Jump to content

User talk:Hipal: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Narwhal2 (talk | contribs)
95 edits
Line 53: Line 53:
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse bottom}}
</div><!--Template:Archivebox ends-->
</div><!--Template:Archivebox ends-->


==Out of control editors==

You said:
''Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users.''


Sorry, I cannot comment on content, because [[Dougweller]] follows me around Wiki and simply deletes everything I add.

I improved the [[Deva Victrix]] page by adding a separate section for the elliptical building, as this is perhaps the most interesting building on the site. I also added a new section for the Market Hall inscription. And then along comes the mighty Dougweller and deletes the whole lot. Had Dougweller even heard of the Deva fortress before now? So on what basis did he delete it all? Did he even bother to read the update?

[[User:Narwhal2|Narwhal2]] ([[User talk:Narwhal2|talk]]) 20:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
<br />
<br /><br />



==Changed meaning==
==Changed meaning==

Revision as of 20:20, 8 October 2010

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





Archive

Archives


Out of control editors

You said: Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users.


Sorry, I cannot comment on content, because Dougweller follows me around Wiki and simply deletes everything I add.

I improved the Deva Victrix page by adding a separate section for the elliptical building, as this is perhaps the most interesting building on the site. I also added a new section for the Market Hall inscription. And then along comes the mighty Dougweller and deletes the whole lot. Had Dougweller even heard of the Deva fortress before now? So on what basis did he delete it all? Did he even bother to read the update?

Narwhal2 (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Changed meaning

Hi Ronz. Can you point out what meaning was changed causing you to revert here [1]. I would have preferred it if you had left the improvements I made and fixed the part you object to. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acclaimed Bosnian Pyramids

I edited this article with falsifiable statements. You told me to visit the referenses. 

Its a list of people and i have read all their aviable literature. Please do so yourself.

I dont care if there are pyramids under those hills. Dont mess up this article because you believe some authorothy. 

 You are claiming this to be a hoax.

Even if Osmangic is wrong its no evidence (or references to info about) this being a hoax. When you revert something wrong to something even worse isnt that also vandalism? 

I will edit this again as wikipedias specific instructions describe.

Please check back your own statements. Many of those archeologist denying further excavations havent even been there. They say osmangic crew are destroying evidence from medieval times when they have no proximity to Osmangics excavations.

You are responsible for what it says now. Can you honestly say it is nothing but the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.164.135 (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand you. --Ronz (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Poor sources in BLPs?

Please see WP:SCIRS and join the discussion on the talk page. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet! Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean it as an attack on you.

I am attacking the bias. This page is clearly biased. It declares that ALL health claims have been examined and dismissed and that is not true. If it were true, then why is there an article in the guardian.co.uk from 2009 that says: "Food Standards Agency is calling for volunteers to help test claims that the artificial sweetener aspartame, used in more than 4,000 products, causes illnesses"? If all claims have been dismissed, then there is no reason for further investigation, is there? I ask these questions, and am met with dismissive comments like "nonsense". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealthcupcake (talk • contribs) 23:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. It would be helpful if you rewrote your comment to reflect what you intended. --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EMDR

Would you please explain this edit in more detail? I do not understand what you feel the article needs. Thank you. Wtf hello (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a guideline I've seen editors use about limiting the number of citations for a single statement or fact. After trying every search I can think of, I've given up trying to find this guideline. If you find it, I'd like to reword it so it can be found easier.
I made a mental note of it because it's a good way to identify a number of problems. If there are a large number of references because they are all examples (or poor sources), then there could be WP:OR or WP:NPOV problems. If there are a large number of references, but one or more are independent, reliable, secondary sources, then the rest are probably unnecessary. --Ronz (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have read something similar: about not overloading a page with similar citations for the same piece of material (unless it is particularly suspect). I do want to improve this article. Wtf hello (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I wanted to inform you that I have posted this item. ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. --Ronz (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jain's Notability reverting

I see you have reverted my template yet again, despite the fact that others appear to feel the same way about the subject.

Please be advised that according to WP:EW I saw fit to report you (here), in regards to your reversion of any attempt to include a notability dispute template.

I'm going to reinstate the template as it is valid according to several reasons stated in the talk page and I ask you to please not revert it (as has been asked of you before), until an agreement can be reached.

thank you in advance, ~ Dr. Lords (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I'll be removing it again since no one has provided further arguments, nor responded to mine. Perhaps you should try other dispute resolution methods instead? --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Hipal. You have new messages at Hasteur's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: PhpGedView

Salient facts: main developers have left - reference:forum Those developers have created a fork. It will be issued in 2 weeks as Webtrees - reference: website Development of PGV has stalled- reference:forum

PGV users would appreciate knowing what has occurred, where to head to. The original wiki edit was within guidelines, IMHO. It is now horrible English. Pfblair (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I think we can work this out if the other editor involved will slow down and let us work together. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, I see what's going on here. Looks like at about 00:15z today we were both looking and talking at the same time.

  1. I saw your undo of 00:11z a few minutes after you made it, looked at the talk page with nothing written, so I assumed (grrrrr, stupid me) that you had done an undo without discussion.
  2. Seconds after I looked at the talk page you finished writing on the talk page (sorry, but I hate when people just give a couple of links)
  3. Then you looked at the main article again and went WTF, why is Bgwhite being an idiot and assumed (which everybody, me and my dog would have made the same assumption) I was warring.

