User talk:Hipal

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

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

Archives

---

1. - November 2006
2. December 2006
3. January 2007
4. February - 9 April 2007
5. April -

Civility

Rather than removing my comments from your talk page, wouldn't you prefer to discuss the issue with me to help us collaborate in the future? I get the feeling that we are both going to be editing at Wikipedia for a long time, and I would hope that you would be in favor of finding a way for us to collaborate in the future. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Not when you repeatedly assume bad faith and worse [1]. --Ronz 18:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't assume bad faith and what is "worse"? What does the diff above show? Please explain in detail. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[2]. --Ronz 22:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

And what does that show? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That you fail to Assume Good Faith. Shot info 03:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take the time to read my comment again. You will see that I specifically say that I am not assuming anything. I was merely postulating. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to choose a better verb [[3]], [[4]]. Shot info 01:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right. Many definitions. Putting forward a hypothetical possible undetermined rational guess was more along the lines of my intent -- but as I clearly state, my intent was not to assume. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Your intent was clearly laid out for all the see. If you didn't wish to "assume" anything, that prehaps you shouldn't have assumed it. Your backpedaling does not undo your failure to assume good faith. Shot info 22:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Stress

Dear Rontz, Thank you for your comment. Perhaps I should have stressed the words appropriately. We all know the following example: "None of woman born shall harm Macbeth"; "None of woman born shall harm Macbeth". Now consider this: "I find it very frustrating that no notable critics have so far made my notable criticisms of Barrett". robert2957 12:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Confusion

Dear Ronz,

I don't think I understand your comment: "You're not trying to determine importance by asserting it without reference to sources." Do you mean that I am trying to determine importance by asserting it without reference to sources. ? robert2957 20:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I think you're describing the problem extremely well. You realise that we can't determine importance without referring to a source. It's others who are making this mistake, discussing importance without referring to specific sources. --Ronz 04:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ronz, Many thanks for your response. I am sorry that I misunderstood you. I hadn't read the previous discussion to which you refer me and I think I was a little tired when I responded to your comment. I don't question anyone's good faith either. Not that of other Wikipedia editors or Dr. Barrett. robert2957 06:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ultras

Hi further to your removal of the links, referring to this - WP:NOT#LINK, was there a consensus reached to remove the links? And have you also removed the links from Barra brava and Torcida which were originally on the Ultras list but removed to those pages in order to clean the list up and make it more manageable?♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 15:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There's consensus on the policy and how to apply it. I've elaborated further on the article talk page. --Ronz 16:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:pnc nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Your Mediation Cabal case

Good afternoon (GMT time); I have accepted a Mediation Cabal case - requested by Levine2112 - to which you are listed as a party. Mediation has commenced at the case talkpage, where you are invited to participate. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me via email, IRC or my talk page; I will try to answer all your questions as fully as possible in so far as it does not compromise my neutrality. Kind regards, anthony[review] 22:44, Saturday August 3 2024 (UTC)

Manufacturing Execution System

Hi, I have reverted your deletions on Manufacturing Execution System as the links that were on the article benefit the user. Ideally of course we would like to have more information about this topic, but at present we dont, so linking to external sites that do host relevant information is "a good thing". Cheers, John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayvdb (talk • contribs)

The list of companies is clearly spam. --Ronz 23:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I dont agree with the {{importance}} tag as it is a reasonable stub, but I'll leave it there in the hope someone improves it. John Vandenberg 00:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think importance tags are a good start for stubs like this. They're not as intimidating as notability tags, yet still direct editors to the priority of demonstrating notability. The article was created over two years ago, so I think some direction for editors is in order. --Ronz 00:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I worry about tags like this, as it only takes one energetic admin to delete the article. {{expand}} is IMO more appropriate where the stub is a decent start but in need of work. John Vandenberg 00:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation of Stephen Barrett article

