User talk:Hipal: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:01, 31 March 2009

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

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

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

Hipal is busy and is going to be on Wikipedia in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Linux.com

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

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)[reply]

Link in Domain hack

Hi Ronz, you removed a line that i have just added on this page: Domain Hack ^[1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

RfArb on you

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Woodhead Publishing Limited

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

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

Paralegal

I think your edit [[1]] is mistaken; the edits are not necessarily linkspam. Can you re-consider? Bearian (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 00:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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) [reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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[reply]

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Seasons Greetings

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK, I corrected following comparisons now:

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

[[Category:Allergology]] [[Category:Food allergies]]

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)[reply]

I added them to the talk page. The article really doesn't need more external links, but these look useful as possible references. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I was conducting some research on flaming and trolling. No hard feelings hopefully. 69.14.244.157 (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're supposed "research" involved sock puppetry, edit-warring, multiple WP:BLP violations, and harassing the editors that intervened in your improper editing. Sorry if I find your explanation of this being an "experiment" when you're faced with a further block as being just a bit too convenient, and downright unethical. --Ronz (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rewrite: MOND Tech.

Hello Ronz,

Let me first wish you all the best for 2009 - I started the year by rewriting entirely the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOND_Technologies following your labelling as "lacking references, notability & being an advertisement". I hope you will reconsider this statement.

Regards, adoligno —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adoligno (talk • contribs) 22:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut Allergy article, external links

Hi Ronz,

I read your reply. This time I disagree. The three links that are there are not, in my survey, the best of what's available, nor representative of its range. How did they get chosen? Who decides they get to stick?

It seems the balanced thing to do would be either to remove them all, leaving only the references, or expand them into a new set of links, as I have written up for your talk page. What do you think? Thanks for your consideration.

Billy AdamWikiabilly (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written, well referenced articles need few, if any, external links. I don't see strong reasons for any for this article. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

Ronz is correct here. I recommend that user Wikiabilly discuss his views on these matters on Talk:Peanut allergy. Wikipedia:External links guideline should provide further insight. — Athaenara ✉ 02:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! --Ronz (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz and Athaenara,

Thanks for your input. I took some time to think about it and review other Wikipedia pages. I still feel the Peanut Allergy page needs to be updated, to better serve the community, and ask your collaboration in finding a way to do this, that respects all concerned.

I can see the merit in keeping the External Links short. In that case, extra care must be taken that they be representative of existing literature, and allow the reader the go further than what the Wikipedia page itself can provide. This is why I suggest referencing the three existing scientific books devoted to peanut allergy. (Originally, I also suggested including a couple of articles, but this was in deference to the status quo, not because they meet the criteria.)

My book is one of the three. I don't feel it should be omitted simply because I am proposing to also be involved in editing the Wikipedia page. I put it last, however, in recognition of this and because the other two are more established. Their authors and I are specialists in the field. We have devoted years of our lives to helping people with this severe health problem. Of course we want our books to be read, and the sites I reference (our respective publishers) do offer them for sale. However, mine is a non-profit initiative, and I'd be surprised if the other two are making much if any money on theirs.

To these I would add the most important public-service allergy organization in each of six English-speaking countries where they exist (US, Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa), plus the World Allergy Organization which can inform readers about other countries. In this way, any visitor to the Wikipedia page will have someone they can call or write to find resources in their community.

Perhaps the books could go under a subheading General References, after the References, while the organizations would be in the External Links. This follows the form of Wikipedia articles like Cancer.

Please let me know what you think. Also, I do ask again for Ronz to present the experience that you feel places you well to decide what happens with the peanut allergy page. Thanks to both of you for your consideration.Wikiabilly (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should take this to Talk:Peanut allergy. List the specifics as examples too, if you could. --Ronz (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done.Wikiabilly (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz,

It seems we haven’t gotten any response to the posting of suggested changes, on the Talk:PeanutAllergy page.

I’m writing to ask your formal permission to edit the page, as proposed, trusting that

I have exercised extreme caution, as demanded by WP COI rules;
Public input has been solicited, and time given for response;
There is minimal room for COI, since the book links proposed are comprehensive, not selected (all 3 of 3 books out there), what room there may be should be eliminated by placing mine last;
The book and group links do something good for the public that the current selection does not: direct them to the only sources more completely informative than the WP Peanut Allergy article, and to their closest local service group;
I have not found a rationale for how the existing links got chosen, in terms of the research that went into them or the credentials of the author;
Given my education and experience studying this matter, I am in a position to verify that the proposed information is comprehensive and representative.

Please let me know either way, if you have an objection or approve. Thanks for your consideration.Wikiabilly (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey don't worry about it, I was only playing. Thanks for your help. I always generally add a specific link anyway, in fact when you contacted me originally I was actually in the middle of starting a batch of stubs with the direct maplandia link!! You must have stumbled across the lot I did without a direct link. All the best The Bald One ^{White cat} 16:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Wallace (author)

I replied on my talk page.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded again on talk page. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded again. In short, I'll try to find some other sources to add to that so its not a one-source article. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, why are you questioning the notability of Wallace? He's a published novelist whose book Big Fish was turned into a film by Tim Burton.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the article watched, so I'm not worried about it being deleted. As I said, I think the article first needs some references to show that WP:BIO has been met. --Ronz (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised the article and added a number of other references. I didn't write the original article, but I was familiar with Wallace. But as I did this work, I was surprised that there are no other in-depth interviews with him out there. In my view, that's another plus for Schneider's interview. Anyway, I hope you will consider removing those tags now. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. I guess you didn't notice that I removed them while you were working on it. --Ronz (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, missed that. Thanks. BTW, this Schneider thing is a mess. Check out my comments here. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