I apologize for being an idiot and assuming you were undoing without discussion. I violated my first rule... back off, calm down and look again when I'm level headed. Bgwhite (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I should have been more clear with my initial comment. Water under the bridge... --Ronz (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag removal

In reviewing the article history at EMDR, I see numerous red-linked users removing that tag; has an SPI/CU been done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm aware. I've tried to avoid addressing the COI and meatpuppetry problems, focusing on fixing the article instead. From what little I've looked into it, they are all student researchers specializing in EMDR that know each other. I don't believe any of them have given a full disclosure of their identities, but it's easy to figure them out. I'm at a loss at what step to take next to stop their continuing disruptions of the article. --Ronz (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I don't know blocking policy that well, but I think for the purposes of SPI, meatpuppetry is the same as sockpuppetry-- I could be wrong. Should I ask someone to look in here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Be my guest. --Ronz (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the COI issue, or where is it explained, so I can have the whole history in one place? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Found this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are accusations in the talk page history. I don't know what if any follow-up was done.
Sschubert gave a brief disclosure here, after it became obvious to me who she is.
Geraldzeng's identity is just as obvious to me, but he's not responded to the COI note I left for him.
Zcwl isn't so obvious, so I haven't given him a COI note yet.
I had thought there's at least one more, but wasn't able to find it when I looked last. --Ronz (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I see-- Google reveals all. :) A good case for meatpuppetry and recruiting. But I'm not sure if they should be warned or if an SPI is best. I'll ask someone to look in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the talk archive was created by moving the page, placing the past history here --Ronz (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Sschubert needs to either be blocked or given a final warning by an uninvolved admin for her repeated removal of the tags. It would probably help that Geraldzeng be warned by the same admin. --Ronz (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now reviewed article and talk, and don't see any other registered editors editing in concert, but what about IPs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I can be of much help with this. I chose not to look into the COI problems, nor how the article came to be the mess that it is. I thought it would be easy to get everyone to agree that MEDRS and NPOV aren't being met, and that following MEDRS would probably fix all the problems. --Ronz (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps a CU is in order, to reveal which of the IPs may also be socks/meatpuppets. When you're up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to drain the swamp ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What Aussie ip's are there? --Ronz (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
124.169.99.245 (talk · contribs) Perth - edit-warring
143.238.208.105 (talk · contribs) Perth - unrelated spamming
Those are the only two in the past two years. --Ronz (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch on the Murdoch University ip! Zcwl and Sschubert shared an ip, or Sschubert is comfortable editing Zcwl's comments. --Ronz (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that reveals that Zcwl is also likely one of those on the list of the students that Google coughs up. Possibly enough here to block the University. I queried Risker. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a user talk post referencing PTSD that brought this article to my attention; see follow-up to your Fringe noticeboard query here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

talkpage

Hi, Ronz, just a note that I think the user has made it clear that they would prefer you didn't post on their talkpage apart from any official wikipedia business. If you had understood this then please excuse me. Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope she'll take your advise on getting a mentor. --Ronz (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ronz. She blanked her talkpage and retired.Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help on this.
We need some sort of warnings for new editors to stay away from articles like Naveen Jain . Articles with such long-running disputes are not a place to learn how Wikipedia normally works. --Ronz (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there, lets see if she returns. You would think someone with ten edits would be prepared to take some advice from someone with tens of thousands of edits and years of experience..ow well. No worries, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What happened?

Ronz we were getting along so well -- and then now it seems you are intractable on any edits I make. If you can't explain specifically what you are objecting to, how can we come to a resolution? I can't work through this on my own. Please add more detail on the discussion page. Surely you don't object to every single change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.255.98 (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"now it seems you are intractable on any edits I make" I have no idea what you're talking about. You haven't edited the article since 9 Aug. --Ronz (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University Canada West

Ronz,

I'm a current student of University Canada West and it seemed that there are errors there such as "unaccredited". It seems so biased. The article has a lot of negative and inventive stories in it. AUCC is a membership of universities in Canada. Although UCAN is not a member, it does'nt mean they were not approved, I mean c'mon! The article seemed vandalized by someone who has a personal vendetta to the school. It's all negativity. They are a member of the Association of American Colleges and Universities, which I think is sufficient enough to be credible. Are you Canadian?

Floyd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floyd0303 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding to my comments on your talk page. If you'll look at the article talk page, you'll see that we are discussing these matters in depth. Please join the discussions there. --Ronz (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Inventory management software page

Ronz,

Thank you so much for your comments. I apologize for not getting the best links for the Inventory management software article. I'll do my best to go back and find better ones that will meet Wikipedia's criteria. Thanks for your help.

Sincerely,

Robert Lockard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertlo9 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding to my comments. I've taken a few steps to get others' help. --Ronz (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome. I just went through and changed a bunch of the links that I think might have been considered questionable. Let me know if the new ones are better and if there are other ones I should look into changing. Thanks! --Robertlo9 (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you're finding such references easily. I wasn't sure about wisegeek.com, but I agree that it's appropriate. Thanks for finding it! --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good. Yes, I thought the wisegeek.com link had good content. Hopefully it's okay for Wikipedia. I'll keep an eye out for suggestions people make to improve the Wikipedia page. --Robertlo9 (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wisegeek is doing a good job of establishing a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" for itself as required by WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A question: Why was this page changed back?

Saluations Ronz,

I happened to be researching Vancouver Island universities today, and I saw that the University Canada West page is in dire state of disarray. Upon reading comments in the "Criticisms" section, I noticed they seemed to be quite biased against the university. There were many comments that seemed to show insecurities, if you will, about private universities in general, and they did not pertain to this university specifically. After a bit of research, I came across a obvious bias on behalf of CUFA/BC: this organization is government-education leaning and pro-research university. I felt that many claims made in this section were outright defamatory. It is as though the writers are trying to ensure that this school looks sub-par when there is very little, if any, indication that it definitely is. I believe that there are insufficient claims to substantiate the picture that is painted here. It actually was what encouraged me to finally become a member of Wikipedia and help to start setting the records straight. In the name of truth and neutrality, I am curious to know why you have decided to change this page back to its original state. If I am to at least bring balance to this page, how would you suggest I tackle it?