Hi Ronz, I haven't responded to the mediation because I never did anything like this and so I have been just keeping an eye on it. I noticed that the same arguments are being made with Levine and that now he thinks that all of the information about Barrett failing the test should be in the article. I really though this would go differently than it has. I thought that consideration and talk of the policies that you and others were helping me to understand would be discussed. I only see you mentioning it after the second response from Levine about the reasons it abides by policy. Is this how these things always look like? To be honest, I am quite disappointed by the way editors responded on this mediation forum compared to the conversations on the talk pages, esp. about notability. No mentions at all about how board certification was not popular back in Barrett's day, and the failure rates of others taking the same tests. With this mediator having these templates and special rules on how he wants formatting has prevented me to be bold enough to give my own feeling on this matter. I guess I want to know is if I can still give input with the first part even though Anthony has started the second section now. And if so, what is the formatting I need to do to voice an opinion? Sorry to be a bother to you but you have been so kind and helpful to me and I really would like to have the link about the boards that I posted, that is if you think he would even look at it. It seems like this is going to be put in from my feel of things and I really think that though some editors say it's not negative to say he failed the test and didn't retake it will read negatively to new readers. What do you think my options are or should I just do what I am and lurk and see how it all shakes out? Thanks for your understand and help on these matters. --Crohnie 23:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have much experience with this type of mediation myself, and non with the Mediation Cabal that went this far.

If you don't want to just jump in, discuss your concerns with Anthony. He seems pretty responsive.

I'm a bit concerned how it's going myself, but I'm waiting for more comments from others at that moment. --Ronz 23:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, do you think if I email him with the link and let him know that I am pretty new to all this that he would understand and/or help me get my thoughts into the group? I am willing to give a try. I really do not think, deep inside me, that the failing of the test esp. should be in the article. If the not board certified is added I don't see this as a negative statement like I do having such a broad explanation like what is be requested again. Thanks,--Crohnie 23:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not just post to his talk page? --Ronz 23:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I just emailed him, I'll let you know if I hear anything. I thought about his talk page after I hit sent, it's late, bedtime I think. Thanks, --Crohnie 00:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Levine just posted to the second part of the mediation. He wants two sentences and explains how if fits policy. You know policy better than I so I hope you don't mind me deferring to you to answer to this. I hope some others join in too that were against this whole thing in the first place. Well good night, have happy dreams. --Crohnie 00:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I just want to let you know that Anthony did get back to me and I followed his directions to post there. He is going to move and fix my formatting as he deems necessary. He was very nice about the whole thing. :) --Crohnie 22:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

When is the debating going to stop about the board certification and failing? I thought that it was already decided that enough editors didn't agree it should be in the article. I don't understand what this mediation is to accomplish with everything still being repeated and repeated again. Well I'm off to bed, I hope things settle down tomorrow with this. Have a good night. --Crohnie 22:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've no idea. We just go round and round in circles. The issue has been discussed by Levine 2112 for almost 15 months now and he doesn't appear to be slowing down. --Ronz 23:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about your comment "facts are not suitable?"

If you wouldn't mind, you said in mediation that facts are not suitable for Wikipedia. Would you post a short explanation of what you mean and the policy that I can read to understand this bit clearer on my talk page for easier access for me? I think I understand what you are saying but I am not sure if my thinking is what you are saying. What I mean is, if I have a fact from a primary source about something, then does that mean it is not acceptable until I find another source outside the original information to use that information? Also, is this rule for all articles or just biographies of living people? Thanks, you have been a blessing to me with interpreting the rules and policies that can be very confusing to utilize in concert with all the policies that are here. --Crohnie 11:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I had written something similar on the Barrett talk page.

I'm referring to WP:V's "verifiability, not truth." We shouldn't be separating information from the sources we have for the information, because as editors, we're not here to do the research, to determine the truth or facts. If we try to deal with just facts alone, separate from their sources, then we have no means way of determining if and how these facts should be treated.

Levine2112 is claiming that because we know certain facts about Barrett's credentials, we can determine if and how to treat those facts within the article while completely and totally ignoring the sources (and context) for those facts. From WP:WEIGHT, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." --Ronz 15:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I understand now. Sorry for not getting back sooner, my son and I were in a car accident with two other cars last night. No major injuries thank goodness other than soreness and my sons car got towed for major repairs. Thanks again, --Crohnie 21:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the accident. Do take care.