I'm not really entirely sure exactly what the complete processes are, or how to initiate a checkuser. StevenEdmondson (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In short, checkuser is a pain unless you are an admin with checkuser rights. We can make the request, but in my experience they are slow in responding to checkuser requests and often deny them unless there is a burning need.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. And this is going to be one heck of a checkuser request. --Ronz (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And they admins who run checkuser may feel that we've solved the issue with the XLinkBot. But I'll support any checkuser on this if that helps. I also e-mailed you something a moment ago. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to know I'm not going crazy on all this. I told Steven if he wanted to remove the links, I won't argue any more--I don't have a lot of time to spend on Wikipedia, and I hate to waste it arguing on stuff like this. But I told him that with the bot in place, from this point on editors were free to add these links without being accused of being SPAs b/c they likely won't be SPAs. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also looked like Steven and I worked things out. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COI

I sincerely appologize about the COI. I would however like to leave a picture up on the "label dispenser" page. THe only thing i feel i edited that would be a COI is the link to the website, everything else is plain fact. I invented the semi-automatic label dispenser in 1973 with my partner Allen O'Glander under Cmmercial Mailing Accessories INC, my name is Richard Shannon. I really do have good infromation about the equipment if you would let me re-insert the picture, i can show the original machine, and also what it is today. The page was orphaned and that IS a shame, since this machine is connected to every industry that manufacturs. This machine is used all over the world, from mom/pop places to Mattel, Goodyear, Revlon etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnemonikc (talk • contribs) 15:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I'll discuss on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bates method

Since you restored the warning banner on Bates method, I will reiterate my suggestion that you copy the article to your userspace and bring that version into line with your interpretation of the policies. That should be a fairly straightforward project, since it would in all likelihood consist mostly of deletions, and in your userspace no one else could interfere. If you then link to it from Talk:Bates method, that would make clear why the tags are there. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed your suggestion. If you recall, I've done it once with this article before, and felt it was mostly time wasted. I will not make the same mistake again. Such projects should be done collaboratively, or not at all.

If you've read my comments about what needs to be done, you'll realize that I think all the article sources need to be reviewed in the context to what points of view they present and how those points of view are weighed within those sources. After that, the article should be changed as necessary to properly present these points of view with the proper weight as determined by the review of the sources.

I pointed out close to a year ago that this work was necessary to resolve the pov problems that have been problematic with the article since it was first created. I also pointed out that the longer this work was put off, the harder it would be to resolve.

Thanks for the very civil comment though. My only suggestion is not to assume what another editor's solution might be. Even if I hadn't already outlined what the solution was, it's not very helpful. Instead, you might state the same thing in the form of a question, or qualify it. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to this, in my opinion it did help a lot; much of the article was then trimmed and condensed, and many references to secondary sources were added to sections you flagged as lacking such. However, that was merely an outline, which is not what I am suggesting now. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to what you think needs to be done, recall that I listed the major secondary sources in October. Not sure how to go about it beyond that. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Talk:Bates method I've begun the discussion which you've suggested above, as I understand you. My attitude had been that if you felt it should be done, you should be the one to get it started, but your comment here made me realize that you believe (though mistakenly in my opinion) that your previous efforts regarding the article have been wasted. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my comment again, you'll see that I wrote, "it was mostly time wasted." --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is this what you wanted done? Where do we go from here? PSWG1920 (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm extremely impressed with the work you've done there. I'm trying to set aside some time to assist, but I want to first get this mess organized to the point where a complete sockpuppet report and checkuser request can be written.

In the meantime, the one easy thing I wanted to start is identifying the expertise/reliability of the authors in question, which is especially imporant for WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying their expertise is I think easier than estimating their reliability, since the latter can be rather subjective. But I agree it's the right question to be asking. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "expertise/reliability" to cover any cases (perhaps the Time article) where we might have trouble identifying the author's own expertise, so instead would rely upon the reliability of the publication and its editing process. I don't know what the case is, but it's very different if the Time article was written by a science editor than say a war correspondent. --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI report made concerning you

As a courtesy I am telling you of this:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ronz --Timeshifter (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that! --Ronz (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome appears to be that my actions were inappropriate and that Timeshifter was using the AfD page inappropriately for personal attacks. --Ronz (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ref advantages

hi ronz, i left you a message on my talk page -- Kku (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2009

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Online chat quotes

Hi Ronz,

Could you explain why you think quote databases are not a significant cultural feature of online chat? It's well known that much of online culture is in-jokes and memes. These come from: 1. High visibility BBSes, newsgroups, and more recently imageboards; 2. Link sharing/social bookmarking; 3. Quotes databases.

Could you suggest a better place to put these items, which I feel are not large enough topics for their own article, but are certainly not trivia (i.e. lists of miscellanous facts)? I would have put the section on IRC subculture, but the quotes are not limited to IRC. Perhaps the problem is that a lot of IRC subculture should be in Online chat subculture, on which there is plenty of verifiable research.

You'll see I created a discussion about this at [2] when I first added the section. Please reply there with any views, otherwise I hope you don't mind if I revert your edit.

For a sense of notability, see [3] [4] [5]

--MarkSteward (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Sorry that I didn't notice your discussion about it. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPAM?

