User talk:Hipal

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.

Archives

---

1. - Nov 2006
2. Dec 2006
3. Jan 2007
4. Feb - 9 Apr 2007
5. Apr 2007
6. May 2007
7. Jun 2007
8. Jul - Aug 2007
9. Aug - Oct 2007
10. Oct - Dec 2007
11. Jan 2008 - Feb 2008
12. Feb 2008
13. Mar 2008 - Apr 2008
14. Apr 2008 - Jun 2008
15. Jun 2008
16. Jul 2008
17. Aug 2008

external links

Hi Ron,

Sorry about that, perhaps I'm being slow but I thought that external links to the organisations discussed in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landscape_architecture (ie the professional landscape bodies for the UK, Australia and Canada) were appropriate for that section page? They obviously cover an area discussed in the main body of the article.

Best

Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveKCole (talk • contribs) 08:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

External links such as that are usually only allowed in articles specifically about the organization. --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

About the Hard Life

Hello, Ronz!
My name is Julia. I am an ASAP member (Alliance of Security Analysis Professionals). The link you have removed from the Vundo article is not a spam. This was the steps that really works great with the vundo trojan (please note: the OSAM is a freeware). You can ask the opinion of any computer security expert who knows how difficult to remove the vundo for a common user and who knows that in most cases antivirus/antimalware software could only find, but not disinfect the vundo infection.
There is a lot of people who have problems with the vundo trojan and they are looking for help. And I just don't want to leave them alone with this problem.
Please, could I put the link back? Thank you in advance. Rights2fly (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I appreciate your situation and that you've chosen to discuss it.

In my edit summary, I said "spammed", referring to the fact that the link was spammed to the article: it was added to multiple articles by a single editor that contributed nothing else to any of those articles (See WP:SPAM).

I suggest you discuss your concerns on the article talk page, but in general, I don't think it should be allowed because it is a link to a discussion forum, which is normally not allowed (See WP:LINKSTOAVOID). --Ronz (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I can understand you, Ronz. I hate the spammers too. But I never though I could be a spammer. And it is really sad.

I think there are some cases when this system doesn't work (I mean "adding the same link to many articles" isn't always spam, especially if "many" means three or four). For example, I have a web-page, where I add programs useful for the people (all of them are trusted and for the most part free and it isn't the advertising). And when I find something new I could add it (the same link) to more than one section at once, if this program fits (for example it could be: diagnostic software, file/disk utilities and secure file deletion as well). And that is why I though I could do something similar for the Wiki, if the link goes well with the content and if this really could be helpful (sorry, at this moment of my life I have no enough time for more, but I would love to help).

Thank you. I will try to add another link to the Vundo article (not the link to the forum). If it will be removed again by somebody, I'll discuss it on the article talk page. I hope I can do so. Rights2fly (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Sounds like you're getting the hang of Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Query re: list of portable software

Hello,

I noticed that you removed some links I posted on the list of portable software page, and am curious if you can tell me why you removed them - since they conformed entirely to the purpose of the page. I've posted on the discussion portion of that page and look forward to your explanation - I sure don't want to be a spammer (which I thought I wasn't, but apparently am.)

--Vieen (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll discuss it there. --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

MedRevise.co.uk

Hey, I thought you might be interested in this, since you are medically active! With a colleague I have set up a Medical Revision website, called MedRevise.co.uk. It is not trying to compete with Wikipedia, but trying to be something else useful, different and fun. If you are interested, please read our philosophy and just have a little look at our site. I would appreciate your feedback, and some contributions if you have the time. Thanks a lot! MedRevise (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Tadalafil

I recently received 2 new entries from you on my User Talk page.

The first is a message welcoming me to Wikipedia which I find kind of weird given that I'm far from being new on wikipedia - I've got contributions dating as far back as 2004 (approximately as long as you).

The second accuses me of having recently added promotional material to articles, which I don't find very accurate, not only because my most recent activity on that article is far from recent and dates back one year and a half ago, but also because the material that you have removed are two references links, that I had cited to support a fact mentioned in the article.

The original articles mentioned that Tadalafil (Cialis®) had as an advantage over Sildenafil (Viagra®) a much longer lasting effect, but without giving any explanation or source supporting the information. (As some other wikipedian complained in the corresponding Talk page). What I did is add the needed explanation of pharmacokinetics and, after discussing about it with other wikipedians, I added (although clumsily) the references that I could to support this fact : a citation of a publicly available French drugs database (Biam2.org) and links to ePocrates, an English-language database for drugs very popular among physicians (available both on PDAs and online) although its access was limited to registered health personal.

These are the two links you removed, titling your edit "removing refs that are advertisements - the information is easily available". I find the remove unfounded, at least for the reasons you mention. ePocrates is *not* an on-line seller of drugs. It's a drug database, available in English, which is already cited several times on Wikipedia whenever a reliable fact source is needed for a drug. I really don't see how this could be considered under the "advertisement" category. And, as I started this whole edit because of complain of undocumented fact, I hardly think that "information easily available" applies too. Specially on a web resource like Wikipedia which tries to produces checkable source for its content as much as possible (as illustrated by the abundance of "citation needed" tags).

I'm not campaigning to force a revert for this edit (It won't make sense : As judging by the fact that other editors have estimated the difference of half-lifes not worthy of getting mentioned on Wikipedia, my refs are thus superfluous). I'm trying to get in touch with you to discuss about this allegation of spamming you make about me that I found not really adapted to the situation and that I personally experience as verging on the defamatory side. I suspect that you might jump a little bit to easily to the delete button without taking time to discuss your actions, research the subject and/or consider alternatives. If you wish to accept my offer to discuss, my coordinates are available on my user page.

DrYak (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I always give a welcome message to any editor that I encounter that doesn't have a talk page.

The links plain don't work for me using Firefox. I didn't test them to see if they work with other browsers. When I found what I thought was the information you meant to link to, it appeared to be nothing more than standard pharmaceutical information that is easily available elsewhere. If I'm mistaken on what the links are supposed to be linking to, then I apologize.

Whether or not I misindentified what the link was supposed to refer to, Epocrates, Inc. is linkspam and advertising.

The message I left you, Uw-advert1, assumes you made the edit in good faith. I'm sorry if you read it as anything different. --Ronz (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Strange, I just checked it now and it works for me with FireFox 3 under Linux.

The thing that makes difference from the average patient-oriented information available online, is that drug databases targeted toward health professionals also include additional technical informations, for example about the pharmacokinetics including where the drug is degraded and with which half-life. This, at the time when the "36 hours" information was still in the article, is important data to substanciate the claim. The average patient oriented online information doesn't give such kind of details and usually concentrate on informations that the patient must keep in mind (what to tell or ask the doctor, what drugs to avoid mixing even if sold over the counter, etc ...).

In addition to the online link, also included a link to the company making the database, feeling that citing the database's maker was important. Maybe that was superfluous. Nonetheless I would really had appreciated if you could have explained the motivations that lead you to think that the link was advertising (I don't know, but may some short sentence as in "the 'available online' link already provides access to the information and from there the make can be found. An additional link to the homepage is superfluous and a little bit out-of-context given the ads for the products")

I don't want to sound aggressive to you. But maybe adding some basic explanation specific to the situation in addition of simply copying a template would help people understand better you decision and limit the amount of "Why did you delete X or Y" messages that you seem to be receiving here.

Nonetheless thank you for trying to dedicate your time in order to make Wikipedia a slightly better place DrYak (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response.

I think the link may only work if you have an account with them when using Firefox.

I get these messages for the same reasons that everyone else does that takes on Wikipedia's spam problems: because a lot of people think that adding such links is appropriate. It's not appropriate. A very small percentage of them ask for clarification. I'm happy to do so.

