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 –

Montalbano Innovation and Development Inc.

Hi Ronz

You removed the content from Montalbano Innovation and Development Inc....I feel that the information I posted on MIDIs Development process and methodologies is usefull giving information to the industrial design and product development community. I am not infringing copyrights....I part owner of the company, have worked in the field for a couple of decades and created all of the text on the site that I used in the article.

If you would like to confirm this please go to Montalbano Innovation & Developments website www.montalbanoinc.com and go to the contact us section and give me a call....ask for Greg Montalbano.

I am new to Wikipedia....I know I did not comit copyright infringment....is there something else I did wrong?

I would welcome your input.

Regards, Greg Montalbano — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.106.121 (talk • contribs)

Please read the information I left on your talk page. --Ronz 02:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I realize I failed to express my appreciation for your efforts to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. I mentioned WP:BITE only because sometimes it's difficult to distinguish spammers and vandals (who don't deserve any second chances) from those who simply misjudge what Wikipedia is about. For the latter, although it may be unlikely that they'll ever become productive editors, they may still have friends and kids and whatever to whom they may relate their experience - positive or negative - when they embarked into the unknown in their editing. And no, unfortunately there is no one here but us editors to deal with 90+% of the problems we encounter - admins should only be invoked for tougher cases and/or bringing down the hammer. And yes, Wikipedia should offer a lot more help to editors trying to clean up things; all we can do is do our best and see what happens. John Broughton | Talk 02:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Design Methods

Ronz: I am somwhat surprised at the four flags for this article. This particular topic has gone through more review by more people than most articles and has been very responsive in making corrections when asked. Your issues are too broad and you do not offer clear suggestions: 1) The article offers many references, both within the article and at the end of the article. We had more references but were told to reduce them and have more internal referneces within Wikipedia, which we did where possible; 2) Your cleanup in October of references deleted the sources as refererences and now you are stating that there are not enough references. You need to be very specific in what you mean by references. We believe this article is properly referenced. 3) As for the article being abridged, we had shortened it, but Design Methods has many linkages. We will try to shorten it further. I request that you delete the banners at the top of the page and instead use the comments page to have other wiki's help. (Design Methods 13:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

The references weren't listed as such when I tried cleaning up back in October. Let's fix it. --Ronz 15:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ron...

Hi Ron,

Thanks for taking the "accidental signature" out of the Lean Manufacturing Article. Even we "geniuses" make mistakes from time to time ; - )

Take Good Care,

Jbillh 02:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

My offer to Ilena

My response to Ilena's continued personal atacks can be found here. -- Fyslee 10:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well done. --Ronz 15:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "corporate website" examples

Hi Ronz, and thanks for the welcome to wiki.

You mentioned that my links to corporate websites are inappropriate. I don't really see that, and I think it's useful to include a few to illustrate the point because there aren't any generic examples. At least I couldn't find any.

I'm not affiliated with any of the sites I linked to, nor would they really serve as advertising or attempts to give them business because as corporate sites they're informational. The companies themselves probably don't need to attract more people to their website. I'm not trying to make a directory either, just showing people what a corporate website looks like. If you have any ideas how I can do that without pointing to specific examples let me know.

One more question. "Corporate website" shows up when I do a search but it's not showing up as a live link in other articles or, say, in your message. IIs there a delay period or is there something wrong with the article? I'll read through the introductory material to see if it says anything about this.

Thanks again,

= oops, nevermind

I see you linked to the wiki entries on these companies, which in turn list both the corporate and the consumer websites. I'll probably change the list a little to only include companies with wiki entries that do this.

As for removing the link to the white papers on how to design corporate sites, no big deal ad I understand that the company posting these articles is probably doing it to drum up business. I am wondering if there is an external source that describes what a corporate site is supposed to look like and how to design one.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 20:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC). Wikidemo 20:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

A source on what defining corporate sites would be helpful. A link on how to design one? If such a link existed, it would belong in design-related articles rather than Corporate site. --Ronz 20:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Emotional Design

Hi Ronz,

Why was my contribution to Emotional Design and Experience Design removed?