Hi Ronz,

Can you let me know which link I provided you consider SPAM? Thanks,Htomfields (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming

Sorry, I'm new to making edits. I see your point. Thanks for the advise.Htomfields (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myopia Myth suggestions you made

Hello I am not a member of the International Myopia Prevention Association and I appologize if some of my links apears to be writen by the same person. After suggestions made by relative and friends of mine on the theorie of Donald Rehm, I did countless hour of research on the internet. I have also discussed this dispute with both an Optomerist and an opthamologist. They both agreed Donald's Theory is a valid theory and the past and on going study done on reading glasses's effect on myopia progression is good science and good preventative medical research. This article merely serves to paint a clear picture of the both sides on this dispute so people can learn from wikipedia what the dispute is all about. However, I admit the possiblity that the experts I have talked to may be exceptional in their views. please help me improve this article so you are satisfied with it's quality by pointing out what aspects of my article is "biased" and what sources I have are problematic. I am willing to make all necessary corrections so readers know the sources are reliable. An issue with such polarized sides must be looked at with an experienced eye. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junsun (talk • contribs) 17:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left you some more information on your talk page to give you some background with the issues in creating such an article in your situation.

I'll respond further once I'm done with the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ronz The article have under went a lot of change in a few short hours since I last made any changes. I have really tried to make the article match the stardards of wikipedia you have helped enforce. But I feel this topic needs to be covered even if it may not be "100% verifiable" since even the American Optometric Association agrees with Donald Rehm on the likely link between close work and myopia progression. I think the American Optometric Association (AOA) that upholds the profession of eyecare is about as expert as any source on eye health topic out there. I really think you should allow the existence of an artivle on a theory that has withstood 30 years of skepticism and is partly uphelp by the AOA. The Dr. Francis Young research has being published in New York Times, which is a credible source. Perhaps you will be a little more tolerant on the idea of creating an article and let other editors contribute beside me edit in instead of deleting it which just takes away the opportunity we have to give IMPA a hard neutral look. The site counter has registered over 300 thousand visitors to International Myopia Prevention Association's website, and for those visitors, I feel wikipedia must have an approapriate unbiased article so they can see what Doanld Rehm is saying is plain light. I am willing to adopt a hands off position at this time and allow others to restructure and "unbias" this article if only they can have the time. Junsun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junsun (talk • contribs) 19:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think you've understood much of the multiple problems identified in your contributions to the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. If information is not verifiable, it can be removed. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Schneider links

I'm trying to figure out why your deleted all of the conversations around the Schneider spam issue here. I see that you were archiving items on the page, which makes sense, but you should either archive the Schneider discussion all together or leave it as is on the page. To remove all the discussion from the page while leaving the links to articles makes it look like this is a spam issue that hasn't been resolved. However, I though we had found a way to keep people from spamming these links and were simply waiting for a check user before deeming any particular edits as spam. I also think your edit to the discussion implies that sites like The Moderate Voice are engaging in spam, which is incorrect. I have edited the item to address these concerns, but if you'd prefer to simply reinsert the previous discussion that would work for me.

As I mentioned in the original discussion, if it makes people happy let us go ahead and remove all the "spam" edits everyone was complaining about. But with the XLinkBot now in place, doing that also means if a new editor reinserts these links or other references to Schneider's articles, then the assumption has to be these are good faith edits and not spam. Would you agree with this approach? Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bot archived it. I restored it temporarily in order to copy the information I was working on still.

I don't think it has been resolved. A checkuser is definitely needed, and I wanted to put together a list of users to include. At this point, the problem looks so vast that I'm going to settle with working with what I've found so far.

I'm not waiting for a checkuser when the spamming is blatant. Someone is obviously just going through the articles that were part of this dispute in the past and restoring the disputed information, using the same means as before to do this: through the creation of new accounts. --Ronz (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that, as I've said, Schneider has a lot of readers. It's hard to tell which were good faith edits and which were spam attempts. I should also note that during this discussion I reinserted many of those links because I felt the evidence was not there that they were all spam. To simply remove a link to one of Schneider's articles by calling it spam is not right b/c it may have been a good faith effort. It seems to me that too many editors seem to want to do a Scheider witchhunt by calling any link or reference to his reviews spam. But I have inserted a number of these reviews and references, and I am most certainly not spamming Wikipedia. best,--SouthernNights (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm removing the links that I think are blatant attempts to spam the information. If you want to discuss individual cases, I'd be happy to join the discussion and avoid further action on similar cases while the discussion is underway. --Ronz (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, go ahead and remove all the links. I personally don't care about any particular link to Schneider's reviews. The reason I originally became involved in this issue is because a few editors started removing links and references to Schneider that I had placed in articles, calling these spam. I was irritated that people did this without assuming good faith or seeing who had actually made said edits. As long as people don't try to state that any reference or link to Schneider is spam--which would be wrong and faulty reasoning--I'm not going to trouble myself with this anymore. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see we left messages at the same time. I'm also tired of the whole issue, which is why I said to go ahead and remove the links. I have no objection unless there is an attempt to label anything Schneider as spam.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm just going to try to wrap up with the articles I've listed so far. There are many more, but I've at least have a good sampling for the checkuser. --Ronz (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've convinced me that Schneider or someone else spammed his links across Wikipedia, although I also see some legit edits that are being removed b/c they are being called spam. So where do we go from here? There are editors like myself who find value in some of Schneider's reviews, essays, and interviews. Does this mean we can't use links or references to that stuff? I thought the XLinkBot had fixed this issue.--SouthernNights (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to be careful with what I'm removing. At this point, I'm trying to write up summaries of the editors I've found for the sockpuppet report and checkuser.

