. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NP. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Ronz answered on my talkpage

Ronz can you re-add the tags and answer on the talkpage. They are currently missing and are very important. If you want to really help improving the article. Seeyou (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of PDF software - again

Hi Ronz, I looked at this page today and discovered a link again to Qoppa software (commercial software). When I have placed links to JPedal software (commercial and free software)they are removed. Yet Qoppa seems to survive. Your reasons for removing my link remains a mystery to me. You pointed me towards guidlines which were vague to say the least. For a company to be included as a link what needs to be done? Does an article need to be written about the company (I'm happy to provide one)?

Adobe remain on this page. They are commercial software vendors. They use the JPedal developer libraries (link you removed) for displaying pdf's in their ColdFusion product range. The JPedal libraries come in both commercial and free varieties, unlike qoppa. JPedal provides source code - Adobe doesn't.

A list of pdf software is always going to be contentious, but you can't pick and choose who remains on the page - that is subjective. A user viewing this page would be expecting a reasonably comprehensive list (as you would expect from an encyclopedia). This is not the case here. The software you list is not all free software. It is not the best performing software. So what is it? Some of the companies listed have "free software" but need paid support comtracts to use them. The page title says List of PDF software. I am not trying to be difficult here - if I was I'd just be reinstating my links several times a day - something I think is a waste of both my time and yours. But as things stand, you seem to be discriminating in your allowed edits.

Can you please give me some clarification of your decision here please?

Thank you FEQ (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article about the product, not just the company. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Faerie Path

Hey - trying to figure out why you removed a link to the author's myspace. Currently the publisher has very little information concerning the book and upcoming books and the author has no other website or source of information. I feel that it is a relevant link and the only source of news concerning that book and others in the series. It is fairly standard practice to link to the author's website on a book page. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the note. The article is about the book, not the author. Best to focus on WP:BK issues first. Otherwise those articles should be trimmed down to stub articles, or even deleted. If the author's myspace page is that important for the articles, then something is very wrong with the articles. --Ronz (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Hey. I understand the distinction between information about the book and information about the author, but I still feel the myspace page is a relevant link. The reason is that his myspace page is not a general social networking page for the author. It is his way of setting up a webpage at no cost to himself where he can give information about the books and answer questions. Infact, HarperCollins, the publisher, has it listed as his official webpage. http://www.harpercollins.com/authors/31097/Frewin_Jones/index.aspx .--TParis00ap (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about starting an article about Jones and including the link there? Such links don't belong anywhere else. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - I've thought about that in the past, but there just isnt enough information about him and he isn't notable enough for an article. I may dig around a little and see what I can come up with though.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Start with a stub. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfberry

Thank you! Apothecia (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

more wp:rs questions.

http://measuringworth.com/

spam or good? — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 17:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Just that link itself should probably never be used except if there were an article about that website itself. As for the data and calculators on the website, I think they could be useful, though it would probably be worth discussing on WP:RSN or WP:ORN depending upon the use. --Ronz (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Badagnani RFC

Right now from my point of view, it's just a bit too early to start an RFC regarding his behavior. I haven't checked many of his edits though, but if you feel he's done enough disruption to the project, then go ahead and make one yourself. I don't really have enough reasons/arguments to support an RFC right now. ;) Eugene2x►^talk 21:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NP. As I already pointed out, I just ignore him, and let him know it and why. --Ronz (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Martin (Politician)

Ronz,

You have edited my page by deleting references that are listed in the article. I am writing this to you directly before I ask for a dispute resolution. I figure we can discuss this to come up with a fix between the two of us.

I am, as you might have already determined, Mike Martin. I created the article back when Wiki was going good. Someone had attempted to write it, but it was thrown out because it had no references. I wrote the details based on news reports and my own biography and made it as objective as possible. It has stood up to harsh scrutinity for years. One of my references has been hit more than 1,000 times as a result of it being included in the article. That was my biographical account of the incident that made me worthy of even being mentioned in Wiki. You have deleted that reference by claiming the author wasn't verifiable. Either you didn't check the reference site and the fact that I show in the referenced site that I am indeed the author, or you have become part of this big push in Wiki to eleminate all outside references, regardless of their support of the main article.

Here are my justifications for including my references on my biographical short story and the article on Creation Science:

1. The short story biography is referenced in the main body of the article. 2. The short story is my rebuttal of facts listed in the article (that I wrote objectively). 3. My one bill, Creation Science, is mentioned in the article and a reference web page was included, giving my reasons for filing the bill.

I find it strange that you took out those two references because you claim the author cannot be verified, yet you left in chat pages of web sites with no validation of authors. I say there are better attempts of identifying me as the author in the sites you deleted than in the ones you left.

I ask that you review your last deletions of my site and return the article to what it originally was.

Waynemart - Mike Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waynemart (talk • contribs) 12:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Have you read the conflict of interest notice I placed on your talk page yet? I suggest your next step be WP:COIN, but you can choose whatever WP:DR method you'd like.

There have been multiple discussions about fanstory.com links, with the general consensus being that those links are never appropriate for Wikipedia.

Thanks for mentioning your concerns with the remaining references in the article. I'll look into the situation and do my best to correct it or at least identify the problems for others to address. --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: [1]

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Badagnani RFC (again)

I've decided to post one here. Are you able to find other users who have been in a dispute with him? I really am not too sure. Eugene2x►^talk 23:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The RfCU only needs two editors. From what I've read on his talk page, there are many more. --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bully stick

When reverting you left the "penis" mention in the article. Was this a mistake or is that really what they are made of? Them From Space 16:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I was able to find, it's true. The only sources I could find were retail sites though. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eww ok. Kinda figures that the spammers would want it referred to as a tendon. Them From Space 16:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected it to a better article. It was redundant, promotional, and attracting lots of vandalism. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3D CAPTCHA addition to CAPTCHA article

Hi Ronz, saw your discussion with some other users regarding the addition of a new type of CAPTCHA based on 3D renderings, and your (valid) response about the article not being written and verified by 3rd parties. I myself have come up with a similar technology, also based on 3D renderings, which was noticed by CNET (twice, once with the idea, the other time with the implementation). You can see the article here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10204300-1.html Would this suffice the addition of 3D captchas to the CAPTCHA definition? Thanks in advance. Marquinho (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Since this is your own technology, WP:COI applies. The solution is to discuss this in detail on the article talk page first, and being very cautious about adding the material to the article without other editors supporting the additions. --Ronz (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz, Thanks for the suggestion. Will do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marquinho (talk • contribs) 23:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liqueurs