I'd like to hear your explanation of this "facts" issue. I've explained it so many times in so many ways that I think there must be a simpler explanation. --Ronz 22:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well this is my interpretation of it so far from what I have learned. Facts are only allowed when there is a primary source that is back up with a known secondary source that is reliable to most people. Internet website, not involved in the facts or in spamming, that are reliable and back up the information from the primary source. Even a newspaper or magazine is a secondary source if the information is being reported about the primary source. If there is a primary source giving facts about something and no secondary source is found or available then the information has to wait until a good secondary source is available and found. --Crohnie 12:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I agree, with some caveats. Information verified only through primary sources must be used with caution, because it's easy to present such information with bias, and hard to determine how to properly present them neutrally. If editors agree on how to use such information, then secondary sources are not required. --Ronz 15:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you say, I understand this too. --Crohnie 20:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Spam

Before you designate something as spam perhaps you should read all the external link pages cause you cut my links and then left the crap links on. just because they were badly designed websites. We know the areas we add to and know what is useful and what isnt and is to indepth —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.241.54 (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Take some responsibility for your actions. Stop spamming or you'll be blocked again. --Ronz 14:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

I am sincerely sorry if you found my post offensive. I have edited it to reflect that it is my opinion so as not to be taken personally. Steth 17:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have apologized and made changes as you requested, in good faith, however, I don't think it is appropriate for you to make this request just because you don't like it. Debates can become lively and heated and feelings may be hurt and egos bruised. I don't see how placating you will benefit other editors involved in the mediation. Sorry. Steth 03:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you're unable to be civil and assume good faith. No that I was expecting more from you though considering your normal behavior. I do find it ironic that you've given a great example of the hypocrisy of the wikilawyering at the heart of all this: trying to attack Barrett by taking others' attacks of him out of context. --Ronz 15:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again

Here. Bishonen | talk 19:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I saw it. I was waiting to see if he'd add anything more. --Ronz 20:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. Considering the contribs, though, I reckoned it was a kind of foregone conclusion after four days. Anyway, I didn't salt, so we shall see. Bishonen | talk 22:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

RFC for User Conduct of User:Badmonkey

An RFC has been opened for User Conduct of User:Badmonkey. Since you have been involved at some point in trying resolve a dispute with this editor I am bringing this to your attension. Note the instructings in the RFC instruct me to leave a note on the talk page of anyone who has tried to resolve this dispute and I am not WP:CANVASSing. I request you take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Badmonkey and act or comment as you deem appropriate. Russeasby 00:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I was hoping he would have stopped before it came to this. --Ronz 00:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Fcsuper and Barrett Mediation

Yes, you understand me, and I agree with your comment on my page. Fcsuper 04:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If there is any further participation needed, let me know. :) Fcsuper 15:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation of Stephen Barrett article (more)

From what I can understand the information that brought all of us to mediation was denied so why the on going debates still? I left a message on Anthony's page to pop in and get control if he would but I don't understand, isn't this supposed to end already? Anthony wrote that the suggestion didn't pass so why all the continued agruments and debates? This system either works or it doesn't but it sure is wordy and taking up a lot of time talking in circles about the same ole', same ole'. What's your thoughts about this? Well I have to get ready to go to work. Hopefully this will be done when I get home this aftenoon. I know, wishful thinking! ;) Have a good day, --Crohnie 13:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry forgot this title was above, feel free to move it to the rest of the conversations. I would but I don't know how to. --Crohnie 13:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the answer is that we continue until the mediator stops it. I've no idea what we'll do now that he has. --Ronz 16:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the mediation, things have changed, a lot. Anthony is going under another name and he deleted over 7,000 post there. He said he is taking it to email.--Crohnie 17:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever done a mediation via email? If so, how does it work? --Crohnie 17:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I was aware of what Anthony had done when I wrote that. I've never done mediation by email. We'll see how it goes. --Ronz 19:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Cat baths

Here is just one link [5]There are a lot more doing a Google check with the words cat bath pictures. I hope this is helpful. --Crohnie 18:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

MDS Edit War

RONZ I will not write anymore on the talk page. It seems that while Wikipedia has found some real editors who sincerly want to improve the article, however my faith that something positive will happen is not very good. I have followed yours and two other admins comments around Wikipedia and it seems to me that you guys think or at least seem to think that MDS International is getting the "bad deal" here. However, there is a "Contempt of Court" finding against them in US Federal Court posted in Wikipedia commons. There are lawyer's names as well as a Judge's name on this order. A simple call to this attorney, Laurin Mills, of Nixon/Peabody (a huge legal firm in DC) would clarify the situation for eveybody. Unless we believe that a respected officer of the court is going to mislead Wikipedia.