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to hearing from you, Questforneutrality —Preceding unsigned comment added by Questforneutrality (talk • contribs) 02:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll look at the article talk page, you'll see that we've have had many discussions on how this topic. I'm happy to bring you up to speed on the discussions and the related Wikipedia policies and guidelines. However, I strongly advise that new editors such as yourself find less controversial topics to edit first, where you can learn your way around Wikipedia without putting yourself into a long-running dispute.
That said, a short answer to your questions that your edit appeared to contain mostly original research. --Ronz (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outsourcing USA

Hello Ronz, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdebbad (talk • contribs) 22:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need some links related to the topic, outsourcing to USA. By definition, outsourcing does not mean off shoring per Wikipedia. I don't know of any other website that focuses on outsourcing than www.outsource.fm/about

Being an FMarion, I may be more enthusiastic about adding that link, however, I think it is appropriate.

All freelance websites like odesk, freelancer.com, elance all cater to outsourcing to "outside the USA". Outsource.fm is outsourcing to university students in the USA. To be honest, I am hard pressed to find an alternative to the link I suggest. Please feel free to replace the link, but we sure need to add a link that caters to the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdebbad (talk • contribs) 22:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't need such links per WP:SPAM and WP:NOTLINK. If you continue to add such links, I'll request that you be blocked. --Ronz (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outsourcing

Thanks Ronz, I did not know who I was talking to, someone with 46,470 edits. Hats off to you Ronz. Nice talking to you. Moving forward, I will try to contribute more in line with what you are doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdebbad (talk • contribs) 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring

Do not refactor my comments again. You have been in dispute with me in the past, and perhaps you don't like me, but you have no business mucking about with what I have ot say. If you object to any of my comments feel free to bring them up at the appropriate noticeboard (incivility removed --Ronz (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)) Thanks. Freakshownerd (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute nonsense. I'm requesting you be blocked for repeated personal attacks and edit-warring. --Ronz (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I was writing up a report requesting you be blocked, you were blocked. I've copied the diffs that I started collecting to your talk page. There are many more that could be provided. --Ronz (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

inserting references in an edit

Hello, Ronz. This is the first time I have tried editing a Wikipedia page. I read through the FAQs but did not find an answer to my question, which is this: I inserted a sentence and tried to add a reference to a paper published by Malcolmson. There is already a citation by this author on the same page. The software wants to assign my citation to the previous entry. The problem with this approach is that the first Malcolmson citation is a full-length research paper and my second entry by the same first author is a short research item published as a letter to the editor. The two items are separate publications. How do I enter my reference so that it shows as a separate entry at the bottom of the page? Many thanks for you help in this matter. FlaxInfo (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Someone should be able to help if you ask at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Felden

Hi Ronz, Just wondering what was wrong with all the Feldenkrais Method external links. They looked ok to me re WP:EL. Please advise. Thanks. Spanglej (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me about it. I should have left a note given the history. I'll do so now. --Ronz (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

News regarding the Naveen Jain page

Hi Ronz, I had created an AfD for the Jain article (as was suggested bye several other more knowledged users then me). and also created an event page that (I think) better covers and represent the the InfoSpace event as well as Jain's involvement in it here (I would really appreciate any feedback you might have for me in that regard as this is my biggest edit so far on the wiki, and despite our disagreement in regard to the Jain page, I respect your vastly bigger experience in such things). P.S. I'm sorry for taking so long in commenting on the Jain talk page (I had internet problems at work, were I connect from.) --Nightseeder (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. The new article needs to be abridged. Maybe the AfD will attract some help. --Ronz (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

flax article: stability of ground flax

Hello, Ronz. This is an interesting process. If I understood your message to me, you added back in the statement that "ground flax goes rancid within one week when stored at room temperature" because you perceived a conflict of interest related to my inserted comments and wished to provide a balanced view. I have two concerns with this approach: (1) the text may confuse readers - How can flax go rancid within one week of storage at room temperature (the sentence added back in) while also being stable for 9 months at room temperature or for 20 months at ambient temperature (the sentence I inserted)? - and (2) the statement about flax rancidity is incorrect, by which I mean, it is not based on scientific evidence. I realize part of your concern arises from my choosing a sign-in name that looks suspicious. I admit to being biased in the sense that I am an expert on flax nutrition. I have a PhD in nutrition and have been writing about flax for nearly 20 years. I was not paid to insert text into the Wikipedia page. Rather, this factual error on the storage stability of ground flax was brought to my attention by a registered dietitian who is familiar with flax nutrition.

If you will allow me to clarify: The paper by Alpers and Sawyer-Morse (ref. 7 in the current version, I believe) was a study of the quality of banana nut muffins and oatmeal cookies made with ground flax. The main study finding was that the sensory ratings and acceptability of these flax-containing products were as good as or better than a control muffin made without flax. Toward the end of their paper," Alpers and Sawyer-Morse do make the statement about ground flax becoming rancid within 1 week of storage at room temperature. However, this statement is not referenced by the authors, so it is impossible to know the source of the data that support their claim. In addition, this statement is not related to their study findings. In other words, their study was not designed to test the storage stability of ground flax -- it was designed to test the sensory quality of muffins and cookies made with flax. Moreover, at the time Alpers published their paper in 1996, one formal study of ground flax stability had been published by Chen et al. in 1994, but was not cited. Presumably, Alpers and Sawyer-Morse were not aware of the Chen study when they submitted their paper for publication.