On the Emotional Design page there is even a REAL promotion piece for a company (Sotopia). My piece was only to inform people who want to read about "emotional design" about my non-commercial weblog, where I have many interviews with leading experts who have a lot to say on the topic.

I am also thinking of re-editing the page to make it more general and not only promoting Don Norman, so as you said, I think I have some thoughts and knowledge to offer to that page. But again, I don't think posting my weblog for people to read more about the subject was a conflict of interests.

Thanks, Marco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcovanhout (talk • contribs)

I commented on your talk page about it. You're correct about the Sotopia link, and it's now removed. I'll explain more on your talk. --Ronz 16:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Ilena

I appreciate the effort you've put into helping her, but I think her own (rather harsh) words regarding it would make it obvious that she doesn't seem to want your help. Perhaps you could disengage? I think that would probably be for the best at this juncture. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I already tried disengagement. It didn't work. Besides, it's not about me at all. She just likes fooling others into thinking it's personal. Meanwhile, she hasn't mentioned me or responded to me in quite a while now.

I think Sally Kirkland went pretty well, and the next time should be better now that I'm getting a better feel for what does and does not trigger her. I don't think I'm going to touch Sally Kirkland for awhile though given all that's happened, despite that there's a clear COI on her part that needs to be rectified. --Ronz 01:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A diversion?

Hi Ronz...How would y ou like a bit of a diversion? I would welcome a pair of eyes and input on an article Jim Shapiro that is up for AfD (a second time)? Sarah is helping out there, already, but the more input from the Wiki community, the better this will ultimately be resolved, I believe. The first article was speedy deleted and salted. The author objected, wrote another article with a variation on the name, to get around the salt. Then it was unsalted, and the author wrote the attack page again, and an admin tried to make something workable out of it (but cannot, as she states in the AfD). The author of the article has now made an identical article, only now he is calling it Jim Shapiro and Legal Ethics,to avoid calling it a WP:BIO. This is exactly what he did the first time, only now he is doing it before the AfD is over. He grossly misrepresents the sources he cites (someone else called it WP:NPOV#Undue weight in an attempt to justify "notability". The subject of the article does not look like any saint (that's an understatement) but he is a licensed attorney. He is also not notable except for his obnoxious ads in his local area. This is beyond my "Wikipedia" experience, but it looks like this author is obsessed about this, and about bashing lawyers. I'd appreciate any help possible. Jance 23:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Before I respond, I'm awaiting an explanation from you of why you chose the specific issues, editors, and article. I can't make sense of any of these choices. --Ronz 15:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You could pose questions on the talk page for the case - I can't answer questions I haven't yet heard :) I would be happy to clear anything up for you that is unclear. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

More specific than from above, "why you chose the specific issues, editors, and article?" I'm not even mentioned in the two previous ANIs that I added to the RfM. I vaguely remember another but cannot find it. One where Jance pointed out that I should have been listed as involved but was not. --Ronz 23:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the one you mention but can't find is the Jan 2 AN that you've already listed. Here are two more.AN archive 165 and AN archive 172--Emilydcksn 02:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I was thinking there were some unrelated to Ilena's behavior, but I was mistaken. --Ronz 02:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Eye tracking/er

Hi, do you think those two articles should be merged? Tony 00:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never looked closely at Eye tracker, though saw your comments about possibly merging them in Eye tracking. At a glance, there appears to be enough content to keep them separate. On the other hand, it looks both articles could use a lot of tightening. Why not merge-tag them and see if anyone else responds? --Ronz 00:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Ronz, I wasn't going to agree. I changed my mind when I saw Arthur's comments on the An/I. I thought maybe it would be a sign of good faith? All it takes is one person to not agree. I have mixed feelings about it. I dont know the parties are well defined, and certainly no issues are explained.Jance 22:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I wasn't aware of that. I will go look. I just got home - client had a crisis.... I will look tomorrow.Jance 03:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I withdrew my agreement to mediate.Jance 04:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Barrett v. Rosenthal. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Raffael Marty