Hi. Please see Talk:List of liqueurs#Reversions. Thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note! --Ronz (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Availablity for Mediation on TM article

I will be applying for formal mediation shortly. Please let me know within the next two days if you will be available for mediation or not. This does not mean you accept the mediation, but just that I can include your name as party to the mediation. Thanks. I realize you said you would not be available for much discussion but wanted to include you as a party to the mediation if you're interested.(olive (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Good idea. I don't have much to contribute other than my interpretation and experience with NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice on my user page, Ronz. I doubt anything else will work. We'll see.(olive (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Glad I could help. I'll try to pitch in more when I have the time. --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Viriditas' talk page

Ronz, hi. Regarding your note at Viriditas' page... I appreciate the work you've done, but I'm concerned that your methods might be exacerbating some aspects of the problem. Would you be willing to chat about strategies for working with this editor? I think we might have an easier time with Badagnani if he feels less persecuted. In that vein, do you think we could lay off on less important issues, such as the ice-cream picture, and really work on more important edits, such as the commercial link additions? Please let me know what you think. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Looks like we're thinking alike here.

As I already pointed out, "People react badly to many things. That's the problem here." Badagnani reacts badly to perfectly acceptable editing and dispute resolution. He appears to always feel persecuted, no matter the situation. I've tried working with him. After trying multiple, different dispute resolution methods with him, my solution was to ignore anything from him that was inappropriate or disruptive, per WP:TROLL. When others had similar problems, I encouraged them to ignore him as well, and to focus on improving the articles and follow WP:DR. Unfortuately, those others escalated the situation, resulting in the RfC/U.

I'm always willing to chat about other strategies.

If you look, you'll see that I had offered multiple solutions to Ice-cream headache, the last few all being compromises. I've since moved on, though I'm going to continue to look for good opportunities where I can suggest ways to stop the gross disruptions and personal attacks that have happened since. I'm also planning on jumping in if anyone continues the previous discussions on what we want in the images there. --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, trying to ignore people per WP:TROLL pretty much doesn't work. It doesn't generally make them go away, and you can't convince others to play along. I tend to take a direct intervention approach, but then again, I also tend to work with people that no other admin would give the time of day to. He's definitely not a troll, nor is he a vandal, and I hope I can persuade some of the editors surrounding him to lay off all of the personal remarks, because such statements are universally and uniformly unhelpful.

Perhaps the most helpful thing to do is to document issues on the talk pages. Any edit that goes back and forth more than one round should spawn a talk-page section, just so you can say what's wrong with the edits in a context other than the edit summary. Communication via edit summary tends to leave a lot to be desired. Also, being the first to ask the question on the talk page looks very good, and in a reputation-based system such as Wikipedia, that's important. In any such situations, if you need someone to weigh in at the talk page and add some comments about the edits in question, please feel free to let me know. I'm always willing to look at an edit and say what I think of it.

Thanks for hearing what I've got to say. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've had a lot of success with ignoring editors when no other dispute resolution method would work. I tend to be pretty good at starting discussions, very good at contributing to them. While it's better to make an extremely stark contrast between tendentious editors and yourself, I don't have the time to be on the lookout for all the tendentious editors out there, and then put extra time and effort into explaining even the most simple and obvious situations for whoever might be looking in, all just in order to make a case against the tendentious editors. I expect editors to know and understand basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or at least discuss them when they're not. I also expect editors to learn from their past discussions. I don't think I should be lowering my expectations any further. --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that I haven't asked you to lower your expectations. Thanks again for listening. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm happy to discuss alternatives. I've been rather busy lately, and haven't had the usual time I'd like with Wikipedia. It makes this situation all the more frustrating.

I really haven't bumped into you much, and don't recall if we had similar opinions or not when we did. I am extremely impressed with your handling of this situation though. Continued suggestions more than welcome. --Ronz (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yummy spam

(Bad faith comment removed --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.151.108 (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<sarcasm>Yeah Ronz, you really need to stop spamming articles...when did you change your ways?</sarcasm>--kelapstick (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spam 4 types.jpg		Four types of Spam
		For your intense efforts to reduce the Spamocity of Wikipedia I serve up to you four different types of (potentially edible^{[citation needed]}) Spam. While I may not agree with your stance on everything I appreciate (at least most of) the work that you do here--kelapstick (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you would delete it as being promotional for canned meat! Keep up the good work.--kelapstick (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should start investigations at WP:COIN and WP:RSPAM? ;^) The humor is appreciated! --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:List of liqueurs. 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 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. These four edits ([2] [3] [4] [5]) constitute four reversions, a violation of the three revert rule. Please stop. Bongomatic 03:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll report myself. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Farms

I'm guessing you did a lot of work on the WikiFarms Page. I want to let you know that I think it is great. I am looking for a Free Wiki Service that can manage WYSIWYG Tables to help run scheduling for a non-profit. Any suggestions?

Thanks,

Jared —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jared999 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheree Silver

Hi, I noticed you recently edited the article Sheree Silver, which is currently undergoing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sheree_Silver_(2nd_nomination). You're welcome to comment, if you get a chance. Spring12 (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning on it. Just waiting to see what comes of the effort to identify independent, reliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I pretty much listed all I could find at the AFD discussion. I updated the article a bit just now, but don't want to take it too far cause' of the RfC underway. Thanks for the edits, though. Spring12 (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your question...

...although any further discussion should take place on my talk, my immediate response is that the only diff you provided leads to this post: "Multiple people argued to keep this list in 4 AfD's. A few spam fighters can't seem to let it go. Why exactly are you here? If you don't like this list or its inclusion criteria, and are not interested in this topic, then please let those who are interested continue working. You haven't contributed anything to this article. So why are you here? It seems to be just a desire for more deletion. No, seriously, why are you here? You seem to follow Ronz around. When I bump into either of you, the other soon follows. See WP:Wikihounding and WP:TE. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)". Can you show me where any of that paragraph is either a violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA? All I was asking for is a diff where something actually violated those, because none of us who patrol WQA could see it using that one. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link Farm in Comparison of hex editors

First thanks for all your work. Unfortunately, I was very frustrated that you removed all the links on the Comparison of hex editors page. I found them convenient for going to each vendor's site.