In addition, MDSI has admitted to pirating software. They claimed the Xingtech software was abandoned. How does that happen? A call to Real AGAIN would confirm or deny this. It would also confirm or deny who is the deceptive one. We have contacted REAL. We will supply REAL with the HyperBoost disc that was purchased by us from MDSI. We have also pointed them to the edits by jeanclauduc.

They have admited to sticking it to an outside investor for 3 million. They continually post old news about that investor being indicted (as a politician) and never post the news that shows that he was not only exonerated (three times), but the charges were acknowledged as political. There are threats to sue everybody and accusations of CIA and DST (french secret service) involvement. Yet when one Googles MVDDS and Kirkpatrick, one sees the person (described by jeanclauduc as the evil mastermind) testifying before the Senate as business partners with, none other than, MDSI. Everybody is supposedly sued in France by MDSI.

While some of the conclusions of the people trying to fix this are understandable, some simply aren't. A good example, on the www.mds.fr website there is a section that was entitled "Patents" and displaying a trademark registration from the US Patent and Trademark office. Someone who does not know this document would well think it is a patent. After it was pointed out that this was no patent, the section becomes "Trademarks and Patents" even though no "patent" for Hypercable, HyperGate is displayed. While this is not much by itself, it illustrates a whole pattern of deception by MDSI.

Another good example, Who might be this Fabrice Ducasse? "So called" product manager from MDS America. it turns out that this is Jean-Claude Ducasse's oldest son and a member of the Board of Directors of MDSI and designer of the HyperGate system who resigned from the company over these business practices.

MVDDS is an American acronym, I helped create this industry. Look it up, show me a system outside the US that is called MVDDS. MVDDS is in the 12.2GHz to 12.& GHz band, the DBS band. But the DBS band in Europe is different. The FCC created this service. It is American. Under the legal agreement, of which MDSI is held in contempt, MDSI is prohibuted from offering systems in the US even though distributors. Their wab site says "Serving the entire world except installations in the United States, Canada, and Mexico" in very small letters and yet has MVDDS plastered all over it. They have several other companies, Worldwave.eu, MMDS Hypercable, etc. Go to their site, send an email telling them you want to build MVDDS systems in the US. See if you are told that MDSI can not sell in the US.

There are MVDDS-like systems overseas, however:

We have built both systems overseas, both in Ireland and the UAE. The Irish system is owned and operated by South Coast Television. They are old "Customers" of MDSI who built an MDS America system. Their number is publicly available, call them and ask why they did not buy from MDSI. You will get the same answer.

Could you postulate how one can envision that jeanclauduc is the victim here? 72.19.4.235 18:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

None of this matters if you can't provide verifiable, reliable sources for it. We have rules of behavior here, and we expect all to follow them. My participation has only been to make sure that the editors involved understand and follow the relevant policies and guidelines. I specifically singled out jeanclauduc for close examination, so I'm definitely not treating him as a victim. --Ronz 19:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. Can you please keep alert, to undo any defamation that might be added? Something that used to be protected is no longer, to help with the AfD. Thanks, EdJohnston 16:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Spam group

Do you think I would be able to join in stopping spam in articles? I do know what spam is and I would like to help. --Crohnie 21:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely! I wish I had joined early on. WP:EL and WP:SPAM are the only guidelines that regularly come up, and there's lots of helpful editors. --Ronz 21:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What's the link? --Crohnie 21:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam --Ronz 21:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

DR

One thing we haven't tried is getting help from related projects, WP:BLPP and the WP:NPR both seem related enough that they might help. --Ronz 14:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, good point. I didn't know WP:BLPP existed. Just added myself. I'm not sure about the NPR members but I know a lot of the BLPP folks. It's a mixed bag - not everyone there is all that strict about BLP.