The link is advertising per WP:SPAM. Such links are generally only allowed on articles specifically about the topic of the link. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Continuum (design consultancy) rewrite

I am rewriting the entry for the Continuum design consultancy and I would like to ask what specifically violates the conflict of interest code. I assume it is the references and media? I should refer to more third party sources and not to Continuum's own website, correct? Your input is greatly appreciated. Thanks! Forrelli (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you're referring to regarding a conflict of interest. Did someone indicate it was a problem? If so, where? --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Continuum (design consultancy) rewrite

I have tweaked the Continuum page with neutrality in mind. Does this now satisfy the Wikipedia requirements ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_(design_consultancy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forrelli (talk • contribs) 14:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Good work. It looks much better. I've changed the tag and noted that the second paragraph especially could use more work. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Continuum (design consultancy) edit

Verifiable citations have now been added to the second paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forrelli (talk • contribs) 19:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Clayton College of Natural Health‎

Please accept my apology for incorrectly putting your name on the unsigned comment. When I went to correct the mistake I noticed that you had already fixed it. Thank you for fixing my error. TallMagic (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Think nothing of it. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

ZRTP and KHAMSA citation

Hi Ronz,

yesterday i edited the ZRTP page by introducing the new ZRTP protocol extension that KHAMSA is doing in partnership with Philip Zimmermann to extend ZRTP also to non-VoIP protocols.

It's a huge innovation in security environment, why you removed it from the web page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpietrosanti (talk • contribs) 07:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

See the information I left you on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Bates method RFF

Hi Ronz. I have requested feedback on whether the Bates method article now has a Neutral Point of View. Just letting you know in case there is anything you want to add. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I think we're making progress, but lots still to do, especially when it comes to WP:UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I got a reply there saying that the NPOV noticeboard is the best place to ask this. Not sure whether or how soon to go ahead with that. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. WP:NPOVN is relatively new. I'll be interested to see what feedback results. --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed a note there that says: "Post what is wrong with what content where, what you think it should say, and why. This board is intended for NPOV inquiries of a simple nature." So I guess that is not the place to request a thorough NPOV review either. The only outlet I have found for a thorough review would be a Good Article nomination, which at this point is probably not a viable option. I guess I will wait and see if anything more comes of the RFF and beyond that, leave the ball in your court as far as requesting help, since you could better specify what the issues are. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's disappointing. An RfC might be helpful. --Ronz (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't get the impression that an RfC is an avenue to request the kind of review I had in mind. We could ask "Does the article overall now have a NPOV?" and get several responses, but that would not be the result of an in-depth examination of the article and its major sources. I am still hopeful that the RFF will yield something, but other than that, perhaps the best answer is to continue to discuss specific issues (avoiding whole-sale deletions without agreement), for which there would be several potential avenues of Dispute Resolution. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting Seeyou's unhelpful edits. I had been considering whether to do it myself. As you noted elsewhere Seeyou does not seem to be fluent in English, so I'm trying to take it slowly with him/her on the talk page. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've always been very mixed about how to handle Seeyou. The language barrier is definitely part of the problem. --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ping

I have a question for you and since I am embarrassed about the question I took it to you off line. It's a weird question I think so I would appreciate your clarification and comments. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Adaptive Audio Talk page edits

Ronz - made some edits to the Adaptive Audio talk page. Could you take a look when you have a chance? In particular, I posted suggested replacement text to try to make the article more "wikified" and proposed a new link to another Nancy Jamison article. Thanks,

D3innovation (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops - just saw your Nancy Jamison comment - thanks. Please disregard above note except proposed text part.

Thanks D3innovation (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ronz - any comments on my proposed edits to the Adaptive Article? Do you think it would be okay for me to go ahead and replace these, or if you are okay with it, would you mind doing a cut and paste? THere are 3 sections I suggested for replacement on the talk page. THanks again for your help here. D3innovation (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My perspective hasn't changed: if we cannot find good references, the article should be deleted. Everything that is not verifiable can be removed at any time per WP:V. While I appreciate the work you've done, it could come to naught if not referenced. --Ronz (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I read through the Wikipedia definitions for what qualifies as references. I think the magazine articles and issued patent attest to the validity of the article under these definitions. I see where it says Academic press, published books, newspapers, magazine articles etc all qualify in descending order of precedence. Why would this not be enough? The definitions are not specific as to details on how many articles etc. - it just says they can qualify as references. Also, an issued patent has more rigorous reference and prior art checking than many university papers.

24.184.95.40 (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - that was me (D3innovation) above - forgot to sign in when I posted this D3innovation (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Patents are almost totally useless here. They verify what is listed in a patent application.

As I mentioned earlier, you should find other topics edit in order to learn about Wikipedia without the frustration of working against a conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have edited other articles, but this is the one I do not want to see deleted. Especially if there is something I can do to make the article conform to WS. I disagree strongly about patents simply listing what is in an application. I have written and been granted many patents. I have also paid a lot of money to attorneys to write them for me. A patent represents what the USPTO will allow in an application, but ONLY after VERY thorough research on the USPTO examiners part about prior art, prior patents, references in trade journals, newspaper articles and the like. If every patent simply represented what was in an applicants application, everyone would claim every piece of IP in the world - which would be meaningless of course. A patent receives very close scrutiny by outside, independent, non-COI counsel before being granted. Even then, issued patents are subject to challenge in the courts if there is a COI against it in the industry. THis si why I believe issued patents are at least as good as academic press. Is there a strong and reasonable argument against what I just said here?

As an additional reference I'd like you to consider, please see this web site's published book called the Voice Compass - http://www.voice-compass.com/english/main/home.html There is a full chapter on Adaptive Audio in this published book (written by an independent, neutral party with no interest here) - the problem is that it is just not visible without purchasing the book. If the author were to make my chapter visible online, would that be a good additional reference?

I guess on a broader perspective, I am struggling to understand what it is you are trying to establish via these references? Is it the legitimacy of Adaptive Audio(AA)? Is it that the technology exists and is in use? Is it the technical feasibility or fact that experts in the voice communications are aware about AA and would want to read about it in an encyclopedia? Because I think I can verify all of the above. I am just not clear on what it is we are trying to establish here. D3innovation (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with patents and very certain that they're use is limited to what I described.

voice-compass.com promotes itself as a promotional entity. Basically, they republish press releases and information sheets.

We're trying to establish some WP:N criteria, and WP:V along the way. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Then you do agree issued patents require the patent examiner to do an extensive patent search, prior art search and media search before issuing a patent, right?

You are correct about voice-compass.com. However the Voice Compass compendium is, as the site says "The voice compass is the compendium for Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and looks at the domain of voice, i. e speech applications on the telephone in full detail.". This is not a book of press releases and marketing materials. Readers would not pay the $180 USD for it if it were. They can get those materials for free themselves. It is a 500 - 600 page, published book on Information and Communications Technology. The AA chapter is like other chapters in the book - about IT technologies. What is wrong with that?

D3innovation (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ronz - should I be contacting you here, or on the AA Talk page? Or does it matter? Thanks 24.184.95.40 (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The article talk page is best so that other editors can see and participate in the discussions. --Ronz (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll post there from now on. What about my comments on 17:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC) above? Do you want to answer it here, or should I cut and paste it to the Talk page? D3innovation (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to summarize as well so editors don't have to read here to understand the questions. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I cut and pasted the relevant questions this earlier this morning. What were your thoughts on my last comments above?D3innovation (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I hadn't looked. I'll do so now. --Ronz (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Thanos5150

First of all I have no idea what you are talking about regarding sockpuppetry. I have forgot to sign in and made edits but make no attempt to deceive or hide anything, but regardless in the discussion pages which your "evidence" points to, I have signed all comments with thanos5150.