I really don't see the problem with having links to each product's home page. As long as they all have them it is not going to boost their relative link counts in search engines. I found that WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK were irrelevant or did not really apply in this case.

A problem that your change has created is that there are now "Spam pages" (or whatever they are called as I am not that familiar with Wikipedia jargon) appearing so that the hex editor entry can link to a Wikipedia page (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/010_Editor). What would be more useful would be to remove the entirely spurious list of references on said page, which is fairly blatant link farming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.23.33 (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Sorry about your frustration. Instead of spam links, you're saying we now have spam pages. Yes, that happens too. If a hex editor can be demonstrated to be notable, it deserves it's own page, with a link to the official site. If not, it doesn't. I'd rather have editors trying to determine notability of hex editors, than simply adding urls. After all, that's what Wikipedia is about. --Ronz (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice

You know.... doing this isn't a very good idea, at least not as far as I can tell. What do you think it'll do, make him change? It strikes me that it's more likely to just deepen his conviction that you're stalking him. How, exactly, is that helpful?

If he's edit warring, don't warn him. It won't mean anything to him, coming from you. Get someone else - either me, or another admin. Wouldn't you rather be more effective? Leaving him warnings yourself is a great way to be ineffective. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would give absolutely anyone the same warning who was in the same situation. I don't know what will help him. I'm now trying to minimize all the time I'm putting into his disruptions. If I had had more time, I would have written a 3RR report against him. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I would give absolutely anyone the same warning who was in the same situation". I'm not sure that's a good idea, but you may keep your own counsel, and I'll respect that. I was just offering some friendly advice. Do let me know if I can help with any particular article situation. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I understand and respect what you're doing. As I've already mentioned, I've given Badagnani all the special treatment I'm willing to give, and feel that too much of it was a waste of time. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I haven't asked you to give anyone special treatment! Take care. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It was my decision, because I was unsure (and still am unsure) if he understands others' comments in reply to his own. --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Data mining - reinstating external links

Ronz, I am puzzled why you removed valid and useful external links from Wikipedia entry on data mining.

I don't know how much you are involved in data mining, but I have been working in this field for 20 years, and the links you removed are links to important sites which are very relevant to data mining.

For example, ACM SIGKDD is the leading professional organization for Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, that I currently chair. It is part of ACM and non-profit, and its mission is to support research and education in data mining. Why do you think it is spam to link to ACM SIGKDD ? Other external links are also to valid resources, including my site KDnuggets and other sites like AnalyticBridge.

Furthermore, all Wikipedia links are nofollow.

Gregory Piatetsky-Shapiro Chair, ACM SIGKDD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpswiki (talk • contribs) 21:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I see you've been editing Wikipedia for a while, but haven't edited very much during that time. I'm afraid that you've probably haven't become familiar with the policies and guidelines I've already mentioned, plus WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could use your help/opinion

Hi Ronz, it's been awhile, hope you are well. I have a question since this isn't something I have seen before. Is this considered spamming? Since you do a lot of work on this type of thing I thought that you would be a great person to ask about this. From what I saw on some of the articles, this is being added, the photo I mean, with a paragraph about how useful it is as an alternate. My problem is that there doesn't seem to be refs included, at least when I looked at the Crohn's disease article which was the last one on the list of contributions at the time of this post. I am going to go back to the CD article and if there isn't any refs I will be removing it if no one else has. But that being said I'd really appreciate your thoughts on this for my future knowledge and help with clean up if that is needed. I have never put a warning on a users page before so I don't know if this is appropriate. The reason I don't use warning templates is mainly when I first came here they were used for attacking plus not being an administrator it really doesn't have any use. Well it does as it notifies others that there was a need for a warning. Thinking about it I should probably go and find the templates and read up on them again as I am sure they have change over time since I started here. Anyways, I am getting off track here, your opinion on these additions would be appreciated. Take care and be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, User talk:Eubulides has been taking care of some of the edits from the editor above. I have checked to see if s/he is going through them all but that's ok. I just wanted to let you know because I belately noticed your notice about being here infrequently. I also asked if Eubulides would edit the Crohn's disease article with hopes to have someone bring it to FA status. I hope you are well and sorry for the babbling. Take care and talk to you soon. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I wasn't going to mention this but incase it continues I guess you should be aware. It is closed so no comments there are necessary. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Good to hear from you. Hope you're well.

Yes, that editing is problematic, especially the addition of unsourced information on an alternative treatment. Looks like Eubulides has it under control. Good call.

Thanks for the ANI on that editor! --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes Eubulides does seem to be handling it and I deleted some that didn't have any refs to prove what was said. No problem about reporting to ANI. Watch out though, there was more vandalism to your user page that other editors reversed. Apparently someone is upset with you. :) Keep in touch and I will too. Nice chatting again. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand

I understand very little of your behaviour and words, so I am very confused.
I have stayed up much later than I intended giving polite and detailed logical explanations which, for reasons that you do not explain, you have reverted and ignored.
It now being nearly 3am, I am going to bed. Perhaps when I return in about 18 hours you will have restored my edits, answered my questions, and explained yourself a little bit more clearly, and we can make some progress on this matter.
As I said, I have no conflict of interest issues in this area, and as I have considerable professional experience in the area, I am therefore able to give neutral professional advice. Hopefully you will find this helpful.
Until tomorrow. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry we got off on the wrong foot. I hope you realize that I was the one that started the discussion. My first comments were to identify the specific policies and guidelines that I referred to in my edit summaries. It would be helpful for you to respond with specifics as to why you think those specific policies and guidelines are not being violated, but that is your decision. It would help move along the discussions more quickly. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was very pleased to read your various responses. Not only do they display "good faith", but they display a willingness to jointly work towards a solution. Such an environment is always more pleasant and more productive!
(as an aside: I like seeing all sides of the conversation in the one place; this conversation seems to spread over three pages (so far ;-). I don't have a particular preference for which "one place", just "one place". As most of the issues I'm discussing in this particular segment of "the conversation" are largely between you & me, I've replied here. But as I implied, if you want to do it somewhere else, that's OK with me.)
>Sorry we got off on the wrong foot. - Me too. (Thanks for saying so.)
>I hope you realize that I was the one that started the discussion. - Well, I thought I did, but now I'm not sure what you mean! I'm assuming you mean, "I started the discussion on the article talk page"? If so, then my answer is "Yes." However, I would note that having started it, you haven't said anything further since your first entry, so I'm a bit confused about calling it a discussion, and wonder if you are referring to something else?
>It would be helpful ... . Yes, I expect it would be. However, there is lots of stuff in those policy pages; I could be here forever addressing every point, and I imagine you wouldn't be interested in most of such a response. I would find it helpful if you were specific about which bits of the policy you wished me to address. However, in any case, I expect a more productive use of my time, (and probably involving less effort on my part!), would be to create wikipages for those cases.
So, very briefly, and using generalisations: Red links tell you nothing. In the field of Computer Science, the "standard" way to find out about a company is to google its name. Usually, if the company has a web site, that is the most useful (comprehensive & reliable) source of information. Yes you must have what we Australians call your "bull@*#% detection and filtering meter" turned up to high, but often that is the only, and usually that is the best, source of information. Yes, I know that's not ideal, but in such an information poor environment, you do what's necessary.

The linkspam [6] from my perspective is a very simple, gross violation of WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTLINK. Reformatting these as references doesn't change this at all, nor does your restoring them without addressing any of my concerns. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

>The linkspam [7] from my perspective is a very simple, gross violation of WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTLINK. - Well, from your pov, it probably is. But carrying on from my comments above, from the situation of reality, "You take what you can get". When it comes down to expediency and practicality, you have to make compromises and compensations. If you want to be pedantic and purist, in this field you usually come away empty handed, which is neither informative nor useful.
>Reformatting these as references doesn't change this at all, nor does your restoring them without addressing any of my concerns. - Well yes, you are quite correct, but as I've tried to explain, there are also other factors involved.

I hope you found that at least some of the above was useful. If not, please ask some specific questions, and I will attempt to address them. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just got your message. I'm hopeful that a good nights rest will allow us to settle this quickly and amicably. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I hope this is all just a misunderstanding. You're tired, I'm very busy. I most likely will not have the time to address your concerns before you return. I hope you can be a bit more patient if that is the case. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can be patient. I would not say it is my strongest skill. But my experience is that there are very few things that are so urgent & important that they can't wait at least a little while. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now the hardest bit: Please note that my posting that you reverted was not intended to be an attack or intended to be just my personal views. I expressed those points in first person language because I was writing them, but they were (are) my interpretation of the general norms of the subsections of societies in which you & I are currently interacting. As such, my interpretation is that your response to the elected representative of the professionals in the Data Mining and KDD areas was not appropriate. I would appreciate it if you reread and considered my words in that light. I was attempting to AGF. Perhaps I failed miserably, but that was what I was attempting.

Well it's rather closer to midnight than I would prefer, so that's all from me for tonight. If I don't speak to you before, enjoy the Autumn/Spring equinox festivities. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please help [Jeff Halevy] repeated [VANDALISM]

Hi. [Jeff Halevy] is being repeatedly vandalized. Just look at the provocative comments left in edits. I have attended many of Jeff's seminars and comments are ridiculous. Thx. -- Amanda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.157.211 (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. It looks like the problems have been worked out. If there's anything you're still concerned with, please let me know what specifically. WP:BLP applies here, which means anything controversial or disputed should be sourced with the highest quality references. --Ronz (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Zachman and the Zachman Framework

Hi Ronz,

I allready have noticed some time ago, you have been protecting both articles for over a year from the attempts of the Zachman organization and associates to censor both articles, untill four months ago, I kind of took over.

Now I noticed you have put a lot of effort in it, and so do I, but the attacks keep coming. Phogg2 again, as if nothing ever happened, starts removing the illustration of the John Zachman article. It almost looks like he is just toying with is.

Now I wonder if you could give me your advice here, how to proceed. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at what's going on. --Ronz (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has Phogg2, or anyone else admitted to working for Zachman? Have any ip's been identified as being Zachman's? If so, then this should be taken to WP:COIN. Otherwise, I think it would be best to update the talk page discussion so it's clear what's going on. Then WP:THIRD or WP:EAR would be good next steps. --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will keep those options in mind. The situation is quite complicated, and since you know some of it, I am glad you can comment.

Phogg2 has made it quite clear, that he is in contact with John Zachman, and he is not happy with that.... Now I am not happy about the situation either. But their attempts to censor both articles is against everything I stand for.... But, maybe I have a solution here. I will propose it on the talk:John Zachman page, soon. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ronz and Mdd. I happened to see this discussion. Phogg2 has been cooperative in the past, and I exchanged some email with him. I don't fully understand his recent removal of the diagram from the John Zachman article, but discussion with him ought to be tried, in my opinion, before going to any noticeboards. We should find out if Zachman can assert a copyright claim on the VA diagram. If not, it is up to regular editors to decide if the VA diagram is useful in the article. One option would be to tell Phogg2 that we need to receive a copyright claim from JZ himself via OTRS if he thinks he owns the copyright to the VA diagram. I think this edit by Phogg2 is hard to justify: Image deleted. Not merely my personal opinion. Zachman International disagrees with its use as well. I think we should respect their wishes. This is a confusing mixture of possible rationales, none of which fit with our policy very well. I think I'll ask him on his Talk page about this. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising for Lean Dynamics

Please do not delete section of lean manufacturing page that cites "lean dynamics"--removal of this will render the description incomplete and therefore misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabiw1 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the lean manufacturing article adds an 8th form of "waste" based on one book--so I'm surprised to see your comment that multiple reputable books and articles cited here do not constitute independent, reliable sources... could you please explain the standard based on this discrepancy?Nabiw1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I haven't looked into it in depth. Books can be written by anyone and be of any quality. I'm asking for others' help in determining what reliable sources we have. --Ronz (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gamelan AfD

Done (and all the others as well!). Black Kite 20:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you know?

...about WP:DTTR? The reason behind it is that it tends not to do anything worthwhile. You know he won't hear it coming from you; you've probably just steeled his resolve against you. You should throw a curve ball occasionally, y'know?