There's also WP:3O. Perhaps we need an uninvolved admin. User:Uncle G comes to mind. I met him a couple of days ago when patrolling the BLPNB. He doesn't think highly of me, but in hindsight that's actually to his credit. Anyway, we'll see how far we can go with the MedCab case first. I've written to Anthony that I'm game but will be away from 29 April to 6 May. No response so far. AvB ÷ talk 15:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, when you get a chance please check

[[6]] This article is horrible. I was checking out the support links and found blogs, spam to buy a book and articles that have to be purchased to even read them. I didn't even get through them all. I made some remarks on the talk page but would appreciate your opinions. Thanks, --Crohnie 13:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! It's another Health freedom movement, but with many more editors interested in the topic. As with health freedom, when the movement isn't led by an official organized body recognized by all, the article just becomes a list of individuals, organizations, and their own opinions on what the movement should be. It's a catch-all for anything related to impeaching Bush. I don't think there's any way to make such articles encyclopedic except as historical accounts. --Ronz 16:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, personally I think both articles should be deleted. The Bush impeachment article though, doesn't it tread heavily on the wrong side of a living person article? Most of the links I saw were to blogs, editorials and seemed like spam or were way outdated. I haven't deleted any of them because apparently there is an mediation going on the talk page about some stuff that is wanted and not wanted. When does an article get to the point where someone makes a decision that the article is not worth the space? --Crohnie 19:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If the articles were based almost entirely on secondary sources, then it might be an acceptable article. Because the topic is notable though, I don't know of any way of getting rid of it. --Ronz 20:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What I don't understand is that Bush isn't being impeached and probably won't be so how can this be so notable? Some of the research links go back to 2004 and are outdated. There are links that you have to pay for to just read the article, it shows a brief bit only. It just seems weird to have an article in an encylopedia about something that isn't or hasn't happened. I may get bold and delete the links to buy a book, and other links that are no longer working. --Crohnie 13:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The MDS merge

Hello. I am somewhat unsure about how to hold discussion on the MDS America merge. I want there to be a clear consensus of non-MDSA affiliated editors before I go ahead with it, since I know the company guys will object vocally. I've set up a section for the debate at MVDDS dispute#Straw pole on merging MDS America. I'd appreciate any help you could give, since it seems you also have experience in dealing with COI issues. Thanks, nadav 22:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That's the way to go about it. Good job on all the work you've done on this. --Ronz 22:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Malkin Invasion book

Hi. Thanks for tagging Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces with {{advert}}. You prompted me to do a quick edit to remove some of the POV. Could you please take a look at the result? Feel free to put the {{advert}} tag back if you think more work is need. Cheers, CWC 05:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice job! --Ronz 14:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Just stopping by to say hi!

I haven't spoken to you since I left to Freeport. I hope things are going well. --Crohnie 13:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! You still vacationing? Having fun? --Ronz 15:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, back to reality for us. We got back on the 30th. But boy did we have a great time. I have to say we have been sleeping a lot. I guess after a vacation, you need to take another one to rest up! :) --Crohnie 15:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The best vacations are those you need another vacation in order to recover. Glad you had a good time! --Ronz 15:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Did mediation get resolved while I was gone? I haven't heard or seen anything about it. --Crohnie 15:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've heard nothing. I'm hoping that the annoying actions I've recently seen from some editors is coincidental rather than even more evidence of disruptive editing. --Ronz 15:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. I don't know if you noticed but an administrator put a test one warning on my page for "one" reversal of his edit accusing me of vandalism. I over reacted a bit at the time but he was so out of control it was totally weird. For an administrator, he was in an edit war and put warnings on at least three other editors for the same reversal I did. I went to my mentor and he said I handled the situation well that could have become quite nasty. I was lucky a couple of other editors were watching the talk page and my own talk page that one actually cleaned up the mess the administrator did. It was so shocking to have that kind of behavior. He wanted that Larry Sanger is Jewish inserted into the article without any kind of source. When a source was given in the edit summary of all places, you had to sign up and then try to find it which about 6 editors couldn't find. I researched and even went to Mr. Sanger's website and there was nothing about him being Jewish never mind any information about it being notable. This one editor got someone else, or a sockpuppet, not sure to back him up and replace the garbage. It was all just so unreal. I've been watching this article at the suggestion of editors to see how a biography of a living person is done. I guess what's going on there now, edit warring about almost everything, is not the way to do it. I also went to Hulda Clark's page and deleted spam that was deleted and then replaced by Levine saying it didn't fall into the rules of BLP which was wrong. I am waiting for fallout from both sites to be honest but I have reasonable editors who are backing up the reasons. I don't know how long Levine has been on Wiki but I think I understand the policies better them him at this point with your help and the help of others. Some really get emotional about things which I find amazing all on it's own. Oh well, --Crohnie 15:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you ran into the unfortunate edit warring in Larry Sanger. There used to be a civility warning template, which is now gone, but which I've saved for my own use:

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

• Remain polite per WP:Civility.
• Solicit feedback and ask questions.
• Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
• Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.
• Assume good faith of other editors.

I hope you find this reminder helpful. --Ronz 17:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I try to always keep this in mind but I am human and sometimes can slip. --Crohnie 18:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Everybody slips. --Ronz 01:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

re:Unfortunately, it's not all WikiLove

If I can help please let me know. I am finding the same problems of finding articles that are not under some kind of dispute. --Crohnie 13:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Incivility

Learn to assume good faith, behave in a civil manner, and take some responsibility for your actions. Thanks. --Ronz 18:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

reply

I replied on my talk page to your statment. Don't know if you wanted him or me to reply to it. Regardless I am with you. Something needs to be done. The person who removes the tag should show how the article is NPOV not just removing it because they don't want it. --Xiahou 01:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was wondering about that. I hit his contributions and say he put something to the effect of please don't post on my talk page to you. The thing is I looked back and you didn't say anything out of the ordinary. I guess some people are poor sports. Heck, I like your reasoning its simple and its true. The remover of the tag must provide a reason why the tag's reason for placing has been met. Which has obviously not been done. --Xiahou 01:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

Do you think we should nominate Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush for deletion? You stated on the article talk page that it violates WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:WEASEL, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. I think the article has a better chance of getting a wider consensus now then did it in October... --T_{Talk to me} 02:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think an AfD is justified, given what sources are available. If you hadn't noticed, I've discussed the article a bit before ever contributing to it: User_talk:Ronz#Hi_Ronz.2C_when_you_get_a_chance_please_check. It's a notable topic, just a difficult one to edit considering it's controversial, it's current, it's boarderline soapboxing, and there's a lot of interest from a wide range of editors. The problems are all manageable, though messy. --Ronz 02:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if we have an article such as this, we should also have a Why Women Shouldn't Be Presidents, Why Socialism is a bad idea, Movement to prevent Jewish Rights, ect. The article is soapboxing...--T_{Talk to me} 01:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The article at it's worst is soapboxing, true. But at it's best it is documenting current history. I think the problems currently in the article are solveable, despite current discussions. --Ronz 01:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

dingotel.com revisted

Hello Ronz. I saw this [7] dingotel.com link addition today. I don't know what to make of User:Rearden9's fascination [8] [9] [10] with that link so I thought I'd send you a note because of the User_talk:Ronz/Archive_4#Voice_Over_IP thread. I removed the link but I didn't give a warning. I Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars unless it is required. (: Since I'm not sure what is going on, do whatever you see fit warning-wise. (Requestion 21:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

External links in See Also? I don't know what Rearden9 is thinking. --Ronz 22:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just saying bye for awhile

I came to Wikipedia for a new good experience. I took your advice and went to an article that is not political nor medical only to be attacked and accused of being a sock puppet and single purpose account. This I don't need in my life. If you check out Wikipedia community you will see what I am talking about. I took my concerns to two administrators so I'll see how that works out. Thanks again for being so much help to me, good bye,--Crohnie 12:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack Allegation

Nescio purposely distorted what I was saying and keeps on doing it. He refers to me in a derogatory fashion by saying "only right wing people like Arnabdas" or something to that nature. I called him a liar for purposely libeling me. He refuses to answer the question and instead just labels me as "right wing" just because I want fair reportage. I consider the label right wing as offensive to me because I am not that at all.Arnabdas 21:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

None of this justifies your behavior. The fact that there's a great deal of incivility and off-topic comments doesn't mean that anything goes. --Ronz 21:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with Ronz. It seems that the simplest article is having warring going on and hopefully some editors will try to get control of it. I find it very disheartening right now at some behavior. --Crohnie 01:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not external links ?