Three studies on the storage stability of ground flax have been published. The study by Chen et al. found that "long-term storage of whole or ground flax or lipid extracts showed that all three preparations were stable at room temperature for 280 days [roughly 9 months] with 12 hour light/dark cycles." Two other papers on this topic were published by Malcolmson and coworkers, one in 2000 and one in 2001. The 2000 paper, published in JAOCS (Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society), found that samples of ground flax stored for 128 days (4 months) at room temperature did not show significant increases in peroxide values (a measure of oxidation that contributes to rancidity), nor were there any detectable differences in the odor of stored samples or in the flavor of breads cooked with stored samples. This statement is the basis for concluding that ground flax can be stored at room temperature for roughly 4 months without a loss in quality. The 2001 paper was also published in JAOCS. The authors reported that peroxide levels were "very low" in samples of ground flax stored for up to 20 months at ambient temperature. (NOTE: I am not a coauthor on any of these research papers.)

In summary, three research studies support the statement that ground flax can be stored at room temperature for 4 months with no significant loss in quality. To my knowledge, there are no studies suggesting that ground flax goes rancid within one week when stored at room temperature. Thus, I would appreciate your revisiting your decision, as I believe the current text is not based on scientific evidence and may mislead or confuse readers. Many thanks. I do realize that yours is not an easy job. Best wishes, FlaxInfo (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left you the coi message because of your username. It has nothing to do with anything else.
As for the rest, it should be brought to the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability Pages

Hi Ronz,

Why did remove the following three external links:

Regards,

ASQ-Reliability-Div —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASQ-Reliability-Div (talk • contribs) 00:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ronz,

The links I added to reliability related topics were/are a service to the reliability enigeering community. Although I am affilitated with the American Society for Quality and some other Reliability functions the links are meant as an awarness to interested persons, and in no way I have any conflict of interst. I do not benfit from these links but make readers aware of sources of knowledge.

What do you think?

Regards,

ASQ-Reliabiltiy-Div —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASQ-Reliability-Div (talk • contribs) 02:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz,

The links I added to reliability related topics were/are a service to the reliability enigeering community. Although I am affilitated with the American Society for Quality and some other Reliability functions the links are meant as awarness to interested persons, and in no way I have any conflict of interst. It is like you placing a link to the Univ of Notre Dame on a page related to economics - you do not benfit but make readers aware of a source of knowledge.

What do you think?

Regards,

ASQ-Reliabiltiy-Div; 2010-08-26 ASQ-Reliability-Div (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability theory

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Funandtrvl#Relaibility Pages. Funandtrvl (talk) 02:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

Responded there. --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Savoy

why the edit?

I am currently going through his sources, he is NOT in the book THE GAME, he is also not in Neil Strauss's article for the New York Times. Coven13

Welcome to Wikipedia. As a new editor that's made no other contributions at the time other than to participate in an AfD discussion, your proposals to delete four related articles seemed a bit hurried. If you think they deserve deletion without any prior discussion on the matter, start AfDs for them. Articles that have prior AfDs should always have some discussion prior to any proposed deletion, which will most likely be refused and then referred to AfD as I've done. --Ronz (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.45.58 (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. You should be aware that this IP address is a generic comcast address. I don't know who had it back in November 2009 but it is pointless leaving messages for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.45.58 (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. The message is for the benefit of other editors as much as it is for anyone using the ip. --Ronz (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request correction of misinformation posted - topic Vision Therapy

The topic of Vision Therapy has had an accurate description until August 10, 2010 when Suomi Finland inserted content that is blatantly false. The user inserted a reference to vision therapy as being "controversial" and made false statements indicating that vision therapy is quackery. Vision therapy, as described in the original document is an important and necessary treatment that has been proven effective through prospective, multicenter, doubleblind research most recently conducted through the National Eye Institute and published in Archives of Ophthalmology October 2008.

As one of the country's leading experts in this field, I was notified by another colleague of this change in the Wikipedia description of vision therapy and asked if I could determine how to correct the false entry. I signed in and saw that I could make the correction which I thought resolved the issue until I saw that my edit was reverted back. It appears as though I did not follow a certain protocol for making edits. To provide more evidence please refer to the following link to see the facts about vision therapy. http://www.visionfactsandfallacies.com/index.html

Please let me know if this is not sufficient information to correct the problem with the false content entry made by Suomi Finland.

Dan L. Fortenbacher, O.D., FCOVD Clinical Professor Michigan College of Optometry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drvision (talk • contribs) 05:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I don't believe visionfactsandfallacies.com is a reliable source. I certainly doesn't provide WP:MEDRS support for their many claims. Maybe they're just presenting their information poorly, but we cannot do so for the article. Please look over WP:MEDRS and let's start discussing this on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your follow-up. I am happy to provide more details regarding the removal of the content added by Suomi Finland. The link to the website was intended to provide a quick and easy reference. However, yes that source is merely intended for the lay public. To provide you with scientific papers to show that vision therapy is not, as posted by Suomi Finland, controversial or quackery, please refer to the following papers: In Pub Med: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19668097 http://convergenceinsufficiency.net/uploads/CITT_Arch_2008.pdf http://www.convergenceinsufficiency.net/uploads/CI_Tx_of_CI_Current_Perspective_OVS_2009.pdf As I have reviewed the Wikipedia definition of vision therapy there is some good content and some areas that need further distinction between what are considered to be unproven methods, such as the Bates Method and the proven treatment, office based vision therapy. The standard of care and best practice (proven through research) for binocular, accommodative, oculomotor dysfunction and visual information processing deficits of visual system is office-based vision therapy. The problem with the insertion by Suomi Finland, using the terminology of "controversial" and "quackery" is that it used language that infers that the entire practice of vision therapy is unproven or should be suspect. This did a huge disservice to those patients with vision problems that require vision therapy who locate the Wikipedia information about vision therapy because it could misinform the patient and could possibly result in a person who needs care being discouraged from seeking a doctor prescribed plan for vision therapy. If there is a need for a reliable source for further clarification, may I suggest the College of Optometrists in Vision Development http://www.covd.org as this organization represents the international body who Board Certifies doctors in vision therapy.