When is Schneider's opinion worth noting? I'm not sure. Adding back a spammed link without discussion, even when you're not a sockpuppet of a previously blocked editor, isn't a good way to convince anyone that the information is useful. I think it's worth discussing his merit as a film critic and as a literary critic. I'd think a strong argument could be made for linking his film reviews for movies that have no more notable reviewers. --Ronz (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea where such discussions should occur? --Ronz (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think he has a lot of merit as a critic. In addition, you are correct that if a more notable critic can't be found for a particular movie article, a link to Schneider's reviews are very valid. But at this point, it's hard to decide what's worth keeping b/c of that whole "fruit of the poisoned tree" argument. I mean, there has been so much spam around this issue that when I try to say that Schneider has merit, people don't listen. Anyway, I've been removing a number of the spam links to clear the deck of all this, so to speak. Maybe when this cools off I'll go through some of these articles and see what links and info truly add value.

BTW, were you referring to me adding back in spam links without discussion?--SouthernNights (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for a discussion on Schneider's worth as a critic, that is not something that should take place on Wikipedia. If he fits our guidelines for notability--which I say he does--then he's good. If for some reason he's not notable, then we wouldn't use him. But a debate on his "worth as a critic" seems like dangerous ground for Wikipedia.--SouthernNights (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Sorry. No, I wasn't referring to you. I hadn't even noticed that you were revisiting this. --Ronz (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Life Extension Foundation edits

Dear Ronz,

Thank you for looking over my additions to the Life Extension Foundation entry on Wikipedia. I see that you deleted an external link as "promotional", however LEF.ORG is where you can find out more information about memberships, read the Life Extension magazine, find the Foundation's scientific achievements, among other resources.

I feel that the external link I added to LEF.ORG is not of promotional nature. It complements the entry on Wikipedia about the Foundation and directs users to the Foundation's face - the Buyers Club.

Please let me know if you agree with keeping the link to LEF.ORG and I can edit it back.

Best,

TD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thiagodoherty (talk • contribs) 02:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notepadpage and links related to my-health-software.com

Thank you! I noticed it on one of my watched pages (Hibiscus tea), and luckily for Wikipedia, I was in the correct mood for a long, semi-brainless series of edits. :) Dreamyshade (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ronz

My site is all about struts tutorials, so I thought a link in this page will be appropriate. Sure i will go through the guidelines before adding any links.

Thanks

regards, Eswar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreekEswar (talk • contribs) 17:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I'll reply on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Schneider links

Hi Ronz. I saw your post over at WT:SPI#Huge, repeat sockpuppet situation. If that were submitted as a checkuser case it would be huge. The problem for checkusers might be knowing which editors could be considered abusive. Could the XLinkBot do something useful? (I haven't read through all the reports on the Schneider situation). EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, we've got four of the domains listed with XLinkBot. I'm currently going through the others to see what could be done.

Having gone through the history of the problem, it's clear that editors have learned how to avoid being identified as spammers. The majority of accounts make less than a dozen edits total, usually on a single day or to a single article. Basically, these people are just discarding accounts regularly to avoid detection.

Another solution is just to identify the accounts used for edits that we're unsure about, and run checkusers on them. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give examples of some accounts that you think have worked deceptively? I'm trying to separate the sheep from the goats, so to speak. (There must be *some* good-faith editors who just think that a Dan Schneider review illustrates the topic). EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples:

Luigibob (talk · contribs) is an editor that I kept on the list as a good faith editor for comparison purposes.

Mctoomer (talk · contribs) and Mitziohara (talk · contribs) are blatant spammers.

Aerogelo (talk · contribs) is obviously an experienced editor.

Erinsisle (talk · contribs) made two of his three reverts of links with no edit summaries, when every other edit has an edit summary.

The problems look even more suspicious when you look at article histories. 8½ is a fairly typical example. A Schneider link is first added by a spammer, 4.230.147.95 (talk · contribs) in this case, then was removed during the Aug/Sep'08 cleanup [6]. Along comes another spammer, 68.93.132.113 (talk · contribs), adding the same essay hosted on a different domain. It gets immediately removed as being spammy, but gets restored by yet another SPA, Babuul00 (talk · contribs), who's editing patterns are nearly identical to previously blocked editors. --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, I think multiple approaches would help:

Increasing the number of domains that XLinkBot is using.
Getting some of the accounts blocked for their own spamming alone.
Requesting comments from the editors that added the links in good faith.

--Ronz (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder about blacklisting some more links. It seems that cosmoetica.com is already blacklisted. What about noripcord.com? I see that we have an article on No Ripcord, but it is weakly sourced and might be a candidate for deletion. Some of the IPs above are from Austin, Texas. Is there a list of the domains you have submitted to XLinkBot? EdJohnston (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XLinkBot currently has altfg.com, blogcritics.org, cosmoetica.com, and noripcord.com. Looks like cosmoetica wasn't necessary. I've only started looking at them, but there are probably a half dozen more that should be considered for listing from all the domains found so far. --Ronz (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number of dubious accounts is vast, yet the number of domains is small. It could make more sense to start scrutinizing the domains, and see which ones we can do without. I see that you listed 21 domains at WT:WPSPAM#Domains. It would make sense to start going through those. Do you already have a half-dozen to recommend? EdJohnston (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Half-dozen is a guesstimate. A few of the domains are barely linked at all. Some are to fairly questionable sites. --Ronz (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of FreeMind