Hi Ronz, This might seem like self-promotion, but I believe that I am fairly well known in the computer security arena. I have talked at conferences around the world, am the founder and owner of http://secviz.org, have written a few chapters for computer security books, am writing my own security data visualization book with Addison Wesley, have contributed open source code, etc. If this is not enough to be included in Wikipedia, please let me know

Thanks Raffy Zrlram 01:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that you're writing articles about yourself and your program. I'll add more on your talk page. --Ronz 02:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

Since Fyslee has refused mediation regarding the issues pertaining to himself and Ilena, I have opened a formal Request for Arbitration regarding the matter. You may wish to make a statement. You may do so here. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration for Design Methods

Ronz, we are not sure why you are so determined to delete design methods. If you took time to review the extensive comments about this article, you would appreciate the time and effort that has gone into this article. We strongly disagree that since you don't understand it, it should be broken up and deleted. This would be unfortunate and work against the very reason Wikipedia exists. We have asked you to be specific as to what needs verification or clarification, and you have not provided any examples leaving us to "guess" at what you want. We have therefore come to the conclusion that whatever we do will not suffice. We ask that a third party be brought aboard to help (maybe some of the original reviewers which can be found in the archived discussions). We are trying to be reasonable, and ask you to do the same. (Design Methods 02:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

• Good luck getting ArbCom to hear a content dispute, because it's outside of their remit. Try the Mediation Cabal instead. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I've already been using Wikiquette alerts for the article just to get this far, and it looks like Design methods has found a mediator that he's comfortable and familiar with. The Mediation Cabal is another good option if we need further help. --Ronz 16:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm glad that it looks like a mediator will help. I've had one experience with them (I think two different ones dropped by to help), and I was impressed. If nothing else, they seem willing to spend enough time to sort out situations when the issue is more than a single paragraph or small set of facts. And they almost certainly have more experience solving WP:OWN situations than you and I do. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 18:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a Thought

Something I have never seen addressed are the numerous personal attacks and accusations against Dr. Stephen Barrett (and Dr Polevoy) on various talk and user pages. Spurious accusations against Dr. Barrett would fall under wp-blp and they are both members of Wikipedia.--Emilydcksn 00:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have occasionally mentioned this, but apparently other users who literally hate them feel that they are exceptions to the rule and are fair game for the worst kinds of attacks. If you want to read really serious personal attacks at Wikipedia against me that have never been punished, just email me. -- Fyslee 23:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (Acting as Assistant to the Clerk) 23:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed link in Design pattern (computer science)

Hello Ronz,

the external link I added is on the edge of Wikipedia:External links guideline. But content of that page is almost ideal future content of Design pattern (computer science). I suggest leaving link there as a natural continuation for interested reader and as a source for page development. I found it more useful and more focused on topic, than the rest of external links. Msm 00:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There's got to be something better. Maybe some of the other links need to go as well? --Ronz 01:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Customer experience

Hello Ronz You have attempted to delete Customer experience, but I have removed the delete notice because it has been there for a long time and many have worked on it.

If it is still similar to an article posted on the subject, so be it, perhaps it is almost accurate. That does not warrant a complete deletion. But it has changed, and is a work in progress by the Wiki community. Feel free to contribute if you believe it can be greatly improved. The very first post in the article's talk page invites contributors. That's the nature of Wikipedia.