Thanks again for your help on this matter, Dan L. Fortenbacher, O.D.,FCOVD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drvision (talk • contribs) 23:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage vandalism

Hey Ronz, I notice your user page has some extensive anonymous vandalism in the past. Nothing recent, but if you want me to put an indef semi-protect on your userpage, let me know. Mine has been protected that way for years. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. Probably a good idea. No real downside that I see when I have a leave-me-a-message link at the top. --Ronz (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physical Therapy

Ithink you have misapplied the WP policies you have cited or have not read the citations fully. Feel free to add to the talk page on the Physical therapy article if you continue to disagree. But please be more specific in your objections. DoctorDW (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see there's a discussion on the article talk. I'll respond there. --Ronz (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the page protection. --Ronz (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments made regarding this at Wikipedia_talk:Do_not_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point#Regarding_page_protection_and_edit_warring Triona (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did u remove the following text?

'Nevertheless, there are numerous scientific studies that suggest there is a basis for concern that continuous or frequent long-term exposure to WiFi electromagnetic fields (EMFs) could have adverse health effects.[1] A number of schools and universities have limited wireless connectivity based on the “precautionary principle” and opted for fiber-optic network. An example of such institutions is Lakehead University [2]'

esp as it had links? (personal comment removed --Ronz (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

jalusbrian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalusbrian (talk • contribs) 03:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already left you a note. You didn't give references. Perhaps you meant to and forgot? --Ronz (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that page had references.Also why is there no reference to the work of prof Olle Johannson??? A leadig figure in this subject. see the list i sent to you...readily available online... Jalusbrian (talk) 03:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why has none of this been added to the wiki page?

1. http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20070518_wifi_panorama.asp 2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/6683969.stm 3. any of the published work of Olle Johannson,whose name doesnt even appear! 4. http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/studies.asp

Its clear that wiki page has been edited to promote the bogus idea that wifi is safe...That suggests eiter industry moles or techofiles...which are you?

jalusbrian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalusbrian (talk • contribs) 03:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should be discussed on the article talk page so others can more easily join in the discussion. I probably won't have time to respond until late today or early tomorrow. --Ronz (talk) 03:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the article Chepakovich valuation model

Ronz,
The model (though not referenced as the Chepakovich valuation model, but with identification of Alexander Chepakovich as it author) is discussed in the following references:
Peter J. Sander, Janet Haley, Value Investing For Dummies, 2008, ISBN 9780470232224, p. 213.
Amine Bouchentouf, Brian Dolan, Joe Duarte, Mark Galant, Ann C. Logue, Paul Mladjenovic, Kerry Pechter, Barbara Rockefeller, Peter J. Sander, Russell Wild, High-Powered Investing All-In-One For Dummies, 2008, ISBN 9780470186268, pp. 596-597.
Best regards,
Alexander —Preceding unsigned comment added by Investor123 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Open source health software

Hi you've deleted a number of entries from here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open_source_healthcare_software can you explain why? A few I've spot-checked seem like valid entries. thanks--Karl.brown (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I didn't explain other than mention WP:WTAF in an edit summary. I'm following up on other editors' work on removing the non-notable entries. --Ronz (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but as someone who works in the field, some of those you removed were indeed notable (like Vista). What is your criteria? I think a redlink is not sufficient (better to just remove the redlink, and keep the link out). This page is a very valuable source of info for me on many of the important FOSS health projects.--Karl.brown (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's notable, then start an article on it. I'll help. --Ronz (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shoemaking

I am a master shoemaker doesn't it count to be a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcellHUN (talk • contribs) 20:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While we need experts like yourself to help improve Wikipedia, information in articles needs to be verifiable from published sources. You obviously have valuable knowledge. It's just a matter of finding sources to support the information you add and change. You can get help at Editor assistance/Requests or by asking on the article talk page at Talk:Shoemaking. --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of open source healthcare software

Hi Ronz,

Re my revision 382333494, sorry about that! First wikipedia edit ever for me. Could you suggest some guidelines for me to read?

Thank you in advance

Medinfocogsci (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not an Administrator

Thanks for your recent feedback about work I was doing on a page.

I notice the "warning" on the top of your messages telling me that you are not an "Administrator".

Please tell me what your role is.

Thank you. --Stephen Baggaley 01:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairfieldstation (talk • contribs)

I do a lot of editing, mostly article policing and maintenance. I have the not-an-admin notice at the top too keep the requests for help down and make it clear that I don't block editors or take other administrator-only actions.
If you need any help with Wikipedia, I can at least point you in the right direction. --Ronz (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Open source medical and the FreeMedForms project

Hi Ronz. I don't really understand why you removed the FreeMedForms and FreeDiams projects from List_of_open_source_healthcare_software. Both are medical software, open source and supported by a community of devs and medical doctors. Sources can be found on the Google code server or from its SVN. All apps from the FreeMedForms project are released in BSD License (this should change to GPL3 soon). For your information, FreeDiams is fully supported by the Debian-Med team. The FreeMedForms project is supported by OpenSuse Medical and (soon to be) by Fedora Medical. You can find lots of informations on the main web site; [the license page can be read from here]

If I missed something, please fell free to contact me on our mailing list.