An article that you have been involved in editing, FreeMind, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreeMind. Thank you. Boatsdesk (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Talk:Bates method

no, i will not remove my comment, and i was merely saying that i look forward to your contructive edits. in turn, i don't see how merely replying that you are going to readd the tags - without addressing any of the concerns raised in my original post - is anything more than unilateral belligerence. To see who's right, why not see if anyone else readds the tag thinking there is a neutrality or undue weight issue? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. I'll remove it then. --Ronz (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss my editing, or give me suggestions on how to do it better, please do so here. However, if you're going to justify your actions by assuming mine are cases of "unilateral belligerence", then I suggest you take a break or work on something completely unrelated. --Ronz (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the boilerplate message about WP:NPA - i was actually aware of this guideline, but did not mean my comment as a personal attack on you, it was a criticism of your edits. at any rate, i thought we had already talked about my comment, my readding the comment was from from personal belief that talk page comments should not deleted in any case other than those at WP:OUTING - which i referenced in the edit history. obviously, you took unintended offense to my comment, so i struck it out as an act of retraction. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The portion not struck out was still inappropriate. I feel that personal attacks should be removed, especially when the page in question has a history of such problems. By your own admission, you've assumed bad faith and attacked another editor. Continue this way, and you'll get yourself blocked. --Ronz (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Joyce

A good idea re. deleting book reviews. As a published James Joyce scholar, I'm excited about cleaning up and developing the James Joyce entry on wikipedia. HiromiHyoshida (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Nice to have someone of your expertise contributing.

The high-quality ones should be considered for the articles on the books themselves. --Ronz (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

When you narrow it down to particular users, make a request vie the normal method (not the "quick check") under whoever you suspect the puppet master to be. —— nix eagle^{email me} 20:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly advice

Hi Ronz. The following is only intended as friendly advice, so please don't take it as anything else. Your interactions with other users might go a whole lot better a lot more often if you don't mention WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:HARASS, WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, etc. so often. Perhaps you should try not mentioning them at all for a while, at least in situations where you are already involved. If I had saved the first reply I typed to your recent AGF message on my talk page, things likely would have gotten very ugly. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Obviously, some editors would rather just pretend that any behavior is appropriate here. --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sent email

I sent you an email on a private matter. As for the CJ article, feel free to remove the info if you feel it doesn't add to the article.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kinesis Myofascial Integration ‎

Good catch. Looks like I must have been viewing an earlier revision and completely messed it up. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. That makes sense. --Ronz (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating wiki page

Hi Ronz,

I previously created a wiki page covering information on a computer program called iMindMap. It was removed from wikipedia due to Wiki's advertisement laws. As I am not intentionally attempting to advertise and do not want this to happen again any information that you can provide preventing my text or imagery from doing so will be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks,

Rhodri —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodri Harries (talk • contribs) 09:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhodri. Thanks for the note. I'm happy to help. If you can find a few independent, reliable sources first, it will be easy to create an article that won't be deleted again. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selfpub removal, Steven M. Greer

Hi, I'm wondering what the basis is for the removal of "self published" references on Steven M. Greer, here and here. My reading of Wikipedia:SELFPUB#Using_self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves, suggests that such references are acceptable: Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field. They're not being used to advance extraordinary claims, merely that Greer is the founder of these organizations. Could you enlighten me? I'm not entirely familiar with BLP, refs and so on. Phil153 (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns are SELFPUB #1, #2, #6; WP:SOAP; and WP:UNDUE. Find some reliable, independent sources instead and it would resolve all these problems. --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CAPTCHA section removal

Ronz-

You removed the section I made on the CAPTCHA page, citing WP:TRIV. I believe it falls under WP:IPC, though certainly the distinction between the two is often the subject of debate. Please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Xkcd&limit=100&namespace=0&hideredirs=1 and explain how my edit is substantively different than the majority of those listed there. Please note that the list includes technical as well as less serious articles.

Thanks Ellensn (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without a secondary source, I think it should be kept out. The article has a lot of problems with editors adding information sourced only by primary sources, usually for what appears to be promotional purposes. --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that it is substantively different from many of the other articles in this list to which I provided a link. Would you prefer that I place a reference to this in the body of the article under the section 'Characteristics'?

"Although a checkbox "check here if you are not a bot" might serve to distinguish between humans and computers, it is not a CAPTCHA because it relies on the fact that an attacker has not spent effort to break that specific form." ...to which I could add... "The popular webcomic xkcd included a spoof along these lines that instructs 'bots' to honestly state if they have emotion."

Ellensn (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll look at the article talk page, you'll see that a solution has already been offered for these cases: find a independent, reliable source for the information. Otherwise, we're violating WP:V, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SOAP. If you disagree, I think it would be best to get a third party involved. --Ronz (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion - I agree that this information appears to be trivia not directly related to the article, and, as such, is not required. It does not appear to illuminate the concept any further than the article already does. If it could be incorporated into the main text of the article, with a citation in a secondary source as to its importance, that would be perfectly acceptable, although it seems unlikely in this instance. On the other hand, I also agree with Ellensn that this does not appear substantially different from many of the other references to xkcd in the list he provides. In my opinion, however, many of these other references should probably also be deleted as tangential, or forming parts of indiscriminate lists. Anaxial (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. That was pretty quick and painless. Ellensn (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I had never looked at the WP:IPC talk page. Apparently xkcd is an exceptional case. I didn't realise into what I was getting myself! Cheers. Ellensn (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I think you've found the motto of all Wikipedia editors, "I didn't realise into what I was getting myself!" --Ronz (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paralegal

While an obvious COI exists here, I think the relevant parts of this reverted edit [7] should be placed back into the article. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Good call. I'd prefer it be sourced and trimmed. Ignoring the spamming and coi, there are still WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTHOWTO issues. I'll give it a shot. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging

Hi Ronz,

Would you be able advise me on how to tag an article? e.g If a user would search for my article (Buzan's iMindMap)by typying an alternative name such as iMindMap, it would recognise the relation between the two and provide a link to the page.