Why have you deleted all external links ?

This way the world will see only NS which is extremely difficult to use. The world's top 4 / 5 network simulators should be shown.

Durnitz

I've given a link-by-link explanation on Talk:Network_simulation, including links to relevant policies and guidelines. --Ronz 14:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Those are the 3 best network simulation softwares in the world today (NS and OMNET++ and hardly used) There are lots of articles on all sites. Opnet is simply the worlds best in this field. And NetSim - well thats used for education, which benefits a lot of people. If you look at the history you would see that I have removed most external links. But I feel these three should be there especially considering I have been in this field for a long time now.

Let me know your views

If you haven't done so, please read through WP:EL and [[WP:SPAM]. Links should be to websites directly relevant to the article topic. The three I see as spam go to corporate sites that have little or nothing on them about network simulation at all. The other two are sites about network simulation software, which is not relevant enough to the topic of the article.

Your arguments about which software are best is irrelevant. The article is about network simulation. If you want to expand the subsection about network simulation software, please do so, but doing so would still not justify those external links. --Ronz 20:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

From Trojani

Mr Ronz if "the fate of Illyrians" lies in the hands of the people who incorporate sentences lik this "A hypothesis that the modern Albanian language is a surviving Illyrian language remains very controversial among linguists [11]" while respected sources like Britanica are very clear on the subjekt "The origins of the Albanian people are not definitely known, but data drawn from history and from linguistic, archaeological, and anthropological studies have led to the conclusion that Albanians are the direct descendants of the ancient Illyrians and that the latter were natives of the lands they inhabited. Similarly, the Albanian language derives from the language of the Illyrians", my question to you is do i ingage i a dabate with people who simply dissregard all sources that link Albanians with Illyrians? A quick example in the discussion page of Origin of Albanians[12] I mentioned a monental anthropological resarch by Carlton Coon, this user Chlemäns made this comment about my effort " Interesting, racial theorists from the 1930's are evidently the ultimate authorities on this subject;-) Now don't even think about trying to mention a word about this in the article"[13]. The same user turns a blind eye in this article "According to the anthropological studies of Theodoros K. Pitsios, Arvanites in the Peloponnese in the 1970s were physically indistinguishable from other Greek inhabitants of the same region. This may indicate that either the Arvanites shared extant physical similarities with other Greek populations or that early Arvanite groups extensively incorporated parts of the autochthonous Greek population"[14]. Mr Ronz if u let Albanian history in the fate of this members than most of us Albanians (i am by the way Arvanite)are simply left with very little choice but to edit.RegardsTrojani 14:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to stop the edit warring by following WP:NPOV. Sorry if you don't like that. --Ronz 14:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

76.109.17.236

What particular edits do you reference? 76.109.17.236 21:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[15], [16], [17] --Ronz 22:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read

You send to the server adress of MDSi France: [edit] Your recent edits to Talk:MDS America Please read and follow WP:TALK. Your recent comments on Talk:MDS America are often incomprehensible, incivil, and disruptive. Please stop. --Ronz 17:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Some employees are unhappy by the lies and by what do one of the shareHolder of MDSi Mr Fabrice Ducasse under various names and IP adreses from Stuart or Palm city in Florida or from France read the last said by this guy for Ed or Nadav. but I CEO of MDSi apologise for our peoples making answers against MDS America and we need that the sound of the bell stop on our side any answers to the various MDS America lies.. MDS America can still print lies on Wikipedia this are the problem of the lawyers and of the Judge and the court to make the right. Probabely a link to the last judgements and copy of the fine against Fav=brice and sons. 83.206.63.250 06:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Answered on article page. Cheers. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Verio