Secondly, as far as the 3RR Warning, the problem is that while it was flagged and being discussed the section was deleted which is not acceptable. That edit had been in the article for several months unchanged yet suddenly the whole thing was deleted because I removed the POV word "fringe" to describe an author? The appropriate action would have been to leave it unchanged until a consensus ruling had been made to remove it but this was not done. It was Doug Weller who continuously reverted edits as you can easily see by removing the paragraph. Did you give him this warning as well? I doubt it. All I did was revert it back to its original form of the last several months.

You have made it your missionn to stop disruptive edits but I think you are seeing something you don't really understand and are making an inaccurate judgment based on the facts.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos5150 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I made no accusations of sockpuppetry. In fact, I made it clear that the ip in question is you and that you sign your edits when using that ip.

WP:3RR is very specific. It is doubtful if you will be allowed to do what you did again without being blocked for it.

I've asked for verification and independent sources as required per WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Pallet Rack "spam"

Ronz, You recently deleted and tagged a link on the "Pallet Rack" page as spam. This link led to the Rack Manufacturers Institute, the organization that governs the manufacturing of pallet rack. Virtually every manufacturer of pallet rack in the country belongs to this nonprofit organization and submits articles and reference letters on a regular basis. All the information you would ever need on pallet rack is there, which is why I used them as a reference. I am not a member, in fact I have no affiliation with them whatsoever. They were there because they in fact were used as a reference in the article. I hope this clears things up. I will put them back as a reference assuming you have no issues. Thank you. Markj52 (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion. Such links almost always qualify as promotional per WP:SPAM and rarely meet WP:RS, so I doubt if there is any way it can be kept in. This should be continued on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines for External Links

Ronz, Thanks for the pointers. Unfortunately I dont' see how these links go against any external link guidelines. In fact the guidelines specifically state that DMOZ links are one type of link to consider and you deleted that. It also states that neutral sites that offer additional information especially .org sites should be considered, and you deleted those also. All links aside, if I am writing an article and I use information from a public site, that source should be referenced at the end of the article. You deleted those also. I am trying to provide the internet community with more information than is currently available on Wikipedia. I have been a DMOZ editor for over 6 years in the material handling categories and I have information that would be useful in Wikipedia. I don't have any ulterior motives. I'm not trying to sell anything. This is all pertinent information not spam. I am new at this but I am getting discouraged quickly. To date, every article I have come across in Wikipedia in material handling has been written by hacks intent on promoting their own stores. I am trying to clean this up and bring my 12 years of consulting knowledge to this database. I do need help and direction but deleting all my work is not helping me. I would welcome your guidance, if you would like to give it. Markj52 (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest discussing the matter on the article talk pages, because the circumstances differ from article to article.

DMOZ links can be acceptable, especially when the article is poorly referenced (as these are) and when the DMOZ links are highly relevant (which is what I'm concerned about). --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No More Links

You started here making some unfortunate mistakes and you got frustrated. Sounds like you're on the right track. Let me know if you need help. --Ronz (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

External Linking

Ronz - Thank you for the help & information regarding external linking. I was unaware of many of the polcieis. Your help is much appreciated, thank you! Courtney L Brewer 15:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CourtneyLBrewer (talk • contribs)

personal trainer

External links: removed per WP:ELNO

Links to the American College of Sports Medicine and the National Academy of Sports Medicine were both pertinent and helpful to the subject matter. They are neither advertising/promotion --nor were they too many links. This wikipedia entry is missing alot of helpful, nonbiased information. I agree that this site must maintain its integrity and be ever watchful of spamming and other abuses. Howerver, NASM and ACSM both have a reputable standing with the Board of Certification and serve as excellent sources on the subject. Please reconsider your removal of these links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.88.89.230 (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

For QA purposes, I've changed the 'External Links' section to internal links under 'See Also'. I think this is more appropriate given that it will cut down the frequency of external link placement, blatant advertising, etc. I've included an editorial from NASM's Blog as a reference to the section discussing the establishment of standards. Although this is referencing a blog (albeit there is not interactivity in the blog), it is expert advice from a professional -- thus, I believe it to be pertinent and acceptable. Also, although it is from NASM as a source, it does not promote the organization, but rather, calls for consistent standards -both national and international. Let me know your thoughts on it. -Drewinfo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.88.89.230 (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Material Handling Industry

Ronz, You did offer to help me so now I'm asking for that help. I have noticed that the material handling industry as a whole doesn't have much exposure on Wikipedia (outside of spammers trying to make a buck). Material handling equipment exists in literally every manufacturing and distribution facility worldwide all the way down to the ma and pop grocery store and the home office. How do we include the material handling industry in Wikipedia? If one wanted to take on such a huge endevor (without any external links on any articles!) how would one start?
Please note: As crazy as it seems, this is my passion. I don't intend to profit from my contributions except personal satisfaction. Thanks Markj52 (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit to IBM iSeries

Hi Ronz,

Valid edit, but I reverted instead of removing most of the other links from external links section. In meantime I'll scam IBM sources directly for their (non-vendor biased) directory of 'certified' iSeries/AS400 supporting products that can be used as an an external link replacing the vendor links in this section.

Shephardd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shephardd (talk • contribs) 20:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Such links are inappropriate and will be removed, as this one was immediately after your restored it. --Ronz (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

ITIL v3

ITIL v3 read like a blatant advertisement and makes pejorative statements. Any attempts to collaborate on the definition have been removed as soon as they are posted. It appears that the author of this wiki believe they are the smartest person they know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimchojhang (talk • contribs) 13:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is tagged as being too much like an advertisement. I suggest you discuss your concerns and possible solutions on the article talk page so that others understand how you'd like to address the problem. --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Context

Thanks very much. Context. Guettarda (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey Ronz,

Thanks for introducing to the Features of Wikipedia. I know all the features of it, such as this:

{{underconstruction}} {{cleanup}} {{wikibreak|KingScreamer}}

Anyways, thanks for helping me!

KingScreamer (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad to have helped. --Ronz (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Email

Check your email (when you get back!). Doug Weller (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This the last?

I hope so. :) I never seem to do those right.70.131.83.95 (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the article

The comment wasn't specifically for you, but a statment that we're making headway on Talk:Chris_Heimerdinger#Citation_formatting. Now to get the titles and citation info in... --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Threat to edit-war

I have opened a section on removing the tags on the Heimdinger talk page. I intend to remove them in 36 hours if no one is willing or able to support the tags with specifics76.238.22.59 (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you're threatening to edit war. The rationale is there on the talk page. Please contribute to the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 03:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No, its a request for discussion in an effort to reach a consensus to close out the tags - the conversation may be found here[1]. I have to say I'm a bit surprised to see you reheader my section here and add such inflammatory language. You'll note at the link that nothing could be further from my mind.76.238.22.59 (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You gave the message to multiple editors after I gave the specifics you asked for. The title seems to fit well. --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It was given to the other editors in an effort to reach consensus, it was done at the suggestion of an Administrator - I've quoted the relevant text from C.Fred's talk page:

FWIW, I recommend that the IP make a new section in the talk stating that he is going to remove the tags as it seems that consensus has been achieved in the next few days. It's not going to kill anybody if the tags stay up there for a few more days. Ta Shot info (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hope that helps, Thanks!76.238.22.59 (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

And all these discussions were made after I already gave the very specifics you asked for. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments being removed

I'm not sure why you keep deleting all my comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.22.59 (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've explained on your talk page, in my edit summaries, and it's in the instructions at the top of this page. Thanks for giving me the idea to rewrite the instructions though. --Ronz (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you feel like your being watched? :-)

[2] and [3] :-) Shot info (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was already writing up an ANI report before he made the threat. Angels watching over me ;^) --Ronz (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

::FYI; I just thought you might want to know [4] I feel you have the right to know about this discussion since it is after all about you. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Never mind, I assume now that I have a bit further you are aware. Good luck with all of this and be careful please. ;) --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not talking to me now?