(removed)

As for similarity with the source article, Customer input Limited grants the right to Wikipedia. -- DavidJacques 03:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, I just don't know what else to do with an article that's almost word-for-word from your corporate newsletter authored by you. --Ronz 16:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've looked more closely at the article and it's essentially unchanged from your edits, other than one from a Hong Kong ip. I think an AfD is in order because of the other WP:CSD#G12 issues. --Ronz 18:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(removed) As I said on numerous other pages, there is no self-promotion on that page. It is a genuine attempt to define a commonly used expression. Note as well that it is not part of "customer service", but rather the sum of all touch points, including design, web site, marketing, etc. (removed) --DavidJacques 06:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You may not have intended self-promotion, but you violated guidelines against self-promotion. Let's stop arguing about it and move on. If you want to be involved in salvaging the article, I've made multiple suggestions as how to go about it on the talk page. --Ronz 17:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear RONZ, as a new Wikipedia contributor, I am confused as to why my comments seem to disappear repeatedly after a while, specifically on your page. Could you help me with this? DavidJacques 17:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

See the note at the top of this page, which I copied in a comment I made on your own talk page. --Ronz 17:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding of the tildes for the signature. For the other comments you deleted, I quoted one on my talk page: User_talk:DavidJacques. -- DavidJacques 17:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

NCAHF

The Butterfly comments may present an opportunity to reorganize the criticism section. However, her arguments comparing this article to "Flat Earth Theory" are not logical. This is not an article about alternative medicine. It is an article about a group that criticizes alternative medicine & practitioners, and litigates against them. Not the same. A more complete 'criticism' section in this article is warranted - without the controversy, there would be no NCAHF, and no article. But the criticism section should not be a long list of quotes, which is not readable.Jance 04:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It's nice to see someone else raising the same, poorly addressed, issues. I still think it's going to take much more to get it in shape. We're only having these arguments because some people are more interested in making sure the article includes their personal viewpoint than they do making sure it's a good encyclopedia article. Levine2112 is already jumping in offering to make it worse.

Agreed, Flat Earth is incorrect. Better Business Bureau and Center for Science in the Public Interest are as close as I've found so far. --Ronz 04:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. Although I don't know that those are quite the same, either. I'll have to think about it. see my comments on the talk page. The quotes are tedious. Forget whether they are 'fair' or not - that is not relevant. What is relevant is whether there is a coherent explanation of the response by those NCAHF attacks. Just dumping one quote after another is not writing, let alone coherent writing. If all the quotes address the same issue, then what is the point except repetition? To be honest, I don't think I have even read all of the quotes, and I am marginally interested in the article. And that is what is wrong with the section - it is not readable .Jance 06:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Product Manager

I see you have your hands full. I do not understand your explanation for removing the article so I'd rather leave it until you come up with something better. In brief it is much more informative and useful than the rest of the article which is quite questionable and misleading. Maroje 11:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Maroje

I just moved it to the talk page so it could be worked on. The section was just placed in the article without consideration of current content or even formatting. It would also help if sources were provided. --Ronz 16:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

NCAHF

There is also the simple question of a well-written, readable article. A long series of quotes strung together does not constitute good writing.. heck, it isn't writing at all. And it surely isn't readable. Quotes should highlight a point, not be a point.Jance 18:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The Better Business Bureau is somewhat limited in the discussion of history, and criticism. There is significant criticism of BBB, and in fact it is not an organization I would take seriously anymore. I don't know much about the Center for Science in the Public Interest except that it appears the critics are the typical anti-regulation-of-any-sort. But that is a topic for another day. Laissez-faire economics has never been laissez-faire. The question is more accurately which side is getting the fare. The Center for Science seems to be more like NCAHF in being a group critical of a certain class of businesses, or practices. The BBB is different. The Center for Science is not as poorly written as NCAHF, with its overuse of quotes. Although, it too uses too many quotes. And yes, I would agree with respect to the bias steering the edits. To some extent, that is true on both sides, but the worst "pro" NCAHF et al was Curtis who seems to have disappeared. Jance 20:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The Center is an interesting example, Ronz. It appears that the criticism section focuses on two types of critics - free marketeers and fast food lobbies. That could be discussed in one or two paragraphs, with about one or two abbreviated quotes - quotes that are not a paragraph long.