Note that this is not a template - I'm talking to you for real. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm extremely familiar with DTTR, and strongly against it. I feel that editors should be treated equally and that templates should be used to present consistent and fair responses to the issues for which they are intended. --Ronz (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you think that because... it leads to good effects? Which ones? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Documenting issues. Showing that editors have been made aware of problems in a consistent an fair manner. --Ronz (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I see. I disagree with that approach, but I see. I'd rather do something that has more of a chance of resolving the dispute than do something that simply documents that it happened, but I (honestly, not ironically) recognize that I'm unusual in this regard. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only way to resolve this is to ban or block him, so I'm just documenting some of the continuing problems. He behavior is getting worse, not better. --Ronz (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? Which article(s) are we talking about? I mean, I don't think I'll have any sway with him, but I can maybe get other admins to take a look. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's no longer making edit summaries, but simply reverting edits he doesn't like in David Oei.

In Cellophane noodles he doesn't care that one supposed reference is a press release, while the other is blocked because it has hosted malicious software. --Ronz (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... has anyone made a report? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A report on what? --Ronz (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His current tendentious editing, without edit summaries. If it hasn't already been brought to some appropriate noticeboard, I'm willing to take it there.

Also, I replied to your post on my talk page. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He and GraYoshi2x have been reverting each other on multiple articles. --Ronz (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted at WP:ANI#Edit warring, if anyone cares. Hope you don't mind that I mentioned your name as someone who knows something about the situation. I suspect I'm done for the night, anyway. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll take a look. --Ronz (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, for notifying the parties for me. Silly of me to forget. OTOH, Badagnani has made it clear I'm not welcome on his talk page, so... -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it, but those formatting edits he made were quite sensible. Comments at the same indent level as those directly above them make for more difficult reading. I think a little bit of refactoring for readability is desirable. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't that he may or may not be trying to make a sensible edit, but that he's not communicating his intentions and edit-warring over it. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but in a case where the edit makes sense, I think it's advisable to let it slide. You've got plenty of ammo without standing on ceremony over two colons. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I pointed out, all I'm doing is documenting the problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And all I'm doing is make suggestions that I think are good ones. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see a problem. He just edit-warred. I documented it. Thanks for the suggestion. I have no intention to take any more action on this specific event. If he edit wars over something that I once again think is no problem, I will likely document that event as well. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we understand each other. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lockbumping.org

Just letting you know I already recommended it for blacklisting... See here: [8] Subverted (talk • contribs) 03:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gamelan

I would really appreciate if you could expand the explanation for the notability tag at the gamelan outside Indonesia article please - at the article talk page - it would be appreciated -

where NPOV comes into it
where N comes into it
where OR comes in

I realise that you might have a particular issue with articles - but it is not clear from what you have written at the AFD List Afd exactly what is going on Satu Suro 15:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it. Gimme a few minutes. --Ronz (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done! --Ronz (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a4m established

you have listed a4m as established in 1993. can you reference that date with any article of any kind. the organization is celebrating there 17th annual conference in April of 2009. if 2009-17= 1992. you have the data wrong and should up date it to be accurate. I am asking that you cite your reference proving the date of establishment. you should also include whom the company was founded by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.82.134.3 (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume the NY Times article verifies that. 2009-17+1=1993. I'm assuming at the first annual conference, they were not a year old. --Ronz (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neural network software / Neural Network - (rv spameed)

Hello Ronz,

You have deleted my external link addition to this two pages : Neural network software / Neural Network I'm sorry to put these links and that you considered them like spams. I think it's pretty good that there's kind of "regulation system" on wikipedia.

I understand that maybe you don't have time to look more in details my website www.neuralfc.com. The fact is that I'm not trying to sell or advertise for something. I'm a student in a French engineering school and I try to contribute to the community by proposing a totally free software (Excel Macro actually) that uses Neural Networks. These wikipedia articles helped me to build it, so I assumed it wasn't a problem if I let people know about my software through Wikipedia.

I hope you can better understand my behaviour with this small explaination. Many thanks.

Ludovic D.

Thanks for your note. What the articles need are reliable sources to verify the information in them and to expand the articles further. Unfortunately, it is a problem when editors try to use Wikipedia to notify others about software and products, especially their own. The most relevant policies and guidelines are WP:SPAM and WP:COI, which go into much more detail about these issues. --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spam concerns

Hi, I am not trying to spam. I am adding links to the Fales library in an attempt to facilitate interested parties to more information. There is no commercial interest in this. Fales library is an open library to researchers. Thanks, I hope this clears it up. Kelsievans (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Kelsi[reply]

Thanks for responding. We've had problems like this in the past, which is in part why I've asked for help. My concerns are not that there are commercial interests, but that your editing fits WP:SPAMMER, sometimes going beyond just adding links but instead adding new section in article that are little more than promotions for the library. Let's see what others say. --Ronz (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

Oh ok, I will try to contribute information as well. I want to help people know about the individuals as well. I can also remove the section titles if that helps.Kelsievans (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Kelsi[reply]

Deleting my comments on gamelan ensembles AfD

Would you mind explaining yourself? — Gwalla | Talk 05:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I did, it was unintentional. Let me check what it is you're talking about. --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Maybe I had been reading the previous copy, then edited it without first renewing the page? Sorry. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talking with you

Sorry about not responding sooner. I would like to talk to you about these things, but I have very limited time I can spend on Wikipedia and for the past few weeks it has all been taken up with fighting these sort of battles. That in itself is my biggest concern about the orthodoxy that you and others have been showing in policing guidelines. I'd be happy to discuss this with you in more detail when things settle down. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I look forward to when you have time to talk rather than battle. --Ronz (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LinkFarm

RE: your post, "official site links formatted as references violate WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTLINK", I am not seeing any place in policy pages that support your statement that "Official site links formatted as references violate" anything.

List of guide dog schools is a moderately well formatted list that fits well within the style guide line of WP:List. In my reading of WP:SELFPUB (which is part of a policy not a style guideline) Primary references serving solely to support the existence of an establishment are acceptable. As you know as indicated by the first sentence under the editing window all Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, and content of lists are not an exception to verifiability policy.