Strange, you seemed so eager to make communications with me before, now you choose to remove my comments... --Hm2k (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as you can follow the instructions at the top, you're welcome to contribute here.

I thought it best to give it some time per WP:DR. You'll find information on what an WP:RFC is in that article, along with other recommendations and options on resolving disputes. --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the Aspire One article, as far as I am concerned, there's no dispute to resolve. However, you decided to take this outside of the article talk. Unless you have something specific you wish to discuss with me, please don't communicate with me. If you have a specific issue with the article, use the talk on that article. --Hm2k (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Certainly there's a dispute, otherwise the table wouldn't be there.

I think it's best to give it some time. If you get any communications from me in the meantime on your talk page, it will be on other topics.

I'll probably start and RfC soon. --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Before Undoing changes

Before Undoing changes, Provide wikipedia reference code that says text that references Blog should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.139.82 (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I did. More specifically WP:ELNO #11, WP:SELFPUB, and WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I was just saying, it really sad that some of the good definition or content gets removed. Any ways it really doesn't matter to me as the losers are the readers who visit pages on wikipedia.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.36.234.166 (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing sad about it. We're writing an encyclopedia here. It's very bad content. It gets removed. --Ronz (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For starting the ball rolling. I found 10 mins to comment. Like you I am rather intermittent at present but I'll help if I can. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

why?

Why are you removing my site its not spammed or whatever you have been saying. It took me ages to set it up and i want people to actualy look at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.187.91 (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing the matter. Wikipedia is not the place such links, especially when it's your own. See WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOTLINK and WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"puritanism is the haunting fear that someone.. somewhere.. may be happy" H. L. Menkhen--76.64.63.11 (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but i was able to add links before and this is to help people, what about the other links there? And its not spam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.187.91 (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Alla tedesca

Hello - I think you may have tagged this user accidentally. My experience with him / her is that they are primarily interested in fighting spam. Thanks. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 02:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm very confused by what Alla tedesca is doing. --Ronz (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

[5] Is a removal of all sources, without comment

[6] [7] Addition of a link, then removing another link added immediately after his.

[8] Restored a linkfarm, then maintains the list to the ones he likes.

Yes, I'm confused. --Ronz (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. I did not know of or look at those edits. A lack of an edit summary on that removal is not a good thing. I just popped in here based on what I knew previously. This user had specifically asked for help about how to fight spam. Thanks for your time. I will back out of this discussion. Bye. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 02:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that his English might not be very good, so he doesn't understand and is reluctant to join discussions. My next guess is that there is more than one person using the account. --Ronz (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Virtulaization Infrastructure Page

Sorry about the spam. I am just starting to get a handle on what is and is not spam. I have read the guidelines and I am going to join the antispam project. Part of what I was wondering was how long would it take for the link to disappear. It seems I have other people on my IP address working on wiki and it is being attributed to me. So I am trying to figure out who they are - much of the link spam is theirs. I think it is just and education piece. Helping everyone understand the guidelines and that we are all on the same boat here. Nobody wants to turn Wikipedia into a link farm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobryant (talk • contribs) 13:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey email me

This is Tobryant again email me at to_loulou@yahoo.com. I would love to get your help on some of the definitions I am working on. You seem to have mastered the wikipedia format so it would be nice to have a mentor of sorts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobryant (talk • contribs) 13:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Job search spam

Good work on cleaning up the job search spam from 87.80.60.80 (talk · contribs) and others. I've requested that yourtopjob.com be added to the XLinkBot spam list. —KCinDC (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you beat me to it. Thanks! Career-related spamming is common, so the bot request is probably a good idea. --Ronz (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

== Not a bot Hi - I added the links you're referrng to, manually.

I was looking on wikipedia, and found there were to good referrences in the Job intervew / covering letter articles to any "tips" websites. having just written some up, I felt they may be useful additions.

dave

It doesn't matter whether you're a bot. Lots of spam links are added manually. You're doing nothing but going through a bunch of articles and adding links to a site. And if you wrote the tips, you should read WP:COI. —KCinDC (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I added it to TWO articles. Jeez.

I don't see how these links are self-promotion, or conflicted interest at all - I literally get NOTHING out of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.80.60.80 (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There were four articles, and usually when someone comes in and starts adding links at that rate and doing nothing else they don't stop until they are stopped. (And please sign your comments, by adding ~~~~ at the end.) —KCinDC (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Aspire One issues section

There have been some changes to the issues section and I think perhaps the pov tag can be removed now, come see what you think.--Eloil (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

How many independent, secondary sources do we have? Zero? --Ronz (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Network Simulator

Hi Ronz,

Over the last several months, I have been regularly editing the section on network simulators and network simulation. During this period there have been several external links that have been added. After quite a bit of background work, and discussions with others here, we decided to retain the four most important links. First is a link to an open source project. Another link is educational. The other two are commercial in nature but date back to the 80's and the links are not promotional.

The essence of network simulation is to actually run a simulator and measure performance. Having no external links would be like a dead end to an interested user. Therefore, I think it is important we have relevant external links. Please reconsider your removal of these links.

Alla tedesca (talk) 05:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

We should discuss this on the article talk pages. --Ronz (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I am focusing on the content here which is the first thing mentioned in WP:DR.

Firstly, I have already explained why I feel certain links are important in the article talk pages. Till, date I haven't received a technical response to the same.

Secondly, and as to why I have deleted other links, is because I felt most were spam / commercial in nature. They have editors who have only a single contribution. Furthermore, never has there been any discussion in the article pages as to why a new link is being added.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Alla tedesca (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message.

I've already explained myself. You haven't, yet you keep insisting that you have.

I've suggested that you seek help from a third party, and you have not. I'm suggesting it again. --Ronz (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have explained the reason for the links in the article discussion page. It is as follows

"There are four external links that have been around for a while. I am bringing them back up. The first one is NS-2, an open source simulator. The second, NetSim is used for educational purposes. The third and fourth - Qualnet & Opnet and well known and have been in use since the late 80's. Since the next logical step for an user interested in network simulation, is to get hands on with a simulator, I have reverted to an earlier edit which contains the same"

Further, in your own talk page, both E_Dog and Stoj have questioned your removal. From what I can sense, both seem to have some knowledge about the subject. Therefore, I see that as a vindication of my stand.

Please let me know your views.

Alla tedesca (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see those as reasons for including them, nor for removing the others. I'm looking for some basic understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines from you, and rationale for inclusion based upon those. Instead, you offer personal opinions. --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks!...

Dear Ronz,

I appreciated your welcome message and love... quicky Wiki!

Thank you for caring,

Mila.cridlig (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Avenue A Razorfish page

Hi. I saw that you deleted my changes to the Avenue A Razorfish page. I currently work for Avenue A Razorfish and am one of the company's official spokespeople. We are trying to update the site to reflect the recent name change and also add more current information. As much of the information I added is company info and not printed a book/magazine, it is hard to cite. How do you recommend I go about doing this so you feel like it is justified is staying up on the page? I appreciate your input. Razorfish1 (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Razorfish1

Thanks for the comment. I left a message on your talk page about your username and conflict of interest. Those are important, as your account will most likely be blocked if you don't follow them.