Consider the paragraph now in the article, vs. this modification, which I wrotes:

Critics of (the center) include lobbiests for food industries and "free-market" libertarians. The Center for Consumer Freedom, a U.S. lobbiest funded by the fast food, meat, and tobacco industries, criticizes CSPI through one of its websites. CCF regards CSPI as part of the "food police" and claims that [CSPI] uses scare tactics justified by "junk science" and media theatrics to encourage a "nanny state."[5]

Libertarian "free-market" groups like The Heartland Institute, claim that the Center's name is deceptive, and challenge the findings of (). Another "free-market" group, the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, claims that CSPI resorts to fear-mongering to attack food products and restaurnts, and seeks a "fat-tax" on hamburgers, french fries and soft drinks."[7] Bob Barr, a former US Congressman, while admitting he is "completely unqualified to issue scientific opinions", says that CSPI does not conduct research but carries out smear campaigns against scientists who publish research which contradicts their ideas. [8]

When looking at the actual quotes, it is evident that the sentence about The Heartland Institute says nothing. One needs to look at that article to see if there are complaints similar to the other "free-market" group cited, Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise. Then one could combine the two into one sentence: Libertarian "free-market" groups like The Heartland Institute and The Center for the D of FE claim that CSPI resorts to fear mongering to attack food products and restaurants. Jance 21:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Principles of User Interface Design

I saw your plea for help on Help talk:Table for the formatting of Principles of User Interface Design. I'm not sure what "correct" layout should be, but I did fix the wikitable formatting. Drop me a line if anything stumps you. —EncMstr 17:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That works, thanks! --Ronz 19:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

RE:Fixed spelling after vandalism?

I've run across a number of your "fixed spelling" edits immediately after an article has been vandalized [1] [2] [3] [4], where you change the spelling of a word in what is obviously vandalism. Please be more careful with your edits. Thanks. --Ronz 17:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will keep an I out for vandalism. I usually run spell checks now and then. Would you recommend that if I see certain forms of vandalism that I remove it? Much regards. Wiki Raja 01:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming that your spell checks are at least semi-automated, which could make it difficult for you to see what has been done in previous edits. I think removing vandalism is more important that spelling though. --Ronz 18:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I will do both in the future which will mean spending a little extra time on each article for both spelling errors and vandalism. Regards. Wiki Raja 18:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Cindery

Thanks for the notice, I've taken care of the G4 in userspace and given a final warning for spamming on the talk page. Happy editing to you! Teke ^(talk) 02:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Gemini3206

Ronz, u better revert to the older version of the article to see who has vandalized it. The earlier user tried to correct the senless word from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemini3206 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but your comment makes no sense to me. What are you talking about? --Ronz 04:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Image Use

Ronz - I have no vested interest whatsoever in the (link removed) referenced on the article. Simply stated, it had the best images I found displaying the subject at hand. Please help me understand how these can be incorporated into the page. - bwilliams

Responded to you on my talk page

I just want to let you know I responded to your post to my talk page. Thanks for taking the time for a newbie! :) --Crohnie 00:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Your requests for Verification

I am happy to provide verification for anything I edit. What precisely do you want verification about? Thank you. Ilena 17:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're happy to provide verification, then why are you so reluctant to do so? I want you to verify everything that you assert when you said, "This is totally factual, I'm sorry it isn't kind, but it's all verifiable." You used this assertion to justify multiple, repeated WP:BLP violations. You're also using it to justify your uncivil behavior, your assumptions of bad faith of other editors, your disruptive editing, etc. I guess I called your bluff. --Ronz 18:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

HCR

If only she would realise that her problems with Barrett and Fyslee are preventing her from being objective. I find it sad that every one of her edits is either "Trust me" type edits (with poor RS and/or V) and "Barrett is evil because I defeated him in a court action". It gets somewhat tiresome. Shot info 03:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This would be againt the COI rules. She is the Rosenthal in the lawsuit so she shouldn't be editing at all on these articles should she? --Crohnie 13:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That's her, with a conflict of interest in almost every edit she makes. --Ronz 16:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Too right it's COI, but again it seems one rule for editors another for Ilena. It is interesting that I'clast has popped back up to once again defend her. If only he was more interested in defending WP policies. Shot info 23:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Color blindness