Eric Maeker, MD (France)
Creator and administrator of the FreeMedForms project.

--88.160.29.72 (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a wikipedia article on FreeMedForms and added the internal link on the page.

--Eric Maeker, MD (talk) 10:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been a bit premature to do so. You should work fast to find independent, reliable sources demonstrating that it is notable, before the article is deleted. I did a quick search and found nothing. --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no ideas on how to find independent sources... for a free open source software... Can you help me ? --Eric Maeker, MD (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this is enough ?
French link 1
MedFloss
OpenSuse Medical
link 4
FreeDiams on DebianMed
French link 2 (FreeDiams reviewed by a french doctor)
--Eric Maeker, MD (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think those will be enough. I expect we'll hear if others agree fairly shortly.
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL doesn't bring up anything very helpful. You could try WP:EAR to see if other editors might have suggestions.
I'd suggest finding a non-Wikipedia location to host a comprehensive list of software, making sure that it would fit Wikipedia's WP:EL guidelines for inclusion to List of open source healthcare software . If FreeMedForms is deleted, you could write a new version once there are references showing FreeMedForms is notable.
I wish I could offer you a better solution. --Ronz (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help regarding pages belonging to my people

Thanks for your response.

I would love to have some advice as I strongly believe that this issue will not be solved by just me alone. My people live in extreme poverty and in continuous wars, I belong from the villages and understand what is right and wrong and can also understand the authentication of available sources online. I have been working on this page but the one admin keeps bringing it to previous page. I can also provide authentic information about my birthplace. And also I am a full time student and also work but still I have committed myself to information but it is becoming very difficult for me to catch with the pressure of admins or perhaps high chances of government sponsored admins as spreading misinformation is very common in that region. Please kindly consider helping me for the sake of knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalochMedia (talk • contribs) 00:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Looks like you've run some difficulties with your first edits on Wikipedia. I'm aware of some of the problems with Baloch people, though I don't recall looking extensively into them.
I suggest taking your time to understand the comments and advice you've been given on your talk page and here. As suggested, make smaller edits with descriptive edit summaries. If you're in a rush to continue what you've started, explain the situation more clearly (with specifics) on the article talk page and provide independent, reliable sources. I'd start with a few inaccuracies that are clear from highly reputable sources (major news sources or notable experts). --Ronz (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot. Can you please for a moment have a look on talk of Baloch people and what I wrote on it if possible. My sources may not be other web sources but the links to other pages within wikipedia confirms what I say. It is very difficult to find information on the web about my people since they are largely deprived of these facilities. I still have family living there and I understand everything, But then I cant fight different sources alone. The page Baloch people has also led me to contribute on other pages with which I had no conflict because what I added was correct and understood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalochMedia (talk • contribs) 01:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dowsing is a bit of a mess

Having seen your June comment on the talk page, I just wanted to say I have looked over that article and found it quite heavy on the pro-dowsing side. The citations can appear humorous at times, e.g., the Einstein quote, about which I know a little bit. Einstein supported the debunking of this which can be consulted if you go to Michel Eugène Chevreul.

The great chemist Chevreul debunked diving rods early in the 19th century, and yet the section on debunking is a pathetic little paragraph. Einstein was referring to that work by Chevreul. Also, I removed from the article an unverified reference to Martin Luther's condemnation of the dowsing rod as being "against the first commandment": one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Hope I helped, because I see people keep pecking at that article but no one goes near the talk page. That is pandemic; no wonder articles never get done around here.

Well, thanks and sorry I made this so long.76.195.86.155 (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I hope you'll consider editing Wikipedia more. --Ronz (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ronz

Hello Ronz, Zynthosdruid here. I was wondering why you reverted my edit on the Femininity article on September 16. If I failed to follow some rule or guideline of Wikipedia, please inform me of this and I will gladly comply with it in the future. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Zynthosdruid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zynthosdruid (talk • contribs) 23:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk page --Ronz (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tea party movement flags

I saw your edit summaries. Maybe we should have a flag section that explains both flags and mentions when they were first used, etc. I know the Second Revolution flag was prominent during Scott Brown's campaign. He wasn't a tea party candidate but the Tea Party Patriots of Boston supported him.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure what to do with it, especially after reading the one reference. With more good sources, the symbol section could be expanded. --Ronz (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll Google up some articles. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pediatricfeeding.spam

Definitely a problem, with at least some insertions going back even to 2007 if various link-search tools are to be believed. Might be time for WP:WPSPAM or WP:BLACKLIST. DMacks (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm writing up a detailed report. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Report at WP:AN3. Might have been better starting it at WP:SPI.
I think the link might be useful in some poorly-referenced articles. I initially left it in Feeding tube because of the sources.
First, I'd like to get the disruptive editing to stop, with another block if need be. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logic

Why don't you at least give logic to what you are doing........ stop taking out useful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.89.244 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expect you'll be blocked soon. If not, you'll need to address the problems identified on your talk page and in the AN3 report. --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're now blocked. You're still able to edit your talk page. It would be helpful if you discussed the situation there. --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

polymer clay

Yes, I am new to Wikipedia...I only found out yesterday I was referenced in the article on polymer clay. And yes, in my ignorance of the rules I added a link to my website because others had kindly listed me in the article as a museum "recognized" polymer clay artist and I have a gallery of work spanning decades and displaying the evolution of polymer clay techniques that can be viewed on my website. So correct my mistake, and thank you for doing so! But, in my opinion, you went overboard when you deleted the whole paragraph naming me and similarly recognized peers who developed this form of art. (This is a rare thing: an entirely new form of fine art developed in modern times, with the pioneers still hard at work. Think about that.) Instead of simply deleting my added link, you deleted the entire paragraph of context (definitely not authored or posted by me yesterday) which was unnecessary:

"Polymer art jewelry is now part of the permanent collections of the Museum of Art and Design in New York, the Museum of FIne Arts in Boston, the Philadelphia Museum of Art, the Racine Museum, and others. A partial list of these recognized artists includes Kathleen Dustin, Steven Ford and David Forlano (who work together) Tory Hughes, and Elise Winters. Early artists' names and careers, as well as a history of the development of polymer clay as a legitimate artists' medium can be found at Polymer Art Archive, a scholarly on-line journal and professional curatorial resource for the field, begun by Winters."

Whoever wrote that paragraph was being accurate and appropriate. I feel terrible that my Wikipedia beginner's mistake has led you to detract materially from someone else's appropriate article about the history of this important new medium. Please restore that paragraph to the Wikipedia article on polymer clay.

Thank you, Kathleen Dustin, MFA aka Pursemakerk469 Pursemaker469 (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that my editing upset you so. Without independent, reliable sources, the information could be removed at any time. Would you be interested in helping find references for the information? I've done a few, cursory searches and didn't find anything promising. Do you know of any in-depth press, maybe on shows or exhibits? --Ronz (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some selected bibliographical references for your consideration: 

"The Use of Polyform in Bead-Making," Kathleen Dustin. Ornament, Spring 1988 (Vol. II, no. 3), pp. 16-19.

"Kathleen Dustin: The Journey Within," (cover article) Carolyn Benesh. Ornament, Summer 1997.

"17th Annual Smithsonian Craft Show," promotional poster and cover image of program, 1999. 

"Kathleen Dustin: A Polymer Clay Pioneer," J. Tol Broome, Jr. The Crafts Report, April 2000, pp. 20-23.

Consider also that polymer clay pioneer Kathleen Dustin was profiled in "The Timeless Art of Crafts: The Smithsonian Craft Show 2000," by Diane M. Bolz, Smithsonian, May 2000, pp. 86-96.

Also: Excerpt from the "Artist Profile" by Belinda Clanton, from the Crafts at the Castle 2003 Program (Boston, Mass), p. 18: "Kathleen Dustin is a pioneer and one of the leading authorities in the medium of polymer clay or polyvinyl chloride, better known in the industry as PVC. She taught the first workshop [in the U.S.] on polymer clay for jewelry making and authored the first article for Ornament magazine singing its praises of versatility. With Kathleen´s infectious enthusiasm, and a growing number of artists working with the medium, polymer clay is fast becoming more and more popular. Kathleen has been working with the medium for the past 18 years...."

Many other press articles are available, both from the wearable arts trade and daily press, such as the Houston Chronicle, National Public Radio and newspapers and magazines from Paris, Helsinki, London, Kiev, Istanbul, and Moscow. For a complete list, see the Publications page of www.kathleendustin.com .

Thank you. Pursemaker469 (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Let's get these to the article talk page, where others can join the discussion more easily.
Also, you may not have noticed, but I had recommended you look over WP:COI before you contacted me. It definitely applies to you, and I don't think you should be adding images of your own work, especially in the manner that you've done. I'm going to ask for others' opinions at WP:COIN when I get a chance. If you'd like to start a discussion there first, please do. --Ronz (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: guitar pickup page

Hi Ronz,

Thanks for the link regarding the rules. I'm not a frequent wiki-person.

I don't know if you checked the discussion page, but this is what I wrote there:

"Hi, I added some info about Ubertar hex pickups in the multiple outputs section. I'm sorry if that seems spammy-- that's not my intention, but I do believe they deserve a mention here. If there's a more neutral way to post it, please feel free to edit. I think Axon, Roland GK series, Shadow, Bartollini and Kramer deserve mentions in this category as well. Ubertar hex pickups are the only multiple output guitar pickups currently available that are designed primarily for analog output, rather than for MIDI (though they'll work for MIDI too), and also the only ones made for seven stringed guitars. I think those aspects make them unique enough to warrant a mention. If it's not ok that I posted it myself (I make these pickups) please delete and re-post something you think is neutral and fair. Thanks."

I assume since you're editing the pickup page you are knowledgeable about guitar pickups, and hexaphonic pickups in particular, since that's what I was posting about. I would appreciate it if you would take a look at my site (http://www.ubertar.com/hexaphonic) as well as the other examples I mentioned above, and any other relevant examples, and post something that will give people information about what kinds of variations are out there as far as polyphonic pickups go. I'm not sure why the "Go team" gets a mention and not Bartollini, for example. The Kramer Ripley was used by Eddie Van Halen-- that seems notable, IMO, as an example of a hexaphonic pickup with stereo output. I also think the multiple output and multi-transducer sections of the page could be combined-- they're very closely related. There's very little information on the pickup page about multi-output and multi-transducer pickups, and I think there deserves to be more, whether there's a mention of my pickups or not. Since I can't post about this myself, and you seem to have an interest, and no conflict of interest, could you please fill out this section? Thanks. Ubertar (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note on the article talk page. I mostly just police the article for vandalism and spam, and I don't currently have the time for much more. I can help with the application of most policies and guidelines.
You might want to look over the WP:COI guidelines again. If you can back your edits with reliable sources and avoid direct conflicts of interest, there's a lot you can do. If I were in your situation, I'd try to get other editors to work with you from Wikipedia:WikiProject Music as well as the suggestions from WP:EAFAQ. --Ronz (talk) 02:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to preface this by saying that I'm not upset that you deleted my edit, just interested in knowing why in order to improve my own wikipedia editing.