Could you go into more detail and supply references to specific places in policy on why you think supplying a single link to each of several separate items is a violation of Wikipedia expectations? (p.s. I have not been getting on line regularly so may be a couple days before I get back here) Jeepday (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message.

"Primary references serving solely to support the existence of an establishment are acceptable" Really? How so? I'd say just the reverse, that those links do not belong as references because of WP:SELFPUB #1 & #5. --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do such links not violate WP:SPAM? How does an article sourced this way not violate much of WP:NOT (WP:SOAP, WP:NOTLINK, WP:NOTDIR, WP:IINFO)? --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Jeepday (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're overlooking #1 and &5, after I pointed them out. Why? --Ronz (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are having failure to communicate, You asked for a specific rationale I gave you one. I asked for specific rationale and you responded with "How does an article sourced this way not violate much of WP:NOT (WP:SOAP, WP:NOTLINK, WP:NOTDIR, WP:IINFO)? ". Ignoring my request for specifics while offering responses like yours above is not a two way communication process. You have failed to support your argument, instead demanding that I refute it. There is no conversation to continue here. Jeepday (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please focus on the issues, rather than me.

I asked for you to explain your position, by quoting what I'd like clarified, and citing my concerns related to your position.

If you would like clarification or expansion of my comments, just ask.

I'd like an answer to my question, "How does an article sourced this way not violate much of WP:NOT (WP:SOAP, WP:NOTLINK, WP:NOTDIR, WP:IINFO)?" I notice that others have brought up similar concerns. --Ronz (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretations of policies and guidelines

Ronz, I have a chance to chat about this, and I see that I am not alone in my views. My main sticking point with the deletion of these sorts of lists is that it is a matter of interpretation as to where to draw the dividing line between "Spam" and "Useful link" or between "Yellow page directory" and "Useful list". For example, I worked to create List of longest suspension bridge spans which nobody has challenged as being anything other than a useful list. However, it its beginnings a large majority of the bridges did not have articles. When I nominated it for feature status, it was criticized for having too many red links so I created stubs for all the bridges (which struck me as being absurd). Most of these stubs have not changed in the last few years, and basically contain the information that can be found in the list. The list has links to the homepages for each bridge, just as the guide dog article has links to all the schools. So it is not simply the external links that are problematic. They exist everywhere. It is part of our guidelines to include a link to a corporation's website in the article about the corporation. External links are a fundamental part of the value of Wikipedia.

The creation of pages at Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Each person finds some useful piece of information and adds it. The next person can find that information and add to it. In creating the Bridge list, I started with a couple of outdated (and as it turns out inaccurate) lists that I found on the internet. I then added external links for each bridge. For someone looking to find out more about each bridge, the bridge's webpage is the most useful link that could be added. If someone were to decide to write an article about the bridge, that is where they would start. Later if some information is challenged they can find a third party source to confirm or refute the challenged information. This is how Wikipedia came into being. By people incrementally making things better and adding more information. It didn't just spring into existence fully formed. If you had nominated my list of bridges for deletion because it was full of external links and had a large proportion of redlinks, I might have just gotten frustrated and walked away. My point is that it is unproductive to take such a hard line and apply such a strict interpretation of the meaning of "directory" or "spam". The reality is that everyone LOVES Wikipedia because they can find the information they want as well as links to the things they are looking for. For this reason, I think we have to take a broad view of our guidelines and focus on the most egregious manifestations of Spam. In my view, the guidelines are written with practicalities in mind. We don't want lists that have thousands of entries because they are unmanageable. We don't want lists that can never be made comprehensive because they might give a false impression. We don't want a list of things just related to topics that we find unencyclopedic. If we have articles about guide-dog schools and can create a comprehensive list of all of them which is manageable, then what is the practical problem with having such a list? If there are links to the schools that are listed, it will help others find out information about those schools and that might result in more articles about notable schools. This all seems like a good thing to me, and in keeping with a less rigid interpretation of our guidelines, which was the norm during the first few years of Wikipedia.

Rigid interpretations were applied to deal with articles about living people, and I think there is good reason to become more strict about those articles. However, strict orthodoxy seems very counter productive everywhere else. It alienates users - old and new. It stimulates long drawn out talk page and AFD discussions. It dampens the spirit of collaboration. You can take the energy you are using to police these pages and apply them to something much more egregious. Pages like List of guide dog schools and List of gamelan ensembles in the United States are not going to bring down Wikipedia. They many not be your view of proper pages, but I respectfully request that you allow others to disagree with you, and to accept harmless things that may be a little outside your interpretation. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 21:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this. Obviously, you have given a lot of thought to this.

I don't think the articles need to be deleted, if they follow the applicable policies and guidelines.

"External links are a fundamental part of the value of Wikipedia." No they are not, hence the many policies and guidelines related to them. We're here to create an encyclopedia, not a directory.

"However, strict orthodoxy seems very counter productive everywhere else." We disagree on that. I'm sure you'd change your mind if you thought about a bit. BLP is one exception, as you point out. So is Copyvio. So is 3RR. So is Spam. So is Vandal. So is Threat. So is V.

Again, I don't see the necessity of deleting the articles, if only we can bring them into line with the applicable policies and guidelines. The problem with List of gamelan ensembles in the United States is that is blatantly violates multiple policies and guidelines, and editors support keeping the article as is with absurd Wikilawyering and calls to ignore policies and guidelines.

Finally, it would help if you'd stop with the accusations. You appear to have made up your mind about me before any direct interaction between us on these issues, after ignoring my attempts to reach out to you. --Ronz (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, I never saw your name until you showed up on the List of gamelan ensembles in the United States and took a hard and fast position about external links that you are still insisting on. I have accused you of "rigid orthodoxy", which I believe is a fair assessment of your behavior. I would be more than happy for you to prove me wrong. I came to your page, as you requested, to discuss this. Which I am still willing to do. I will agree with you that there are other policies which sometimes need to be enforced more rigidly, but there will always be shades of gray and different interpretations. If you cannot see that people may come to different conclusions than yours then you should probably focus your efforts on things that are more black and white. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot have discussions with others before making accusations of them, maybe you should take a break. I'm not going to make any attempts to prove anything to you. Get over it. If you're just going to make demands of others, you're the one causing problems. As I already pointed out to you, WP:BATTLE covers this. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template needs help

As a contributor to this template, would you like to take a look at Template talk:Contemporary writers#Doesn't always work. Truthanado (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I don't think I can help. Looking at the template, it looks like you have to give it the id that the contemporary writers site uses. I don't know if those id's have changed, but that would be my guess. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your message

Just wanted to let you know that i responded (on my talk page) to teh messages you left on my talkpage.

thanks! LiptonInstituteofTea (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note! --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project management

Hi Ronz,

I have been having a hard time managing the project management article, removing several new material because I want the article to give an overview.