Any help would be much appreciated,

Many thanks,

Rhodri —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodri Harries (talk • contribs) 17:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhodri! Mostly, you'll just want to create new articles that WP:REDIRECT to the current article. In complicated cases, you may need to disambiguate between multiple current articles. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link removal - Imposition

Hello Ronz, I recently added a link to the Wikipedia entry for Imposition that points to my online Imposition service. You removed the link, I restored it, then you removed it again.

Can you please provide justification for this move? My website is free to all users, and provides a real-world demonstration of how a printer's imposition works, as well as allowing users to try it for themselves.

My website does not ask for any money, nor does it have any advertising.

A user that may have been told that their file needs imposition before printing may look to Wikipedia for information, but aren't they better served by being referred to a free online resource that enables them to actually do the imposition as well?

I can't speak for the other links on this page, but I am at a loss as to why you would remove the link to my site.

Can you please explain, or remove your objections to this link.

Regards, brrayne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brrayne (talk • contribs) 23:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up with me directly. You may have missed it, but I already pointed out WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK. Basically, Wikipedia is not a forum to promote such services. See also WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, I did not miss it. I do not believe my site link contravenes any of these rules, hence my note to you. My site is not spam, is free to use and is of great relevance to the topic in question. If mine was a site that explained the process of imposition, you would not have an objection. Is your objection that my site demonstrates this process rather than explaining it? I just did a search for Unix time and have found a link to a "Unix Time Generator". This is a website that calculates the current Unix time. By your guidelines, this site should be removed too, correct? Wikipedia is littered with external links to sites that demonstrate the topic in question. Why has mine been singled-out?

Brrayne (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest further dispute resolution that involves others. WP:THIRD or WP:COIN would be good places to start. --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responding in more detail: Because the site is your own, there are WP:COI and WP:SPAM problems. Because the site is a service for creating impositions, there are WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTLINK problems. Because it requires registration, there are EL and SPAM problems.

If the site just explained the process, did so in more detail than the current article, and wasn't your own site, it would be helpful given the current state of the article.

Yes, Unix time has multiple external links that are problematic. Thanks for pointing this out! --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References on Stick Candy

Hi Ronz, I just wanted to let you know that I removed the reference list in the middle of the talk page for Stick candy. If you add any references below a reference list (as I have), they do not show up, even if you add a second reflist at the bottom. I am going to remove it again with an explanation on the talk page (I briefly did so in my edit summary, I must have been unclear).--kelapstick (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's probably the best solution given that some editors might not know that it would need to be moved if they add any references below it. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I have asked a question about using pages like this as reliable sources at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Stick candy--kelapstick (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll explain the tags unrelated to WP:RS and WP:V on the article talk page, since you have concerns about those as well. --Ronz (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was the excessiveness of the tags, a simple "citation needed" would have been sufficient, three tags was a little excessive. In the interest of keeping my question neutral (and I hope I did) I left out my personal opinions on the issue, and the tags.--kelapstick (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Had to laugh

Hey Ronz, first let me say that I do admire your anti-spam efforts. That's a noble goal for the site. Now, I just had to laugh (literally out-loud) at the recent turn of events at stick candy. Well played, I must say. I was kinda watching from time to time, and seeing things get so close to 3R, and was wondering who was gonna get "the block" lowered. I still think you're interpreting some of the WP:RS and WP:V things a little too strictly, the wording is such that it (along with the well loved, oft quoted, IAR and Bold links) allows exceptions to the rules. But, that's not really what I came here for. I do admire your long tenure here, and your many valuable contributions - so please don't take this the wrong way. I think you came down a little too hard on CoM (ChildofMidnight.. or whatever). (S)he's a very new editor here, and I think what you dropped on her talk page comes very close to "WP:Bite". I mean really, Stick Candy? It's not like a hotly contested BLP, political, or religious issue. I see she came back pretty hard and all, but maybe you landed a little hard too? Huh? A little over the top? Maybe...just a little? Again - I have to say, I really admired that tag and page protect move - shows real skill and knowledge of the community and how it works. Don't let the little things get you too worked up - it's only a website after all. There's no reason we can't all work together to contribute to the community. Well, that's all really, ... have a good one ;) — Ched (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree. I'd hoped that ChildofMidnight would respond better. When she didn't, I decided page protection would be a better solution than requesting a block for such an inexperienced editor.

When it comes to spamming, I think the only solution is to interpret the relevant policies and guidelines strictly. We need to be careful with what exceptions are allowed. See User_talk:Ronz#Link_removal_-_Imposition for the flip side - a good faith attempt to add a link that's inappropriate for multiple reasons by an editor looking for exceptions that he'd like to apply to his own efforts. --Ronz (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Fifth Beatle (Film)

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

Blocked IP 195.227.12.254 and my contributions

Dear Ronz,

I was very much surprised when contributing to the Wikipedia article “e-Health” resulting in a warning and message from you, saying that it is not possible any more to contribute to Wikipedia from this IP address.

I fully understand your concern of avoiding spam on Wikipedia, but we think that, after consulting the rules for external links, our links are fully legitimate. The pages we set links to are research projects publicly funded by the European Commission, e.g. www.ebusiness-watch.org or www.good-ehealth.org. They have no commercial interest whatsoever. I found that the link to the e-Business Watch Website on Wiki articles such as “e-Business” or “electronic commerce” has a high topical fit and offers extensive additional information, case studies and free data sets for researchers and others who are interested in the topic. All information on this site has to be fully unbiased, as it is an official site of the European Commission. The same is true for the e-Health link.