A few months ago I added a link to the Texas Ratio page where readers could find an updated list of Texas ratios for U.S. banks (InvestingAnswers -- "Is Your Bank One of the 437 in Immediate Danger of Failure?"). You later removed it from the site. Could you explain why? I noticed that when you made your edit, you said "rv - advert - likely coi," but I have no idea what that means. The page I linked to wasn't an advertisement, and unlike the Investing Amateurs page listing Texas ratios, InvestingAnswers doesn't ask readers to purchase a subscription to anything. It also provided some good educational information as to why the Texas ratio is an important financial barometer. I thought it was an appropriate page to link to. Could you explain to me why it wasn't so I can better understand what is and isn't an appropriate link?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmargrave (talk • contribs) 15:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. You're referring to this series of edits by 24.153.196.173 (talk · contribs), which I explained on User talk:24.153.196.173 and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2010_Archive_Aug_1#investinganswers.com_and_streetauthority.com_again here.
Basically, we're concerned that these editors have been adding information to Wikipedia in order to promote investinganswers.com and streetauthority.com. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there may be related problems:

Design Research

Hi Ronz, I don't understand why you did the "External links: quick cleanup per WP:EL & WP:NOTLINK" on Design Research and thereby deleted some useful (it seems to me) links to relevant societies and journals. I'm afraid I don't have time to study WP:EL & WP:NOTLINK! Nigel Cross (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nigel. In a nutshell, we normally don't list relevant societies, journals, organizations, etc. In the case of this article, it's probably worth making an exception. The article needs lots of work, and we could use links that might help editors expand and verify the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ronz. I've undone your deletions. I agree this (and Design Methods and Design Thinking and Design (sigh!)) all need lots of work.

Nigel Cross (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to the article on polymer clay

Hi Ronz: Related to recent edits to the entries for polymer clay, you can find relevant information at www.polymerartarchive.com This site is attempting to record and document the early history of polymer as an art form and it is the only source for this sort of information as no historical volume has yet been written. Please check out that site and then if you think is it appropriate, please reinstate reference and/or links to Polymer Art Archive where appropriate. I do believe that readers will find additional helpful information at that site. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.166.139 (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Could you start a discussion on Talk:Polymer clay so it's easier for others to comment? I don't have time to look at www.polymerartarchive.com right now. --Ronz (talk) 05:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Ronz: I don't understand the workings of Wikipedia and don't really understand how to do that: here are a few links to Polymer Art Archive to make your assessment easier:

http://polymerartarchive.com/about/

http://polymerartarchive.com/2008/06/20/all-about-the-first-npcg-conference-at-arrowmont/

http://polymerartarchive.com/2010/04/30/the-origins-of-polymer-mokume-gane/

http://polymerartarchive.com/2008/02/29/the-early-development-of-polymer-clay-bead-making-part-one/

http://polymerartarchive.com/2008/03/07/more-early-images-tory-hughes-and-pier-voulkos/

Thanks! I'll place them on the article talk when I get a chance. --Ronz (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Cooper Institute

The article The Cooper Institute has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication that this organisation meets the notability guidelines. The coverage I can find is minor, not the significant coverage required by the guidelines

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PSO

Dear Ronz,

Could please, for each of the following links, provided a detailed argument for why they should not be included in the particle swarm optimization article:

Frameworks
Visualization

On the talk page I see no argument more intelligent than "these links should not be included because there is no consensus." Clearly, if no one is interested in providing any well reasoned arguments to build such consensus, this if a form of circular reasoning.

Looking forward to your reply, —Ruud 12:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is on you to convince everyone else why they should be included per WP:ELBURDEN.
There's plenty more reasoning on the talk page than what you've summarized. --Ronz (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, you must understand, that it would be very hard for me to convince you if I do not understand why you oppose inclusion. So I make another kind request to provide me with insight into your reasoning on this issue. —Ruud 15:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably best if you didn't concern yourself with making assumptions on what others may or may not understand. If you're unsure, ask questions.
Maybe start by addressing what I've already written? I've made multiple comments on the dispute. I hope they make my reasoning clear. If not, do you have any specific disagreements with them? Would you like me to clarify them further? --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambanog (talk • contribs) 00:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Good luck with that. --Ronz (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Just proving a point o a friend Ron. My apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarguru777 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I've removed the warning I left you. Please be more careful in the future. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Barrett

Would you like to bet there isn't contraverisal content on other BLP pages? The fact that Barrett has been sued for his work, is relavent to the his bio, and any article linked to him. Regarding any "agreement", if not posted on the talk page; I will ignore it. You have to document it, not just say there is one. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 22:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Would you like to bet there isn't contraverisal content on other BLP pages?" I think both of agree that following BLP is the best solution, regardless of problems elsewhere.
The agreement was made some three years ago. I'm in the process of finding it. --Ronz (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a great deal of trouble finding it. There's no easy way to find when content was removed from articles, and the talk page archives are full of discussion on the topic. --Ronz (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will honor the agreement sight-unseen this once, but I don't normally concur with this type of change considering the way I wrote my content. I purposely made no assertions even on undisputed fact in order that only the existence of the litigation be presented. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 23:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had to take care of other matters. I'll place it on the article talk page when I find it. --Ronz (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still contend that non-confrontational content is warranted. The article should not give only the impression that Barrett's assertions are always correct or go unchallenged. The last sentence of the Consumer Information section gives the impression that he is a saint. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 23:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hipal&oldid=389581002"