Now a new editor keeps adding his brand new article Project management for Media and Entertainment to the see also section, dispite several of my removals, edit summaries, messages on his talkpage, and a general note on the article. I have removed that link three times now, but he has reverted this removal three times as well.

Could you please take a look, and give me your opinion. Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Yes, Project management and the related article are frustrating. I'll take a look. --Ronz (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External Links and Alternate Uses of Products

Hi Ronz,

AltUse.com is creating a worldwide repository of alternative uses to extend the utility of everyday products. AltUse provides alternative uses for common items, e.g. Honey, Coffee Grounds, etc. Information I added to Wikipedia is offered (external links for various items) to provide other uses beyond the traditional method for using a product. Examples may be viewed at http://www.AltUse.com

Would you please reconsider the links to alternative uses of products as not spam?

Thank you, Dictate (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)dictate[reply]

Given that the content is user-contributed and the site is ad-heavy, I don't think it is appropriate as an external link. As I pointed out in my edit summary, these concerns are covered by WP:ELNO #2, 5, 10. --Ronz (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

I agree that the link is not appropriate. Specifically, it violates the following from WP:ELNO: Possibly 1, certainly 2 (all the information in the site is unverifiable), likely 4, perhaps 5, maybe 11, and also possibly 13.--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 23:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Barrett

If you go forward with AE, please add me as an endorse (if that's allowed) as I might not have access for a few days. Thanks, Verbal chat 08:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'm hoping it won't be necessary, but that's up to the disruptive editors. --Ronz (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged personal attack

Okay, so I noticed your edit to my talk page warning me to not do personal attacks, and I was just wondering what that was about. I do not recall making any edits at all for several weeks, and the ones I do remember were just grammar and reverting vandalism. Could you please point out what I said that caused your warning? 98.219.132.3 (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at my talk page

I prefer keeping the discussion in one place, if that works for you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Badagnani

Thx, Ronz. Definitely endorsed. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality control and genetic algorithms

Hi Ronz, could you express your opinion about the ongoing issues at the Quality control and genetic algorithms article. Thanks you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw there was a dispute there, but didn't look at the specifics. I will now. --Ronz (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of digital library projects

This is just a quick note that the a page you've commented on before List of digital library projects is undergoing discussion over a rewrite at Talk:List_of_digital_library_projects. The rewrite is at [9] Stuartyeates (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I've voiced my agreement on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Messages

Please see that I am new to Wikipedia, I have responded to your messages now, hopefully we can resolve the editing issues, rather than just leave them hanging, I think that most of the edits are now fine, please give me some feedback —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Ridley (talk • contribs) 06:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'll respond on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're being talked about

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Spamfighters_repeatedly_trying_to_delete_longstanding_popular_chart_of_wiki_farms. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I was hoping no one would take the WP:BAIT. --Ronz (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've heard you be called a lot of things but a SPA is one I would never have thought of! ;) I got a good laugh from it though since I know you're editing style. Keep up the good work. :) Well it's been awhile, how is it going with you? I hope you are well. Keep in touch ocassionally, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that someone is laughing. I suppose I should as well, along with just ignoring such nonsense. Thanks for the note. Busy. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I understand busy. Just remember this is just another day at Wikipedia, and this too shall pass. Drop by if you get some free time. I haven't seen you around lately. Take care, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Seeyou and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jéské Couriano (talk • contribs) 20:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Water tank, mea culpa, mea culpa

I just stumbled accoss the discussion part of a user page assigned to me... I am guilty of inserting references to my commercial website, thinking I was adding value... Totally missed your chastisement and promise of censure... Wiki is a bit compicated to the uninitiated and I remain so... but hereby promise to commercial links to my website. Vinmax —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.24.47.135 (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. The message to you was written to be extremely polite, but I understand how you could find it upsetting. Yes, Wikipedia is complicated. You've run into policies that by necessity have to be rather strictly enforced. I'm sorry that you were upset by the message and thank you for responding. --Ronz (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 23:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

good job

I think you are doing a great job reporting spam. And, the article you want someone to delete, dont worry, it is up for deletion now. All in All, good job.--98.151.241.73 (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re John Dehlin's "linkspam"

Earlier today, I made an edit to John Dehlin's wiki page linking to his site Mormon Matters. This was then "undone" as linkspam. What do we need to do (I represent another writer at the blog) to have the link reinstated (especially since it *is* Dehlin's own blog and the link is 100% relevant to a discussion). What are Wikipedia's policies in the future for these kinds of issues. Does Mormon Matters need its own wiki instead?

Thank you for your time. 69.151.50.29 (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. The relevant policies/guidelines are WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTLINK. The article is about the person, so all references and external links should be about the person. Links within the article body should be to references only. I hope this quick reply is helpful. --Ronz (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

System dynamics

Hi, I commented on you last edit on System dynamics on it's talkpage, see here. Could you take a look. Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks for letting me know. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

Seeyou (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 21:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ronz

thank you for the editorial links, which were indeed useful. Also I am pleasantly surprised to see the editorial policing work on Wikipedia.

You are also right in assuming that I have a personal interest in lean, albeit not a commercial one as in the case of the advertisments that I tried to remove. Year after year I have mark essays that are all-too-often based on the infomercials on Wikipedia, so this is my attempt to rectify at least some aspects of it. The article "Lean Dynamics" marks a case in point, which I see is in dispute already. I would suggest deleting it entirely.

In any case I have no intentions of engaging in editorial battles with commercial providers. I have made my points, now it is over to others to further refine those.