Ronz, in your diligent effort to clean up external links, you may have removed a useful link. I restored it. If you disagree, can you please follow up here Talk:Color_blindness#external_links? Thanks. Fred Hsu 16:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm already writing up a more detailed description of the problem on the talk page. --Ronz 16:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you recheck the talk page please? Thanks. Fred Hsu 17:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the link to the external links section. I also restored the link for the second time. Please do explain yourself on the talk page before you remove the link for the third time. Thanks. Fred Hsu 19:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've explained myself plenty. You're being a bit uncivil with this situation. --Ronz 21:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Blog article vs. Published Article

Ronz...

I was just putting together my editor's notes on my published article on Digital Ethnography and saw that the reference I made [here] was considered a blog entry and edited (out) by you. While accurate, I am actually practicing Ethnography this year by blogging my written syndicated column Techlife, prior to it's publishing on my blog of the same name. I am giving readers a behind the scenes look at my writing process and creation process.

My lead article this month is on Digital Ethnography and it will appear in print form. I have linked to other print articles that I have published on Wikipedia before. (Though I am a noob, so I may have done something wrong.)

I would appreciate a bit more clarification on this and if we can revert it great. If not understandable. Thank you for your time.

Dave Kaufman dave [at] dkworldwide dot com --Dkaufman1 18:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A little more...On other posts I have indicated it was a published article in a Chicago Area newspaper. I did forget to add that to this:

Digital Ethnography A published article discussing KSU Professor Michael Wesch's term Digital Ethnography

Is modifying this acceptable practice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkaufman1 (talk • contribs)

I haven't heard from you, but my editor is asking, so I am going to modify my post on the above page. Please keep the conversation alive here if need be. Thank you. --Dkaufman1 16:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)--

I now see you posted on my Talk page, a few more bits about the Ethnography post, and cited your reasons, which as you stated are the prevailing thought about external links. Read my reply on my talk page and hopefully that gives you even more information.--Dkaufman1 16:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone Else's Request

Hi Ronz,

You recently removed content from the "Information Technology and Innovation Foundation" page because it was copyrighted. I have permission to access this copy, as I work for ITIF. Would it be possible to put the information back up? Thanks.

Hi Ronz,

You recently deleted content from the wiki for "Information Technology and Innovation Foundation" because you felt it was wrongly using copyrighted material. I work at ITIF, so I have the ability to use this material. Is it possible to have the material reposted to the wiki? Thanks. -209.190.197.131 16:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No one is stopping you. It's all a matter of the information holding to wiki guidelines, especially Wikipedia:Copyrights. --Ronz 16:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What you're NOT Barratt! :-)

Unfortunately this form of harassment seems to be a common tactic of Ilena, I'clast and now Levine. Unfortunately for Levine he is an advocate for Ilena (as is I'clast) and it's damning for the trio to engage in such behaviour. Given that they are all pointing the fingers at everybody else (including myself it now appears) it is reprehensible that they engage in such behaviour. But then again, it's seemingly designed to make as much noise as possible to hopefully allow their unacceptable WP behaviour slip by.... Thanks for your kind words though. Shot info 23:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diff that I claimed you were Barrett

Many places around Wiki you have claimed that I once "accused" you of being Barrett. I do not know who you are and do not believe you are Barrett. People who hide their identities and attack others may find that their own identities then come into question. I have not been able to find this "accusation." Please either provide the diff or retract your accusation. I checked this log [5] where you and others were working diligently to keep off the verified fact of NCAHF's suspension, and it's not there. I await your diff. Thank you. Ilena (chat) 16:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I will take your speedy removal of my valid and honest honest to be an admission that you made up your accusation and it was meant as distraction and attack. Thank you. Ilena (chat) 17:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)