Once you have a new username and are familiar with WP:COI, you should be using the article talk page most of the time. I'll be happy to discuss how to improve the article with you there. --Ronz (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ronz- Thanks for the input. I did try to change my username and couldn't find instructions on how to do that. Could you point me in the right direction? Thank you.

WP:RENAME --Ronz (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Elaine Kim Tags

Ronz

Do you think the "tags" in the Elaine Kim page could now be removed as the article was substantially rewritten first by me, and then by another person. After that, it appears that many small things were further corrected by others. I have just added a few more references and corrected some dead links.

Thank you, Seireeni (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Linux.com

The reply has come. See the noticeboard. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me. That makes sense with what I was able to find on my own. I'll follow up in the articles. --Ronz (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Link in Domain hack

Hi Ronz, you removed a line that i have just added on this page: Domain Hack From the external links. Why was it? I think the link was relevant as the other links on the page. Did I make any cosmetic issue? Thanks. Varadi82 (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC) I have just checked the diff and it says it was offtopic, but if you take a look at the site it has better domain hack search feature than the other sites. Maybe the description i wrote for the link was too general, but I think the link still has a place on that page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_hack Thanks. Varadi82 (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I've now removed the other search tool as well. The most relevant guideline is WP:EL, but you may want to look at WP:SPAMMER as well. --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I think it's equitable. First I thought my link can be placed there as there were a similar link, but as you removed that too I think it's correct now. Thanks. Varadi82 (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Woods results removal.

Ronz, for your information opened an arbitration case regarding your removal of the Woods results, Cheers Seeyou (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Involved_parties

LOL! Good luck with that. --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

As I presume you will have noticed, I have a copy of the Woods paper. I am willing to answer questions about its contents. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

RfArb on you

Seeyou has filed a RfArb against you. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 21:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Hopefully, it make getting him banned that much easier, given that it's totally baseless. --Ronz (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was surprised in a way that it is directed at you. I mean the conversations I was watching at ANI sounded like it was moving in the direction of one against him/her. I think this was a bad move on their part and may get turned on them instead of just refused out right. There seems to be a lot of editors not happy with See You at the moment. Oh well, life at Wiki and all, hope you are well. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite a mess. Thanks for the note. --Ronz (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ping, you've got mail! It's pretty much me babbling but I think you'll understand! :) I also saw that there is an RFC3 on the same subject as the RFArb, amazing, totally amazing to me! Just when I think things can't get weirder, poof it does. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hipal. You have new messages at Foxy Loxy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi

Hello, thanks for the welcome. Bare with me here, I'm still a bit new to wiki editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grainfeed189 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You're off to a great start! --Ronz (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest Message

Hi Ronz... can you shed some light about the conflict of interest message you posted on my talk? Unsure about what you may even be referring to...

Thanks!--Christian B (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Sorry I didn't elaborate, but I wasn't sure how much information to provide. I try to stay far away from anything that might violate WP:OUTING.

Basically, I was cleaning up some spam when I noticed that some links you added were all related. I thought it best to be sure you know about WP:COI, just in case. It's just a few edits, long ago. --Ronz (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. I will definitely keep COI in mind in the future.. thanks!--Christian B (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry about the confusion. --Ronz (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Woodhead Publishing Limited

I added some references to Woodhead Publishing Limited and removed the copyvio text. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That was probably the best solution. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Paralegal

I think your edit [[9]] is mistaken; the edits are not necessarily linkspam. Can you re-consider? Bearian (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm always willing to reconsider. If they aren't linkspam, what are they? Not references... --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

These organizations are legitimate. I'd settle to having the links at the botton under "External Links". Bearian (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up the list of External Links. That's good as it is. I may make a CE or 2 here and there. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the article as is, if the spamming is minimal. I'm still a bit confused as to the problem. I tend to apply WP:EL and WP:NOTLINKS fairly strictly, especially to better quality articles, and especially to those that attract spam. If the article continues to attract more spam, I'll want to trim back the external links to links to articles or similar information, removing links to associations, institutes, etc. --Ronz (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Telepresence issues

I hope you are the right guy....

What are your qualification regarding the Telepresence industry? You have too many incorrect accretions to list, here's a few.

Are you the guy who has been deleting DVE from the commercial Telepresence line up??

We have been building telepresence systems longer than Telenetics, and Cisco and HP use DVE internally. We sell desktop, small and midsize telepresence rooms and large room systems. Put us back into the line up. Or give me a reson why not.

DVE holds the largest patent base in the world for Telepresence display technology. We have been a corporation since 1995, and are responsible for much of the videoconferencing industry changes you give credit to Telesuite and Cisco. You have been deleting most or all references to my company with invalid rational.

1) DVE is my company, hence copy write issues are moot. 2) Your Cisco write up is factually incorrect. 3) Our Telepresence stage was developed for the entertainment industry, and is and has been used to bring celebrities in stage to ENTERTAIN people interactively via codecs.

I would like to speak to you over the phone, please give me your contact info... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.128.131 (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Yes, I'm one of the editors that has reverted your edits. I hope that we can work this out.

To protect my privacy, it would be best if you contacted me here. My email is another option.

As DVE is your company, you have a conflict of interest and should be using the article talk pages as your primary means of contributing anything related to your company.

Copyright issues are still relevant, even if it were appropriate for you to add the information to the article.

If the Cisco write-up is incorrect, it would be best to bring it up on the article talk page so it can be properly addressed. --Ronz (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What are your qualification regarding my Telepresence industry? I see your not an administrator for Wikipedia. Are you the guy who has been deleting DVE from the commercial Telepresence line up?? Big mistake…… Here’s why.

DVE holds the largest patent base in the world for Telepresence display technology. We have been a Videoconference / Telepresence research corporation since 1995, and are responsible for much of the videoconferencing industry changes you give credit to Telesuite and Cisco and others. You may be responsible for removing my company from most of the changes I made to the Telepresence category in Wikipedia. Also, you may be responsible for locking me out of the edit feature. My Co-Founder Dr. Steve McNelley’s Doctoral Thesis was a double blind study proving the importance of true eye-contact of videoconferencing in 1996. I have been researching videoconferencing display issues since 1992. We first showed the transparent Telepresence in 2006 not Cisco, and hold the patent for the effect. We showed our Immersion room June of 2006 at Telepresence World. Cisco followed almost one year after with the Musion Stage effect. Our Telepresence stage is vastly superior in every way to the older Musion Approach. Our Immersion room will gain headline news 1st Q of 09. And is the best Telepresence experience in the world today, Beating out all comers. We were attending trade shows in the early days competing with Telesuite, only we were still deep into the research end. Telesuite had the first commercial Telepresence room system before we did, However, our first commercial products addressed the lack of eye-contact with regard to all other videoconference systems of that era. We had large room system installs as far back as 1997.

Our Telepresence Stage must go back into the Entertainment section ASAP. As it deserves to be there. You may try to articulate it first if you wish…. But I will re-write if it fails to capture the Importance of this immerging Telepresence product category.

Lastly. In the history section DVE deserves some mention as we were there during the earliest times of the display end of videoconferencing research.

We should talk over the phone…. I would like to understand were you come from. As you are guarding the Telepresence page and apparently have your own opinions,,,,,,,,, That effect how the world understands Telepresence as a whole.

I expect to hear from you……

1) DVE is my company, hence copy write issues are moot. 2) Your Cisco write up is factually incorrect. To me it reads like a Cisco brochure. 3) Our Telepresence stage was developed for the entertainment industry, and is and has been used to bring celebrities in stage to ENTERTAIN people interactively via codecs. 4) I will contact the dispute group to go over all our issues and complaints —Preceding unsigned comment added by True Telepresence (talk • contribs) 21:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's the point of your comments above. I don't see any effort to address anything I've brought up, so I don't know what else to say at this point.