Kind regards - MH

balsalmic vinegar FYI

FYI, wanted to make sure you were aware of the discussion at Talk:Balsamic vinegar#spam links. tedder (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the context. I didn't know. tedder (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Conflict of interest policy

Hi Ronz, thank you for the Conflict of interest policy.
I will read and try to respect it.
Patrhoue (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JTAG 'Spam'

Hi Ronz

Please can you explain why you are deleting links or spam as you refer to www.JTAG.COM but not from other commercial JTAG suppliers on the JTAG article - external links. I fully appreciate you battle against spam but can you account for this apparent inconsistency ?

With thanks

JS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.50.148 (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, I haven't yet tried to clean up all the improper external links and light spamming per WP:EL. Instead, I've just cleaned up after the most blatant spamming per WP:SPAM. --Ronz (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PhotoReading Page

Okay...what did I do wrong. I deleted the section because it references something that is put out as a study but was nothing more than an examination by one person. I included a link for you to see what I mean. Please explain. Because of the holiday, I might not respond back quickly. Thank you. Good & Fair (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is an independent, reliable source. It is sources of this type that should dominate the entire article. I've requested help from others to rewrite the article around such sources. If we cannot find enough of such sources, the article should be deleted or stubbed. --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz...The source might be reliable, but although I'm not a research scholar, it seems the Learning Strategies' response is valid. Did you read it? Does it make sense to you? Why was it removed? Comments? Good & Fair (talk) 04:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've been writing material that I've posted based on what I've read in the PhotoReading book, heard on the CDs, read on the Learning Strategies websites, and learned from my personal experience using PhotoReading. You're saying that is not enough, right? Good & Fair (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More than that. I'm saying that we cannot have an article based primarily upon such sources, and that we have no article currently because those are the only type of sources we're finding so far other than the study.

Re: Please refactor

You wrote:

[10] per WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, etc. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like you said: "Working on Wikipedia requires communication between editors". So - don't advise editors to just ignore other editors... Because that would be contradictory!

Thanks! -- Quiddity (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. There's no contradiction if you weren't misrepresenting me, in violation of multiple behavioral policies. --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insadong

Hello, Ronz, the removed external links by you are "restored" by me because those links from official Korean tourist/Seoul City sites are far from your definition of "spam". I hope you're more careful when you remove something from articles. Thanks.--Caspian blue 22:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The links were "spammed" as I described them. Please be more careful when you characterize others' edits. --Ronz (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SPAM for more information. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy

For your enlightenment:

Mitchell and Webb: If Homeopathy Beats Science

"Don't drink water - it remembers all the shit it had in it."

-- Brangifer (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Nice to have a message from someone without an axe to grind fueled by assuming bad faith. --Ronz (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

As you know, you've reverted 3 times in a period of 24 hours, so please be careful of your edits and more try to engage in developing the articles. Thanks.--Caspian blue 20:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where? --Ronz (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At Insadong. Please more be careful. Thanks.--Caspian blue 20:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Learn to follow WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BATTLE. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've pointed out to you before, try taking your accusations to a proper forum such as WP:WQA or WP:ANI. Bad faith accusations, harassment, personal attacks, disruptions, etc. are not welcome here, nor anywhere else on Wikipedia for that matter. --Ronz (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caspian blue's talk page

Please tone things down a bit on User talk:Caspian blue. You are welcome to have disagreements with other editors, but please do not escalate the issue. If you feel that you are not receiving the attention you need for a specific issue, feel free to bring it up at the appropriate forum (dispute resolution, etc.) Thank you for your cooperation. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad you took sides in this dispute. I responded on Caspian blue's talk page with two further comments:

[11]:
Continuing from [12], I'm sorry that my efforts to clean up blatant spamming are interpreted as something else. --Ronz (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)"
[13]:
"I've said "Let me alone" and "Take my compromise suggestion?" repeatedly. However, you're ignoring my simple ask and harass me. Please leave me alone. I'm not gonna report your 3RR violation"
Yes, you wrote those things. I left you alone. You then wrote, "I know exactly why he is doing that on "Korean articles" due to his conflicts with a non-Korean editor working on Korean and traditional Korean music." Do you see how that remark is problematic? --Ronz (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, Caspian blue was unable to respond in like, but just continued the incivil behavior that you ignored. I hope that's no surprise to you when you take sides with someone making personal attacks that way. --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're an administrator. To me that means you have some additional tools. That's it. If you're unwilling or unable to explain yourself when you interject yourself into a dispute, then you need to bow out. You've not discussed the situation with me. You've taken sides. You've threatened to use your administrative tools to settle the dispute when I tried to engage you in a civil discussion. This is all escalation on your part. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

16:57, 1 July 2009 Ronz (talk | contribs) (4,061 bytes) (→External links: ad-heavy) (undo)

Most of the ads are now removed. Is the link ok to put back?

Cover letter examples —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polyppo (talk • contribs) 22:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be against it. The only examples that I'd support having linked would be those written by experts. There's also the matter of WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

undo LinkSpam on Digital Cinema

Dear Ronz, i hope you are well. Thank you for taking the time to read this and for ensuring the quality of the Digital Cinema article on Wikipedia, as well as many others it seems ... You recently removed 2 times my "newbie" updates of the section "list of digital cinema companies" in that article.

I would like to submit to you my last revision, where all Links are removed. I still would like you to consider the references below, which i don't want to insert into the article because it would take certainly to much importance in comparison to other subjects. The d-cinema industry is very small and in your last edits you have removed global leaders from the list of d-cinema companies (Doremi for ex.). I would prefer to leave this decision to industry specialists if you don't mind.

More generally, the article requires a mention related to the Theater Management System software which is one of the keystone of the d-cinema rollout, especially in Europe. I am certainly not the best person to add such section, due to the quality of my English language, unfortunately.

thank you again for your time and consideration.

some References related to my last edit: http://en.wordpress.com/tag/digital-cinema-events/ http://digitalcinemabuyersguide.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/dvidea-at-cine-expo-2008/ http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/PR.aspx?newsID=865 http://www.d2cinema.com/ http://www.cinemaexpo.com/filmexpo/photos/pdf/A_CEI09_TSB.pdf http://www.madcornishprojectionist.co.uk/news-europe.php http://fullres.blogspot.com/2008/06/dvidea-introduces-new-functionalities.html http://www.cineserver.nl/ http://www.manice.org/ (article of June 22nd 2009 related to Europalaces deployment + May 16th 2009, how to use a TMS software)