However, as I am rather new to Wikipedia and do want to fully comply with its guidelines it would be very helpful to get some further guidance on our current status (mine and of the blocked IP 195.227.12.254) and how to avoid further problems. In general it would be very helpful to be warned before contributing not after spending a couple of time with adding to Wikipedia.

So please be so kind to give me some advice how I can further contribute to wikipedia without receiving “conflict messages”? What kind of blocking did you conduct on our IP? Are we now on the spamlist?

Many thanks and looking forward to your answer with best regards

Nomob (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing this. To clarify a few points first:

No one has been blocked.

No one is being prevented from contributing to Wikipedia.

I'm not aware of any of the sites you mention being added to any spamlist.

That said, I hope this is just a matter of getting to know the relevant policies and guidelines already linked on your talk page. I'm happy to help explain them in detail and answer any questions you may have on them. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: comments on Badagnani's talk page

I think this edit and its edit summary are over the top [8]. The page is protected with your tags in place. I suggest you let things cool down a bit. In fact, I think it would be a helpful act of goodwill to refactor your comment from that editor's page. He certainly has a gruff style at times, but there's nothing overtly uncivil about his comments. Best to just let those comments go and not fan the flames. That's my 2 cents anyway. I would also point out that your own actions regarding this situation have been aggresive at times (the edit I mentioned being a case in point). Everyone involved seems to mean well, and I don't think there's any need to heighten the conflict. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Yes, I've been aggressive. I've also gone to great lengths to move on and come to agreements with others.

I hope you are starting to see my perspective on all this now. This whole situation is an absolutely absurd case of ignoring multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and ignoring multiple dispute resolution attempts. Have you ever read WP:OWN? I'm making it very, very clear what the next steps will be if this consistently improper behavior continues.

That said, I'm always open to suggestions on how to make my comments better. If you look, you'll see that I've changed them quite a bit already. What to you think is especially problematic and how do you suggest I change it? --Ronz (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would just suggest not templating anyone, not even new people, who are making good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Leave a personal note. Confrontation is almost always met with confrontation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. At the time of your starting this discussion, there was no template. Obviously, I had already thought of this and had done it. --Ronz (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as policy and this dispute in particular goes, I disagree with your interpretations and description of the situation. That being said, as long as you follow policy you're welcome to pursue any dispute resolution processes you think are appropriate. My personal opinion is that you will have more fun and success pursuing other endeavors, at least until the block ends. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Disagree all you want. If you want your disagreeing to matter in any way, then take some time to explain yourself, or ask questions. --Ronz (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to repeat what I mentioned before, I suggest removing any antagonistic comments from the talk page in question. You're welcome to thank that user for their contributions to the encyclopedia, or let them know that you checked out their work and respect their substantial contributions to Wikipedia, but I don't think there is anything to be gained by templating them, criticizing them, or pursuing administrative review of their actions. That's my opinion of course, and you're free to do as you see fit. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I fail to understand what it is that you consider "antagonistic." It appears that you found Athaenara's comments to be "antagonistic" but not Badagnani's. I don't see any reason to try to fathom what it is you mean when it appears to be opposed to any reasonable interpretation of WP:CIVIL.

I asked for specifics. I wish you had given some. --Ronz (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Athaenara was offering a 3rd Opinion, and I cited those guidelines in the relevant discussion. Several editors have suggested to you ways in which you are being antagonistic. I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish, but I think you will have more fun and success collaborating with other editors rather than taking them on in confrontation. Feel free to archive this discussion at your discretion. I'm not trying to make any kind of point and I don't have any hard feelings. People disagree on here all the time. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Athaenara made a perfectly civil comment, which you did your best to dismiss while questioning her civility. I think you need to stop lecturing on subjects where you don't take the time to understand the issues, history, policies, or guidelines. Ask questions, or clarify your perspective instead. You've been here three months, and you're quickly on your way to administrative review. No wonder you're against my attempts to get Badagnani to behave properly. You're afraid of being called out on your own, similar problems! --Ronz (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aberdeen Group

This is not a spam change. I know Aberdeen very well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.60.130 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what a "spam change" is or why it's relevant to the editing in Aberdeen Group. Independent, secondary sources are preferred to self-published, primary sources. --Ronz (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

blacklist

Hey Ronz, you know anything about blacklist server problems tonight? — Ched (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a clue. What's going on? --Ronz (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a glitch somewhere. Maybe a new server they racked last week? Not sure, saw whole bunch of ??? at the WP:WHITELIST talk, and even help desk - asked on mIRC, they said it was being worked on. Thought maybe you dumped a bunch of blog sites at them ... LOL. ;)— Ched (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of PDF software

Hi Ronz,

I am user FEQ and added an entry to the page (20th February) "List of PDF software" for the JPedal PDF developer libraries. Examining the history of this page I find that this entry was removed with your edit.

Why? This developer library is the only 100% Java library that is available under a GPL licence.

The page says "list of PDF software". It doesn't say list of PDF software that you like, or only free software. Our developer library is available in both GPL (free) and commercial varieties as are many of the other links that remain. What is your objection to this listing? Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedic listing. The current list falls far short of this.

Adobe (commercial site) is listed on this page so I find it hard to fathom why my listing is not allowed.

Thank you

FEQ FEQ (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Wikipedia is not a directory. While we allow lists, the entries in these lists need to meet some basic inclusion criteria. Editors are encouraged to write the article first, or demonstrate that the entry is important enough to list by providing an independent, reliable source about the software. --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

universal design

newbie here wondering about a link removal. On the page, universal design, I added an external link. You (I think) removed it and I saw the following:

(diff) (hist) . . Universal design‎; 19:24 . . (-1,273) . . Ronz (Talk | contribs) (→External links: quick cleanup per WP:EL & WP:NOT#LINK)

How do I understand the comment? Was the link rejected as not suitable or was the entry incorrect?