If you want to change the Telepresence article, then you should start discussing your concerns in the article's talk page.

Also, your comment, "Big mistake" is inappropriate. Please try not to take anything personal here. I'm happy to help you and others improve the Telepresence article. To do so, we all need to follow some basic WP:Etiquette. --Ronz (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

DVE Telepresence

Ronz,

I found your responses and am unclear as to how Digital Video Enterprises, Inc is put back into the (commercial Telepresence) line up with Cisco, and the others listed there in. We will Discuss the (entertainment) topic, and (Telepresence History) in good time. However, There is absolutely no valid reason why we are not listed amongst our on par competitors. It is my concern this topic is controlled by persons with predisposed ideologies regarding Telepresence as a concept.

Can I post relevant Telepresence articles?

Now I understand how to post edits....please unblock me.

True TelepresenceTrue Telepresence 02:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by True Telepresence (talk • contribs)

I'm glad you've continued our conversation. Sorry I've been unclear.

If I were in your position, I'd begin by starting discussions in Talk:Telepresence about your concerns. If you could include potential references in your discussions, especially references from independent, reliable sources that are not primary sources, they would be very helpful for us all to work from.

You are not blocked, but the article is protected from editing by ip addresses and new accounts. Once you've edited long enough, you'll be able to edit the article. (I'm not clear on how long you need to have been editing before you'll not longer be considered a new account.) --Ronz (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

commercial telepresence......True Telepresence 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ronz,

Please respond to my primary question. Why isn’t my company listed with the other Telepresence companies under ( Commercial Telepresence ) You removed us, I need to understand why you feel we shouldn’t be listed. I would appreciate a specific answer

I don't feel that it shouldn't be listed. It isn't currently listed because the only times it was added, it was added in ways that violated multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines, policies and guidelines listed in the warnings on User_talk:72.219.132.5 --Ronz (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Commercial Telepresence SystemsTrue Telepresence 16:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ronz,

Cool, As I was totally unaware of the correct methods to officially edit into the Telepresence topic. Or WP rules and guidelines. Would you do me the great favor correctly adding into the Commercial Telepresence Systems listing:

Digital Video Enterprises, Inc (DVE)

Also, in the Dec. AV Pro magazine is a top to bottom review of the Telepresence Systems product offerings. Please read and let me know your reactions.

The new guy……

Adding links to posts.

Hello,

I appreciate your feedback. If I ever add a link to a Wikipedia article I'm always sure it's relevant and contributes value to the piece. I'm not a spammer by any means. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Have a great day!

72.154.32.88 (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I stand by the warning. The link was promotional, and added in a way that would mislead other editors as to how the information was added and why. --Ronz (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

True Telepresence 04:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ronz,

This is the communication that forced my response directed to you. If you didn’t write this, then please except my humble apology. Although this came from someone. Did you Write this?

+ == Adding links to posts. ==

+

+ Hello,

+

+ I appreciate your feedback. If I ever add a link to a Wikipedia article I'm always sure it's relevant and contributes value to the piece. I'm not a spammer by any means. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Have a great day!

+

+ 72.154.32.88 (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't write that. Thanks for explaining. I'm glad this bit of confusion has been cleared up. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please review

Hello, This article link from PRO AV MAGAZINE Online (http://www.proavmagazine.com/) was sent to you by me. To view this article click on the following link below. America Online users: Cut-and-paste the link into your web browser and hit the enter key. http://www.proavmagazine.com/industry-news.asp?articleID=805312

This sould help you to understand DVETrue Telepresence 19:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Definitely a useful reference for the article. --Ronz (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

List of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines

Could you take a look at the changes I've made over the last couple of days. I think I have improved the article considerably. There are still quite a few links, but I don't think it really feels like a linkfarm anymore.Naraht (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The links have got to go at some time. I'm holding off until it's clear that the edit-warring is under control. I don't want to do anything that could be used as an excuse for more problems. --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The question becomes what are appropriate exterior links for that page? If Omega Omega Omega (to pick a random example) fraternity exists on 25 campuses in the Philippines, but does not have a Wikipedia page, which of these is appropriate? 1) Having the entry in the second column that would be wikilinked if it had one as a normal weblink? 2) Having a reference showing that the group exists and then having the link in the reference (which turns out to be where the external links are on a lot of pages), 3) Something else?

I have done quite a bit of looking around on the net and have come to believe that this list on Wikipedia may be the best list of Fraternities and Sororities in the Philippines, sad as that may be. The only page that even tries is Greekwatch, but they've basically copied from the Wikipedia page. I continued looking and found a site called Pinoy Fraternity which is a forum for Filipino Greeks, the list of Frats that they have loops back to the Wikipedia page. So it seems like everyone else is using the Wikipedia page as the source...

Naraht (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

GridGain

I just went at the list of references with an axe. I cut two, and three failed verification. I've mentioned the issue at the talk page. Hopefully that gets things headed in the right direction with the article (or else it headed to AfD). —C.Fred (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

question

You reverted This. I am not questioning your reasoning but since it directs to a totally different person I have to ask why. Is there a reason I am missing about this? I just want to understand myself why this is to be added, thanks as always. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Crohnie. It's to disambiguate between the two Stephen Barretts. When there are just a few articles with nearly identical names, it's usually fine to just link like this from one to the other. When there are more, then it's better to create a separate disambiguation article that lists them all. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I understand now what you are saying, thanks for explaining. This place sure can be confusing at times! :) Anyways I hope you are well and as always thanks for taking the time to explain. I'm going to go lie down for awhile myself. New problems, new frustrations, oh well. Take care and I hope we talk again soon. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

wow

Dude, I checked your history. You're not an admin, but you edited Wikipedia in the past 2 and a half years every day, making at least 10 changes on avarage each day. I mean... omg.. lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizso (talk • contribs) 02:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

How to semi-protect pages

Ronz,

I know that the examples of Computer prank are deleted...

How do I semi-protect from it?

Answer it on User:KingScreamer

Thank You

KingScreamer (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk page mixup?

Just a heads up, but it appears that you confused Seeyou's talk page with your own in your advising him to follow the guidance "above". PSWG1920 (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. For me, "above" links to the previous discussion on his talk page about his behavior. I wasn't referring to my talk page at all. I guess I should provide diffs though. --Ronz (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. That link didn't seem to go anywhere, but that was because the previous discussion was (on my resolution) close enough to the bottom of the screen. I thought you might have been intending to refer him to the notice at the top of your talk page. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Seeyou

Hrm, since you've had more experience with this case, I would like to discuss it with you on IRC, as it is much faster, please join #wikipedia-en ^connect, so we can discuss this in real-time. Look for Daedalus969.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not able to at this time. May have time tomorrow. --Ronz (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, do you have a nickname I can put on my notify?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sea of Love

Hello Ronz, The only reason that I modified this article was because the actual movie uses the word "Eyes", not "Lives" as is written in the article. If correcting articles that are technically inaccurate is going to be frowned upon, then so be it. E racer1999 (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It seemed to be vandalism at the time, and what little I could find to verify it supported that assumption. "Eyes" is very strange. What are you using to verify it? --Ronz (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I was actually watching the movie at the time and looked up some information regarding it. I read through the plot and played back the movie on my DVR just to be sure that I heard it right. I could be wrong, but it sure sounds more like "Eyes" than it does "Lives." I remembered it because I thought that it was a strange thing to say. After reading my message, I realize that the way I wrote it sounded kind of brash. Just letting you know that it's nothing personal. E racer1999 (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. Are we good with "Lives?" --Ronz (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that's fine. I haven't had a chance to review it, though. E racer1999 (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

AFD

AfD nomination of Jake and Amir

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jake and Amir, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake and Amir. Thank you. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. --Ronz (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Promotional post...