Hi Ronz. You and I know we are right about Verio :-). However the multiple reverts make me nervous. Someone is counting on no-one else being patient enough to do proper sourcing. According to WP:V he has a point. We could ask for some amount of time to leave the 'sources' banner up before digging up the references. Or, I suppose we could accept the stubbified article. EdJohnston 03:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to let an editor's need to make a WP:POINT disrupt others who are trying to improve an article. I don't like the reverts either, but it has shown just how far one editor will go in demonstrating that he will either WP:OWN the article on his terms, or erase everything every editor has done to the article. --Ronz 03:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if your ears are burning, it's because you're being discussed on here on AN/I. Just thought you should have a heads-up and it appears no one has notified you. MastCell ^Talk 03:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware. It seems to be going nicely. --Ronz 03:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

These negative personal attacks need to stop. This is not about POINT or OWN. This is about either source the article or remove the un-sourced material. WP:V is very clear about this. The burden of proof is on those who want to include the material. I don't need to start an RfC in oder to remove un-sourced material. If it is common knowledge, than you should have no trouble providing a source. -- Stbalbach 03:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As a suggestion, you could step back from the article and see what happens? Reluctance to do so does suggest WP:OWN. Shot info 03:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN is policy. WP:POINT is a guideline. You're violating both, and assuming bad faith of multiple editors in order to support your behavior. --Ronz 04:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, these personal attacks need to stop. All I've asked is you provide a source for the material you want to add to the article. -- Stbalbach 04:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop making a textbook case of an WP:OWN violation. Stop disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Stop accusing me of personal attacks. You're bordering on harassment now. Please ensure that any further comments you add here to my talk page are civil and assume good faith, or they will be removed. Thanks. --Ronz 04:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

MDS case

The case was brought to AN/I. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian Pyramid

Am sorry. I was not actively involved in edits on that page. I was just surprised by the amount of criticism those amateur archaeologists were facing. And I dint know the link was on the external links section. Dilip rajeev 07:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference postings to "User Interface"

Earlier today, I added the top 2 organizations (UPA and SIGCHI) that cater to people involved in user interface and design - along with a leading independent community site (Catalyze). And you promptly removed them.

I think it is important to provide readers with links to sources outside wikipedia where they can get more information and get involved at a local level.

Should they appear under an External Links section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thumbarger (talk • contribs)

That's not the purpose of Wikipedia, helping people get involved in activities.

The article is about user interfaces, so should only include information strongly related to user interfaces. You might notice that such links are included in articles that are better related to them such as Usability Web usability. --Ronz 21:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There are other issues concerning your edits that I'm bringing up on your talk page. --Ronz 21:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch

(Erroneous warning removed). No edit warring here. I've followed WP:DR. --Ronz 14:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that the edits by MaxPont weren't in good faith afterall but merely an attempt to setup a 3RR warning. Shot info 09:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's almost like some editors are willfully ignoring policy while at the same time attacking other editors for not following those very same policies. --Ronz 15:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock

Thanks! --Ronz 23:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Illyrian Article

You have allredy given this member a warning (some days ago)Edrigu,I strongly advice you to take more aggressive measures otherwise he will continue with his vandalism. Thanx Trojani 22:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Understanding Original Research policies

I just want to let you know that I have been watching the ongoing at Talk Stephan Barrett. I totally understand now why OR is not permitted by the last day's conversations there. It actually finally make sense to me. I just want to let you know because you have taken so much time to help me understand policies here. You were right and I thank you with all your help again. I actually understanding a lot of the reasons for the policies you have been helping me with and mostly from just lurking for the past few days on this specific talk page. Thanks, --Crohnie 13:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I responded under your comments on the Stephan Barrett talk page under the title number of books. I would appreciate it if you would take a peek and respond back to me to let me know if I am off on what I am saying. I am finding this whole this ridiculous. Also, shouldn't the conflict between Shot and I'clast be remove and put on talk pages? I also thought that original research, like the list of books are to be removed immediately. Am I incorrect? I though this kind of thing wasn't allowed. I have a new sig that I got as a gift from an editor, what do you think? ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 14:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Nice signature! --Ronz 15:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the whole thing is ridiculous. Not much can be done about it when editors refuse to take responsibility for their own actions and fail to work cooperatively to settle problems. --Ronz 16:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

Thanks for your comment - I should have added the book into a 'further reading' section rather than into the references section. Also I read the spam etc. pages you referred to, and I will remove external links.

Best, Bookuser 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)