Many thanks in advance for your reply.

Konrad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konnie2009 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for the note. I'd tagged the external links section for cleanup back in December 2006. If you look on the talk page, you'll see that I left the tag because I was concerned that too many of the links were too far off topic. Your addition motivated me to do some more cleanup with an eye to links being too far off topic. WP:EL and WP:NOTLINK are the relevant policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Returnil

Edit summary:"......... promotional links"? Exactly which links are promotional? I think I kept it pretty much NPOV. TechOutsider (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]

"Issues can be reported here. Known issues are listed here."

"Signup for the beta edition and testing is available here. "

These sentences and links promote these websites. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS

Hey Ronz, would you take a look at this when you get a chance. I removed citing wp:rs since the site failed WoT, SiteAdvisor, and Browser warnings as a safe site. I've run across this before where spam sites, and ones that are considered dangerous to computer are listed. Do I need to cite any particular section of RS, or is WP:RS good enough. (if you reply here, could you drop me a talkback tag) Thanks — Ched (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's off topic to the subject of the article, and linkspam. I cleaned it up a bit more. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. New Wikipedia commercial:

Troubled by spam?"

"See Ronz - "da Man"!"

LOL ;) — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 01:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright and assumptions

Ronz, I am interested in hearing your opinion regarding the example I cited at Talk:Bates method. Why should we assume adherence to copyright on the part of Stephen Barrett, but not Meir Schneider? Or should we de-link Barrett's reproduction of Pollack's chapter from the references? PSWG1920 (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect consensus. ~~If you have problems with other articles, the talk pages for those articles are the appropriate place for those discussions.~~ --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the talk page discussion I linked to, you'll see that the example I cited is from the Bates method article! PSWG1920 (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. As I already pointed out, "If you want to discuss basic copyright laws in order to make exceptions for WP:ELNEVER, then continue the discussions there. If you want to understand basic copyright laws and their application to more general situations, do so on the appropriate policy talk page. If you just want to learn about basic copyright laws, read the appropriate policy and article pages, then ask questions on the appropriate policy talk page." --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

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

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

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

Sorry, Ronz answered on my talkpage

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

List of PDF software - again

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Faerie Path

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wolfberry

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

more wp:rs questions.

http://measuringworth.com/

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

Badagnani RFC

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

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

Mike Martin (Politician)

Ronz,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FYI: [9]

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

Badagnani RFC (again)

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

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

Bully stick

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

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

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

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

3D CAPTCHA addition to CAPTCHA article

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

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

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

Liqueurs

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

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

Availablity for Mediation on TM article

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

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

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

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

From Viriditas' talk page

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

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

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

I'm always willing to chat about other strategies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yummy spam

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal Attacks

I think anyone would agree with the exception of you and Kelapstick that there have been no "personal attacks" made towards you in any way. Just don't agree with your over aggressive editing style and superior approach to editing wiki. Maybe it's something you should consider...

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_hack

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_hack

[1]

@@ Line 1,223: / Line 1,223: @@
 :::I thought you would delete it as being promotional for canned meat!  Keep up the good work.--[[User:Kelapstick|kelapstick]] ([[User talk:Kelapstick|talk]]) 16:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 ::::Maybe I should start investigations at [[WP:COIN]] and [[WP:RSPAM]]? ;^)  The humor is appreciated! --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz#top|talk]]) 16:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
+== Personal Attacks  ==
+I think anyone would agree with the exception of you and Kelapstick that there have been no "personal attacks" made towards you in any way.  Just don't agree with your over aggressive editing style and superior approach to editing wiki.  Maybe it's something you should consider...

Revision as of 01:01, 31 March 2009

Linux.com

Link in Domain hack

Woods results removal.

RfArb on you

Talkback

Hi

Conflict of Interest Message

Woodhead Publishing Limited

Telepresence issues

DVE Telepresence

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

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

Adding links to posts.

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

Please review

GridGain

question

wow

How to semi-protect pages

User talk page mixup?

Re: Seeyou

Sea of Love

AFD

AfD nomination of Jake and Amir

Promotional post...

"advertisment"

Seasons Greetings

Thanks for the Bikini link fix

MedCab

Help Please !

Computer prank comebacks

Conversation on http use

Your report at AN3

Bates method dispute

comparison of email programs

Hey just popping in

Hi (2)

Chatterbots page

Edit for "Naveen Jain" wiki page

Theory of Constraints

Doh

Thanks, and quick question.

Understanding conflict of interest - Peanut Allergy article

follow-up on the Peanut Allergy page

my contributino to the peanut allergy situation

link removed from Performance Analysis

Suggested edit for Peanut Allergy page

External links

Books and articles

Sorry

rewrite: MOND Tech.

Peanut Allergy article, external links

Third opinion

Thanks

Checkuser

COI

WP:ANI report made concerning you

ref advantages

Online chat quotes

SPAM?

Spamming

Myopia Myth suggestions you made

Question on Schneider links

Life Extension Foundation edits

Notepadpage and links related to my-health-software.com

Thanks Ronz

Dan Schneider links

AfD nomination of FreeMind

James Joyce

Socks

Friendly advice

Sent email

Kinesis Myofascial Integration ‎

Recreating wiki page

Selfpub removal, Steven M. Greer

CAPTCHA section removal

Tagging

More about the Peanut Allergy article process

Link removal - Imposition