I have no affiliation with Blackstone Career Institute. I am simply looking into education in this field and found that it might be informative to mention the availability of online courses. I cited this by adding an example to back my statement that they do in fact exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptjohns (talk • contribs) 18:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware that anyone indicated you might have an affiliation. Nevertheless, adding examples, especially adding nothing but examples, is promotional. --Ronz (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"advertisment"

Sory about the "advertisment" you seem to think i placed on the paralegal site, it was never my intention to do this.

just to be clear www.ImInTrobule. makes no money from helping people find paralegal representation, no refferal fee, nothing.

SeemsMyNameIsToCommonToUse (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Steven

Advertising a free service is still advertising. --Ronz (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Never Mind. But just so im clear. What consitutes "Advertising"

So you removed a buch of links to a wiki that in your oppinion did not exist any longer in traffic ticket The truth is the links work Perfectly.. I put them back.. and now your saying im borderin on harrasment??

Im sorry im trying to be helpfull here but am i missing something?

SeemsMyNameIsToCommonToUse (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Stephen

The article you used as an example, Benecaid, is problematic, and borderline advertising at least.

What constitutes advertising is covered primarily in WP:SPAM, but WP:NPOV definitely applies as well.

Your reverting multiple edits of mine borders on hounding. --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I reveresed your edits because they no longer applied. The site was fully functional.. and your comment said the wiki was "dead". If you feel hounded I appologise but im just a newbie trying to learn the ways. and i seem to be completly lost

Also i would like to point out that Wiki now usese "nofollow" in all their external links, making it foolish to assume each link has SEO relevance.

At this point I will log off and maybe try again another day to contribute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeemsMyNameIsToCommonToUse (talk • contribs) 18:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I shouldn't have mentioned it, especially in an edit summary.

Wiki's are usually not reliable sources, which is why I mentioned it was a wiki. I was trying to convey that I was removing it because it was dead (and had been for some time) and because it was a wiki.

It's easy to get lost in Wikipedia. Policies relating to advertising are very strongly enforced in order to deal with the deluge of problems that occur daily.

I hope you've already noticed on your own talk page that I think you're off to a good start with OPHP. --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 06:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Best wishes to you too! --Ronz (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Bikini link fix

Please, if and when possible, run through the article and its history to fix whatever you find broken. It's a bit lonely work trying to cook up a decent article on such a huge subject. Thanks again. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! No promises, but I'll add it to my watchlist. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

MedCab

Per discussion on my talk page I have started a MedCab case involving you. Per your latest comments to me, I will attempt to make this message the last time I initiate direct discussion with you on this matter, lest you perceive what I have to say as harassment. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Help Please !

Ronz -

I have fought for 8 months to make the edits I make to Order Fulfillment and Fulfillment House remain in published.

There have been a number of people who have removed my external links... without even looking at the content. I have been through the "this is spam" before.. but all I am trying to do is make it so readers have access to some good external content that is neutral and unbiased.

When I saw you remove them. I was surprised... seeing as though you are part of WikiProject Spam. Is it possible, that in your attempt to keep Wiki Spam-free, you are rushing to conclusions?

If I am wrong, please tell me how the links do not meet the guidelines. I don't have anything to gain by submitting these links, other than the satisfaction of better educating readers on the subject, then the scope of the specific articles will allow.

Thanks -

Logistictech (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I think the best solution is to discuss the matter on each article's talk page separately.

You have it half-right when you say, "without even looking at the content." The problem is the way you have added the links, not necessarily the content.

Our purpose here is to write quality encyclopedia articles, not to find good external links for those articles. In general, the best articles need few external links at all.

Additionally, the article is question are poorly referenced. Focus should be on finding proper references. --Ronz (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Computer prank comebacks

Ronz,

Someone is re-editing this page. Even when I read it, it still comes back. I tried to semi-protect it, but it denied of protecting computer prank. Do you have any ideas how to make this article protected from re-editing?

KingScreamer (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't been keeping an eye on it, obviously. I don't think the article deserves any long-term protection. WP:RFPP is always an option if it gets worse. --Ronz (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Egyptian Yoga

I posted about the article at the wp:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Egyptian Yoga. Hopefully some folks experienced at dealing with this kind of thing will help out. It seems kind of lame to have to work on a subject and an article that isn't of interest to clean up the mess made by a POV pusher. We'll see what happens. As I was writing this up I took a peak, and someone is on the case already. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like that's getting the articles and editing some much-needed attention. Hopefully, we can get him to slow down and participate in meaningful discussions. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Conversation on http use

A conversation has been started about the use of http links on the WT:WPSPAM page. As a frequent editor of that page, your input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#http use on this page would be appreciated. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'll take a look. --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Your report at AN3

Hey. :) Could you please mark clearly in your report what content you did add with this edit to your report so that the reviewing admin can see that this information was not available to me when I commented on that report. Thanks. — Aitias // discussion 01:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Doh! Sorry about that. --Ronz (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for clarifying. — Aitias // discussion 01:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Bates method dispute

Ronz, I am puzzled by your response to my last post on the Bates method talk page. Those remarks were intended to be, on balance, conciliatory. Please explain. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm sorry you're so puzzled. I think, "Comment on content, not on contributors" is pretty clear. --Ronz (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. I'm really starting to feel optimistic about this again. It would be very helpful now if you would do at least one of the two things recently suggested at User_talk:SamuelTheGhost#Talk:Bates_method_4. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

comparison of email programs

What do you want to have "cleanuped" and with refs? every particular supported feature? I will try to add, but i don't know what do you want! mabdul 0=* 19:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to Comparison of e-mail clients I noticed that there is linkspam in the "Creator" column. Go ahead and remove them if you like, otherwise I'll get around to it myself later. --Ronz (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

ok, I will remove the external links (i think that this is the bad you noticed). you also added the clenaup-template in the comparison of layout engines (standard) articles. what is wrong there? mabdul 0=* 22:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of layout engines (Non-standard HTML)? There are external links within the article body that are probably unformatted references. --Ronz (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I corrected following comparisons now:

• Comparison of browser synchronizers
• Comparison of layout engines (graphics)‎
• Comparison of layout engines (Non-standard HTML)
• Comparison of e-mail clients‎
• Comparison of layout engines (Document Object Model)‎

is this correct as it should be? mabdul 0=* 22:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The non-standard reference format had me concerned, but at a second glance it's probably a good compromise. --Ronz (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Big misunderstanding on both our parts. I was confused by the non-standard references, their poor formatting, and incomplete citation information, while you were confused by what I was referring to when discussing them. I think I've fixed it. --Ronz (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah OK, now I will made this correct in future times. You were confusing me really. I know that some article need to get a whole cleanup (the e-mail will get; the browser sync will hopefully also)mabdul 0=* 03:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey just popping in

Hi Ronz, just thought I would pop in and say hello and wish you a Happy & Healthy 2009! Our editing hasn't crossed paths lately but I still like to keep in contact ocassionally.  :) I hope you are well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! You too! --Ronz (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi (2)

Hi there Ronz and thanks for your kind message, I appreciated it.

Please can you explain the criterion for inclusion/exclusion on this specific article, or point me to the specific page amongst the ones you sent I should be looking at?

It seemed to me that the article is about a list of mind mapping software, not just about notable ones?

Thanks

Yours, faweekee

P.S. Happy New Year

Faweekee (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! You've found the article talk page already, that's the main page for discussion on this. WP:WTAF is the essay I meant to link to in my edit summary. WP:LIST is the specific guideline for lists. --Ronz (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Chatterbots page

I've added a link to chatbots.org that you've removed, I found this site more complete (multilangual, international, sorted, described and commented by developers), therefor I still feel this should be part of the page! Boristoet (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've added it. Let's see what happens. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit for "Naveen Jain" wiki page

Ronz, Why do you keep deleting the references to hiring of Arun Sarin that naveen hired to replace himself. Arun Sarin as the CEO of Infospace acquired Go2Net that led to the crash of infospace stock price and related lawsuits. All the lawsuit for the period from early 2000 to 2001 which was the time period when Arun Sarin was its CEO. Please email me at wikiexpertedit@gmail.com if you have any suggestion on how to incorporate this information on this page. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-expert-edit (talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

See the article talk page, where I've discussed the matter in detail, hoping you just might notice after your repeated requests to have a discussion. --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Theory of Constraints

Ronz,

I corrected your posting of the Five Focusing Steps of TOC. I must be frank, it appears as you just made those up. Those steps are dramatically dissimilar to those defined by TOC-ICO and by Eli in The Goal.

It would be nice if you removed your incorrected steps. These are the basic steps of TOC and should be respected.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arogowannabe (talk • contribs) 19:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you have me confused with someone else. I don't have any idea what you're referring to. --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Doh

Only just spotted this User talk:Shot info/RfA Review Recommend Phase. Sorry that I haven't seemed to have replied, so I'll just say thanks and sorry for the delay! Shot info (talk) 08:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

NP. Happy new year! --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and quick question.

Thanks Ronz, I'm new here. Would this be a good source: http://mindmappingsoftwareblog.com/software-vs-hand-drawn-maps/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.5.121.161 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Blogs usually aren't reliable sources. Who's Chuck Frey? --Ronz (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Understanding conflict of interest - Peanut Allergy article

Hi Ronz,

I received your message today, thanks. As a new contributor, it cleared me up on some things, namely, why my suggested link (to my own page) would be denied.

No problem.

However, I do have a concern. The link to my page that was there on Wikipedia's "Peanut Allergy" article for a couple of weeks seems to have been deleted within the last 48 hours, which is the same time I received a flare from a reviewer who happens to be the author of one of the other links on the same page. Is it possible he is in conflict of interest? Was he involved in the removal of my suggested link?

I have, by the way, written a polite e-mail back to that person, substantiating the claims found on my site (and in the book it refers to) that he has disputed without having checked the footnotes.

Sorry to trouble you with this, but grateful for your help.

Billy Adam
billyadamg@gmail.comWikiabilly (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Interesting situation. Let me take a look at what happened... --Ronz (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the link, along with many others in that article. No one else was involved. It's an article that I watch but haven't looked at closely in a long time. The article tends to attract bad links, but I hadn't looked through them in a long time. --Ronz (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

follow-up on the Peanut Allergy page

Hi Ronz,

Thanks for checking the situation. What you say makes sense.

As a person with peanut allergy and author of one of the few adult trade books about it on the market, is there an ethically appropriate way to contribute to this page? For example, if I added a reference not only to my book but also to the other main books (The Complete Peanut Allergy Handbook and The Peanut Allergy Answer Book)? Or, if a third party added these?

At present, the page's three external links don't seem to represent the major organizations or peer-reviewed authors in the field. If you have a chance to look, I believe to have included a complete, impartial list on my site at www.paplus.net/bibliography.htm and www.paplus.net/links.htm.

I'm grateful for your consideration. All the best,

Billy AdamWikiabilly (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Given your expertise on the topic, I think you could be a very valuable editor. Be sure to read through WP:COI carefully. The article is fairly well referenced and written at this point. Someone with your background could probably help identify and resolve anything that is unbalanced or could use expansion. --Ronz (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

my contributino to the peanut allergy situation

Avoid foods that often contain peanuts Peanuts are common, and avoiding foods that contain them can be a challenge. The following foods often contain peanuts:

   * Ground or mixed nuts
   * Baked goods, such as cookies and pastries
   * Ice cream and frozen desserts
   * Energy bars
   * Cereals and granola
   * Grain breads
   * Marzipan (a molding confection made of nuts, egg whites and sugar)

Less obvious foods may contain peanut proteins. Some examples include:

   * Nougat
   * Salad dressings
   * Chocolate candies, nut butters (such as almond butter) and sunflower seeds are sometimes processed with equipment also used for peanuts
   * Cultural foods including African, Chinese, Indonesian, Mexican, Thai and Vietnamese dishes often contain peanuts
   * Foods sold in bakeries and ice-cream shops may come in contact with peanuts
   * Arachis oil, another name for peanut oil

Personally, I find nougat to be fairly destructive with regards to peanut allergies. My alter ego, Dr Arrupe Gupta who has spent much time on Wikipedia in the past, is horribly allergic to peanuts, but fortunately I am not. The above information came from the Mayo Clinic (a reliable source RONZ!!) and you can get more information on how to deal with your allergy there. I would also suggest going to your local CVS and picking up a saline solution and dousing your nose in it. Surprisingly, this can be effective in comabting peanut allergies. Go figure! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.244.157 (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A properly sourced discussion of the prevalence in food of peanuts and peanut proteins looks like a good area for expansion. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

link removed from Performance Analysis

Hi,

I added a link to a screencast (movie from a computer screen) to the 'External Links' section of the "Performance Analysis" article because that movie provides great information about performance and software profiling/analysis. This is at least as informative as the current link to a Microsoft tool and provides a nice alternative to the commercial content in the Microsoft movie.

Please explain why the link I added was removed in favor of keeping the existing link to a spammy video from Microsoft. [Just followed the Microsoft link] That video doesn't even exist anymore. So regardless of whether we include the Zoom link, the MS link needs to be removed.

Thanks, Fay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.53.253 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of something else, just removing your repeated spammed links. See your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggested edit for Peanut Allergy page

Hi Ronz,

Thanks again for your responses, including the referral to the WP COI page. I've read it and reflect on what we talked about. I would like to use my experience to provide to the public a fairly complete, short, and impartial collection of links on this controversial topic. Can you have a look at the following, and let me know what you think? At the end, in italics, I explain my criteria. Thanks for your time. One question - are you involved in peanut allergy research, or Wikipedia admin?

Billy Adam

External links

• Allergy and Allergies Agency (UK)
• Allergy/Asthma Information Association (Canada)
• Allergy New Zealand
• Allergy UK
• Anaphylaxis Australia
• Anaphylaxis Campaign (UK)
• Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network (USA)
• Food Allergy Initiative (USA)
• Internet Symposium on Food Allergens
• Mayo Clinic (USA)
• World Allergy Organization

Books and articles

• The Complete Peanut Allergy Handbook, by Dr. Scott H. Sicherer, with Terry Malloy
• The Peanut Allergy Answer Book, by Dr. Michael C. Young
• The Sprouted Peanut Vaccine and Other Stories, by Billy Adam Gottlieb
• Peanut allergy: where do we stand?, by Dr. John Weisnagel
• Peanut allergy: an overview, by Saleh Al-Muhsen, Ann E. Clarke, and Rhoda S. Kagan

The external links are to national and international organizations providing information to the public, in English, as opposed to research groups. The books are the three extant adult trade titles by scientists. The articles are examples of full scientific texts, as opposed to abstracts, available on the internet. I removed the medicinenet.com article, previously listed on the page, because no author is given and it’s not a particular leader in the field. Wikiabilly (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)